Far right has others seeing red

In January 1954, President Eisenhower frustrated by far right senators, penned exasperation in his personal diary. Noting that if things should continue, “I shall leave the Republican Party and try to organize an intelligent group of independents, however small”.

Fifty years later, the far right still forces fair-minded Republicans to the ledge.

And although the political issues have changed over the last five decades, the results have not. Far right policies still promote polarization and their candidates still represent failure.

In the summer of 2002, I helped my former colleague Lisa Murkowski seek re-election to the Alaska State House of Representatives. Time spent, knocking on doors and talking with voters in Birchwood and Eagle River neighborhoods. It was quite an education.

Murkowski’s opponent was Nancy Dahlstrom, a political newcomer who was recruited to run against the incumbent in a closed Republican primary. Dahlstrom immediately staked out a position on the far right.

She vigorously attacked Murkowski’s leadership on solving the states fiscal crisis, instead offering her constituents the promise of budget cuts and limited government. Going door to door, I often heard those promises repeated from neighbors who sported Dahlstrom campaign signs on their front lawn.

So an aggressive campaign of cut the budget rhetoric - aided by far right legislators threatened by Murkowski’s intelligence and fairness- was waged. At the end of the day, Dahlstrom’s negative campaigning brought her to within 58 votes of defeating one of the brightest leaders that has ever served in the Alaska State Legislature.

However, the Lord works in mysterious ways.

Dahlstrom was appointed to the position when Murkowski was appointed to the United States Senate. So how has Representative Dahlstrom done in delivering on her cut the budget and reduce government promises? Lets take a look.

According to Legislative Affairs, Dahlstrom spent three times what Murkowski did on travel, and twice as much for all discretionary expenses during her first year in Juneau. From a personal point, Dahlstrom claimed more expenses in one year than I did during my entire four years in the legislature. Ouch!

Did she propose any budget amendments to reduce state spending? No. Cut her staff? No. Introduce any personal legislation to reduce government spending? No. In fact, one of her personal pieces of legislation would have spent thousands expanding government while violating the constitutional rights of women.

On April 30, 2003 Rep. Dahlstrom introduced HB292. The bill reflects one of the most egregious attempts by far right legislators to violate a women’s constitutional right to privacy. The bill entitled “Informed consent”, would mandate government spend $50,000 to create a website that women would be legally required to view before making a private decision with their doctor. To add insult to constitutional injury, the information presented would be determined by legislators and bureaucrats, not licensed physicians. Sounds like biased consent to me.

On February 11, 2004 Attorney General Greg Renkes issued a seven-page rebuke of the proposed legislation. He concluded, “This bill will likely not survive a constitutional challenge under the privacy provision and equal protection provision of the Alaska Constitution”. Wait, it gets more disturbing. Similar legislation had already passed the state senate last May. Twelve senators, including my Sen. Ben Stevens, ignored repeated opposition by doctors and passed the blatantly unconstitutional legislation.

Not surprisingly, over the last eight years the courts have thrown out each attempt by the far right to restrict the rights of Alaska’s women. Meanwhile, in a state that is undoubtedly pro-choice, the Republican leadership in the legislature has wasted millions in administration and lost court costs.

Some things remain very clear.

Discussions about preventing abortions while respecting constitutional rights are essential. Instead of a strategy of stripping constitutional protections from women, far right policy makers could have invested a fraction of lost court costs in responsible prevention and education programs and been more successful in preventing abortions.

And finally, discussions about the failures of the far right agenda are also essential. Rep. Dahlstrom promised very clearly to cut state spending and limit government. She did the very opposite.

Again, I find myself channeling Ike.