A Bigger Tent
Yellowdogdems notes that Democrats may become more inclusive on the issue of abortion. Senator Reid is involved, and Howard Dean appears supportive. This is good news for Democrats who would like to see a more inclusive party and a party less identified with abortion.
The original story is in The Hill.
Senate and House Democrats, with the support of Minority Leaders Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), are pressing party Chairman Howard Dean to establish an official relationship with Democrats for Life, an anti-abortion-rights group that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has previously shunned.
Leo Brown | July 31, 2005 | Comment on This Post (29 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
A more interesting question: Is this the way to reach out to Democrats in the West?
In other words - are western Dems more moderate on this issue, or are they more libertarian?
(My view? They're more libertarian - let and let live - and thus we make a mistake by going soft on pro-choice issues.)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 31, 2005 8:39:46 AM
Note that our two leadership Democrats from the West, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, are both in favor of this, and I’m sure they have given it serious thought.
Catholic and Latter-day Saint are the two largest religious affiliations in the West. Both are pro-life. We don’t want to drive them all away.
The question is not going soft on pro-choice. The question is inclusiveness and openness, i.e., being willing to hear and tolerate both sides of a tough issue. Live and let live suggests that the party should welcome people who are not absolutists on this and those who are uncomfortable with abortion. The party is not absolutist on critical issues like trade, war, and immigration. Why make this the one thing that defines the party in absolute terms? I would much rather see the party defined around economic populism, healthcare, education, democratic reforms at home, a more restrained foreign policy, etc. We might get a huge national consensus on these issues.
Roe v. Wade is not likely to be overturned anytime soon, maybe not ever. It is “settled law.” Battles are being fought on the margins of the law, which can make Democrats look like absolutists. Even if Rove v. Wade was overturned, California and many Western states would immediately legalize abortion, and Utah would not. In the meantime abortion is a wedge issue that costs Democrats as many votes as it gains and diverts attention from this country’s careening path towards plutocracy and imperialism.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Jul 31, 2005 9:23:26 AM
In the 95th Congress (1977-78), Democrats had a 292-seat majority in the House of Representatives, which included 125 pro-life Democrats. Now, as a minority, Democrats are down to 204 seats, with 28 pro-life Democrats. Coincidence?
See http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040328-092255-9019r.htm
Posted by: Leo Brown | Jul 31, 2005 5:53:37 PM
I guess I don't understand Leo's point unless he's in favor of changing abortion laws. The Democratic Party is already very clear on what it would do to reduce the number of abortions in the country: access to birth control, better sex education, better economic situations for the poor.
Being an "absolutist" on abortion rights is simply refusing to make abortion illegal or to put unnecessary roadblocks in the way of women who need one. "Reaching out" to anti-choice economic liberals is either meaningless in terms of policy, which ultimately will not satisfy the anti-choice crowd, or it is meaningful in terms of policy which means that the Democrats are looking to sell out women, which will alienate a core constituency which has turned out as voters, volunteers, and fundraisers for the Democrats for years.
I don't see where they gain any votes by this, and I do see where they lose a whole lot, in addition to it simply being the wrong thing to do.
Posted by: paperwight | Aug 1, 2005 7:19:24 AM
Perhaps these three articles might make things clearer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28527-2005Mar11.html
“Why are George W. Bush and his party so skillful in dealing with the abortion issue, and why are Democrats so clumsy? It turns out that Democrats willing to grapple seriously with these questions risk getting seriously trashed. It makes you wonder whether Democrats enjoy losing elections.”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/212898_joel21.html
“The litmus test liberals of the Democratic Party brook no dissent from an absolutist stand: Abortion without restriction. One local legislative district organization has even made being pro-choice a prerequisite in Seattle City Council race endorsements.”
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1357132/posts
“The party that once denied an anti-abortion governor the chance to speak at a convention now has an anti-abortion Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, and is actively recruiting anti-abortion candidates to run in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island against vulnerable Republicans in 2006. And such abortion-rights leaders as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Howard Dean, the newly elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee, have both come out since the election saying that abortion should be rare and that the party should make room for those with differing opinions.
Anti-abortion Democrats say it's about time. They say they hope that the party will continue to re-evaluate itself to make it more welcoming toward those of differing opinions. None expect the party to outright abandon its abortion-rights position or change the platform, but instead are hopeful that the national message won't be so narrowly focused and associated with the issue.”
