Bigwigs in the Rhode Island Democratic party backed Jim Langevin, an anti-abortion Democrat, in the primary race to run against pro-choice incumbent Republican Lincoln Chafee. NARAL made it clear that it would strongly support Langevin’s pro-choice opponents in the primary race, and Langevin dropped out. NARAL then endorsed the pro-choice Republican for the general election.
In response, Kos and Ezra, among others, threw a shit-fit. Both of them take the position that NARAL should have supported the pro-life Democrat. Kos:
Nevermind that Langevin would’ve crushed Chafee and gotten us one seat closer to a Democratic-led Senate. And a Democratic-led Senate wouldn’t ever let any abortion legislation see the light of day. But NARAL, myopic fools that they are, think Chafee is a better bet, despite his vote for Trent Lott, Bill Frist, and their allegiance to the James Dobson, American Taliban agenda.
NARAL, and many people here, whined and cried about Langevin, the way they whined and cried about Harry Reid, because of those Democrats’ personal opposition to abortion. Didn’t we know, they demanded, that choice was a core principle of the Democratic Party?
To which I have a simple answer: The hell it is.
So Choice isn’t a core principle for the Democrats, but NARAL – for whom choice is very nearly the only core principle – nonetheless should give the Dems 100% support, regardless of circumstance. Riiiight.
Ezra’s argument is similar to Kos’:
I see where NARAL’s coming from on this, but by cutting pro-life Democrats off at the knees they’re keeping some Republicans in power, by doing that, they’re helping to sustain the Republican majority, and by doing that, they’re striking a grievous blow against their cause.
True, it’s in NARAL’s interest to have Democratic majority in the Senate. It’s also in NARAL’s interest for Bill Frist to suddenly become a pregnant single mother. Unfortunately, neither of these things will happen soon. Until Democrats demonstrate an ability to win elections,, NARAL would be reckless to put all its eggs in the Dem-majority basket.
Against NARAL’s interest in helping to secure an unlikely Democratic majority in the short term, NARAL has to balance:
- NARAL’s interest in showing the Democratic party that NARAL’s support is conditional on the Democrats supporting choice, rather than automatic.
- NARAL’s interest in showing pro-choice Republican politicians – and pro-choice Republican donors – that NARAL is serious about supporting pro-choice candidates, and not just a front for the Democratic party. (Apparently in return for NARAL’s endorsement, Chafee is turning up the volume of his pro-choice advocacy; he’ll be a featured speaker at a NARAL convention later this year).
- NARAL’s interest in supporting pro-choice incumbents, who as a general rule are more useful allies than pro-choice newbies.
- NARAL’s interest in maintaining credibility among pro-choice activists. If NARAL starts endorsing pro-life candidates, it will lose support from its base – which is not people like Kos, but people like the folks who read “Alas.”
If only 1 or 2 votes separated the Democrats from a Senate majority, then on balance it might have made sense for NARAL to stab Chafee in the back, ignoring its other interests. But since it’s very unlikely the Dems can win a majority in the short term, it made sense for NARAL to decide as it did. Certainly, the arrogant and condescending comments from Ezra and Kos (“stupid, stupid, stupid”), implying that no one intelligent could have decided as NARAL did, are unwarranted.
Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money has written a more reasonable critique of NARAL. Unlike Kos and Ezra, he doesn’t demand that NARAL lick the Democratic Party’s boots even when the Dems favor pro-life candidates. But Scott ignores NARAL’s interest in maintaining their credibility with pro-choice Republicans, and in having incumbent allies.
Scott also argues that the Democrats will decide from this that there’s no point in courting NARAL’s support, since Langevin dropping out didn’t cause NARAL to endorse the pro-choice Democrats who can now win the primary. This is a more credible argument than Kos’ or Ezra’s, but I’m not sure it’s correct. First of all, it’s not clear that either of the Democrats now running are really pro-choice (as Acbonin at Kos points out, one has an anti-choice record, the other has remained silent), and certainly neither one is a proven pro-choicer like Chafee is.