Posted by: Leo Brown | Aug 1, 2005 8:37:17 AM
What comes to mind when I think about abortion or any other policy issue is that the West should lead the way by not accepting how East coast Liberals and Southern conservatives have been talking about it. We can't be really smart coyotes if we can't think about new ways to deal with old problems.
Posted by: Emmett O'Connell | Aug 1, 2005 9:32:59 AM
So, Leo, let me get this right.
You're citing two opinion columns and something which looks a lot like an opinion column which consists entirely of quotes from people as sources which are somehow supposed to straighten me out? And yet you don't actually answer the question I pose. Each of those columns simply restates the problem.
I also note that a couple things are just plain wrong in those columns.
1) Tim Roemer was opposed for DNC chair largely because he's in the pocket of some of the Republican foundations, not because he's pro-life. Cf. Harry Reid.
2) Bob Casey didn't get booted from the Democratic National Convention in 1992 because he was anti-choice. He got booted because he refused to promise to endorse Bill Clinton. Both Dionne and Shaffery get that wrong.
I note that citing the Republican strategy of "attack abortion, but never quite remove the irritant" (as Dionne does) is hardly advice that anyone should follow if they want to do anything except keep their fundie base enraged. That's the Republican bait-and-switch on social issues that Thomas Frank documented.
Again, I ask: will there be any policy changes? Remember, the Democratic Party already stands for the policies which reduce abortions. It's the Republicans who want to eliminate access to BC, SexEd, and increase wealth disparity and depress wages for the working poor. These are all contributing factors to increasing abortion rates.
If there are going to be policy changes, the Democrats should expect to lose a large part of their base, which they will not replace from the anti-choice fundamentalist base. If there aren't going to be policy changes, who do they seriously think they're going to pick up?
Head fake conversions generally don't work -- they just make you look like a phoney. Or let's say they do work. Do you want to do the Republican two-step: moderates at the convention, extremists in the legislature? That's a lovely deception. And why would that deception draw people away from the Republican counter deception if that's an issue they really care about?
The "Dems would win if they just moved further Republicanward" meme is historically BS. It hasn't gotten them anywhere except when Bill Clinton was running, and it didn't do anyone except Bill Clinton any good even when he won. (See mid-terms of 1994 and on.)
Posted by: paperwight | Aug 1, 2005 12:20:33 PM
You're unlikely to see abortion as a Republican issue in Montana. 65% of the state is self-identified as pro-choice on the issue.
The place for pro-life Democrats on this issue is along the lines of Hackett and Schweitzer. They don't like abortion, but they think banning it would only result in catastrophic failure.
Posted by: Matt Singer | Aug 1, 2005 1:25:08 PM
The forum for specific policies is probably not here. The issue is allowing policies to be openly discussed and dissent tolerated in the party. Let me say it once again. The issue is allowing pro-life voices to be heard and tolerated in the Democratic Party. That is not a lot to ask for, is it? That is what Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi and I are asking for. That and that alone can give us a 50 state strategy and a 50 state party. If policy changes ultimately come from that, then so be it. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. If you believe that pro-life voices shouldn’t be heard and that pro-life Democrats should be shouted down or at least muffled, excluded as part of a litmus test for candidacy, and expelled or shunned from the party, then I hope you like losing elections, writing off large portions of the Catholic vote, writing off the whole state of Utah and possibly some other Intermountain States and numerous states outside the West, and marginalizing several sitting Senators and Representatives and potential candidates. That is how we wound up with the GOP controlling both houses of Congress and the White House. Is there any issue on which you want the party to be so exclusive and inflexible? Is this the one thing you want the party to stand for above all else? Fortunately, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, and others see room for a bigger tent, something that seems very natural and appealing to me.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Aug 1, 2005 1:43:51 PM
I think this is a great forum for specific policy. Heck, look how popular this post was.
Posted by: Matt Singer | Aug 1, 2005 3:17:29 PM
I think paperwight has an interesting point. If Democrats are for reducing the number of abortions - and have the policies to back that up - then what are we arguing about?
Are we simply talking about better framing, messaging, or bumper-stickering?
As for the bigger question of whether Democrats should entertain the idea of dropping our commitment to womens' right to reproductive freedom, well, I'm not hearing anyone argue for that (not even the pro-life Senator, Harry Reid).
And if we're not for it, we shouldn't 'entertain discussions about it'. After all, you have to draw a line somewhere. We're not for returning to the days of segregation either, and we wouldn't 'entertain discussions' about it...
Ya gotta stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 1, 2005 6:47:05 PM
Is Harry Reid Hispanic?
Wait. Don't laugh.
His mother is named Inez and he's from a Nevada mining town, in an area that has always had large numbers of Hispanics.
I'm searching, but can't find any biographical info on her. Anyone know his family? Or her heritage?
Mormon + Hispanic (?) + married to a Jewish woman + 2-room schoolhouse + etc. This guy's the all-American fightin' Westerner. Give 'em hell, Harry.
Posted by: norm | Aug 1, 2005 7:16:26 PM
i haven't confirmed it, but i strongly suspect that:
Inez Orena Jaynes is not Hispanic, her name notwithstanding. It's possible she was adopted. Or it's possible that Inez and Orena were popular Anglo names... but her folks both appear to be Yankee stock.
Posted by: norm | Aug 1, 2005 11:12:15 PM
Matt asks for specific policies, a fair request. A large number of specific policies from Democrats for Life can be found at http://www.democratsforlife.org/Press/95_10%20brochure.pdf
These are generally pro-women’s health, pro-adoption, and pro-child policies that should find broad support. For example, making adoption tax credits permanent, removing pregnancy as a “preexisting condition” in the health insurance industry, and fully funding the WIC program. The funding for such initiatives will not be trivial, but the issue is not trivial.
Abortion is a long ways from being rare in this country, and the perception is that Democrats are merely paying lip service to the rare part. Perception in politics is reality. Democrats need to seize the issue by vigorously promoting more policies that will reduce the number of abortions. Note that many of these initiatives are liberal economic policies.
Emmett rightly asked for a smarter way of addressing this issue. This is it. Most of the pro-choice folks in Montana shouldn’t have too much trouble supporting these initiatives. This is real policy, not a bumper sticker, or a reframing, or a head fake, or BS. This is not bait and switch or deception. This is not Republican-lite or selling out. These initiatives can attract Democrats who have been leaving the party while not alienating those currently within the party. This is standing for something. These real ideas are coming from real pro-life Democrats, the very people the party has been giving a cold shoulder to and whom we should be recruiting to rebuild the party. Supporting these policies will be good for the country and good for the party.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Aug 2, 2005 4:31:56 AM
I think the root issue that persists in the abortion debate and has made it the most divisive issue in our country since slavery is the potential redefintion of when the human fetus is treated as a legally protected person.
This goes beyond just preventing abortions. I have my own proposal on how we may depoliticize abortion. I would like to get more people discussing my idea as I think it provides the way out of the mess caused by this issue.
dlw
Posted by: dlw | Aug 2, 2005 6:24:32 AM
If what we're talking about is a real agenda to improve women's health and make alternatives to abortion both more accessible and more attractive, I don't think there's a progressive in the country who would have a problem with it.
We like choices in this area quite a bit. Making those choices real choices would be great.
Posted by: Matt Singer | Aug 2, 2005 7:38:57 AM
Matt,
Thanks. Yes, I am talking about a real agenda that is both pro-life and progressive. It moves beyond the usual divides to achieve a highly desirable goal, and it involves having a bigger Democratic tent.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Aug 2, 2005 7:59:45 AM
In his book "God's Politics", Jim Wallis of Sojourners supports efforts to reduce the number of abortions without attacking women who are caught in situations they would never have intended to be in. To my way of thinking, these situations would include health of the female, rape, incest, and also pregnancies resulting from relationships in which the female is dominated by an aggressive male.
Is that approach one which this pro-life group supports?
Posted by: Michael Hayes | Aug 2, 2005 8:24:00 AM
I can’t speak for Democrats for Life, but I discovered their program referenced above, and I know good policy when I see it. It is a serious program that can grow and unite the party and I would hope the country as well. What we need are real uniters.
Jim Wallis is definitely onto something. I intend to read his book. I highly recommend this article by Jim: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0406&article=040651
A political party can address a tough issue in a refreshing and very positive way without having to address every aspect of that issue absolutely and definitively for every member of that party. That is part of having a big tent. To put it another way, a political party is not a church.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Aug 2, 2005 9:47:18 AM
What Mr. Brown is referring to is the 95-10 initiative of the Democrats for Life which is intended to reduce the number of abortions in the US by 95% in 10 years (if implemented). Those who have written that pro-life democrats are Republicans-lite need to re-think. 52% of all Catholics (80 million Americans are Catholic) voted for Bush in the last election, despite the fact that almost all of the Catholic Church's teachings lean Democratic (the exceptions being abortion and gay marriage). They will continue to vote Republican as long as the Democrats are pro-abortion. Planned Parenthood and other organizations that make a profit from abortion like to say that pro-lifers are not feminist and are against reproductive choice. (I get their mailings calling pro-life people "religious fanatics" and anti-women.)
I am all for reproductive choice - I say take the pill, use condoms, use an IUD, or use the rhythm method, or abstain if you want to control your reproduction. Taking another human life has never been anyone's legitimate "choice" despite the economic or social burden they place on you. No persons right to "choose" supercedes another's right to life.
And as far as being a feminist, I am. I find it pretty hyprocritical that anyone claiming to be interested in the rights of females is willing to deprive all those unborn female babies of their most basic right- to live.
That said, the burden for unplanned pregnancies undoubtedly falls disproportionatly on women. Democrats for Life is very interested in giving women better support, health care, well baby care, child care, job training and adoption alternatives in order to help women make the choice to give their babies life. That's what makes us different from the Republicans!
Posted by: Nora Wheeler | Aug 2, 2005 10:40:26 AM
I'd be happy to see the Democratic party become more pro-life. It always bothers me that the Repubs are pro-life on abortion but pro-death on the war, while the Dems are pro-life on the war but pro-death on abortion. I had been a life-long Republican, until I recently changed to Independant, because the Republicans became warmongers. Neither party is really pro-life.
Posted by: Bob Beebe | Aug 2, 2005 12:05:45 PM
I am a Catholic and a Democrat, very progressive. It may very well be that my position on abortion-on-demmand may result from my religious upbringing, but I truly believe there's more to it. After all, I am in total disagreement with my church's stand on birth control, among other issues. No, I think my position is rooted in my deep respect for all life, both born and unborn. In December I became a first-time gramdmother. My daughter and her husband posted ultrasound photos of their unborn child at a few weeks into the pregnancy. The baby was clearly alive, and has since become the joy of my life. How can we deny this?
However, I do believe as Democrats we should make sure that every woman --- and MAN --- has full access to birth control, for a start. And that every child should have access to health care, pre-school, all those things those so-called "comapssionate conservatives" deny.If we do so, then we will truly become tha Party of Life. And while we're at it, abolish the death penalty.
Posted by: cecilia | Aug 2, 2005 12:13:35 PM
I'm sorry no one saw fit to check out the link I made earlier and to comment on it.
I honestly don't think we can defuse this issue without facing the fact that the notions of when we should practically define the legal personhood of the unborn as encoded in RoeVWade is not self-evident. Although, the same can be said for the belief that the newly-formed zygote is a human being, a belief that is not based on either scripture or science, but rather certain religious traditions that rightfully must not be imposed on the rest of the population as law by the separation of Church and State.
So hey, let me hear what you think of my idea for a way to compromise on this difficult and unavoidable issue.
dlw
Posted by: dlw | Aug 2, 2005 2:28:31 PM
Along the lines of other recent messages, I think that promoting "The End of (extreme) Poverty" would be one very effective way to be "pro life", and not just at the beginning and end of life.
Promoting the end of extreme poverty by 2025 will raise the issue of birth control as a necessary means of helping women (in areas of our world which are in extreme poverty) limit the number of pregnancies to a level they can support. It will pressure consideration of birth control assistance in the limitations the US government places upon foreign assistance.
From messages I have noticed thus far, I assume that would be supported by some if not all active persons in this pro-life group?
Posted by: Michael Hayes | Aug 2, 2005 2:53:38 PM
I think that reducing poverty is a great goal, but think that it can be pursued more effectively if it is coupled with some more serious reconsideration of when we legally treat the human fetus as a legally protected human being.
The latter is the frame that is implicitly in many prolifers minds and we need to take it seriously to get them to also take on additional frames/approaches to protect human life.
dlw
Posted by: dlw | Aug 3, 2005 1:24:35 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