Secondly, Scott’s argument implicitly assumes that NARAL wants to create an incentive for Democrats to run any old candidate who claims to be pro-choice, regardless of record or credible chance of winning. However, what I think NARAL really wants to do is create an incentive for Democrats to run strong candidates with strong commitments to choice; if that’s NARAL’s goal, then they were correct to not endorse any of the Democrats running in this race, because none of them met this standard.
In other words, had the Democrats put forward a candidate with a credible chance of winning and a pro-choice record as impressive as Chafee’s, it’s quite possible that NARAL would have stayed out of this race rather than endorse Chafee.
(Will Baude makes an argument similar to what I’ve written here. Also, Matt Singer – here and here – and, in a particularly excellent post, David Sirota. Unfortunately, this debate so far seems to be dominated by male voices on both sides, at least as of yesterday when I searched Technocrati.)
Pingback: culturekitchen | fresh dissent served daily
There were a couple of diaries on DailyKos done by women that took this on and the related issue that male progressives seem to feel that compromises on abortion are okay in the interests of winning elections.
Here’s one of the best ones: What you don’t understand about Pro-choice women
I think progressive women’s issue with this idea is nicely summed up by the author of the diary:
The flaw in the notion that we just need to get a Demcratic majority and then it won’t matter that we’ve elected a bunch of anti-abortion candidates is that they don’t seem to consider that the anti-abortion democrats might join with the anti-abortion republicans to get bills passed. I guess we’ve already forgotten the dixiecrats.
Is there anyone out there besides me who doubts that the nomination of a pro-life Democrat was an accident ? Is there anyone out there besides me who fails to feel sorry for the poor, shocked boy-liberals who got their feelings hurt when NARAL, showing some spine for once, actually told their supposed “allies” where to get off ? If so, please raise your hands.
So very much is wrong here that it’s hard to even know where to start. But we do live in a political shared monopoly, so what else can you expect ?
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/Frank0430.htm
…On Wednesday, Aprli 27th, The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (H.R. 748) passed with eager bipartisan support. Over fifty House Democrats voted in favor of the anti-choice measure. The bill, which was put forward by a right-wing Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, would make it a federal crime to transport a female minor to an clinic in a state where parental involvement laws are not as strong as those in the state where the girl resides.
“This legislation will close a loophole that allows adults not only to help minors break state laws by obtaining an abortion without parental consent, but also contributes to ending the life of an innocent child,”? boasts Rep. Ros-Lehtinen… –Joshua Frank
I guess that one slipped right on by Mr. Kos’ attention. Or else he’s fine with teenage girls being monitored by the state. Or else he really is so foolish as to believe that you can’t hold Democrats responsible for what they do as long as Bush is technically at the helm. I feel sorry for his squadrons of loyalists sometimes. What are they going to do if the day finally comes that Democrats manage to get a hold of all three branches of Government, and the Party’s in-house Right Wing is still conniving to get this kind of shit done. Who will they have left to blame ?
It’s great to have a scapegoat, though. Means you never have to confront your bosses with their fuck-ups, or trouble yourself to wonder if their priorities really do align with yours– or if they just like to say that they do in order to keep you pacified. If the far Right didn’t exist, Kos would have to invent it.
Was anyone really surprised that he wrote this garbage ? Isn’t he one of the gush-over-Hilary-squad, and isn’t she backpeddling on the abortion issue as fast as she can ?
If the Democrats want NARAL’s money and its foot soldiers badly enough, they’ll do a better job of courting it next time, one would hope. OTOH, NARAL and other women’s groups could buy a clue and realize that the duopoly isn’t any damn good for women anyway. They could realize that the Party’s contempt for feminist values, as embodied by people like Reid and the loyalists like Kos, is getting more and more blunt with each passing year in regards to their true hostility towards women’s issues. They could weary of Democrats having their cake and eating it, too: Using feminism to lend itself legitimacy, then standing by idly as feminists are repeatedly stabbed in the back while our “allies” conspire to help hold the knife or look the other way.
Oh, and they could tell the trained seals like Kos to stand up for women, instead of getting furious at any woman who won’t just sit down and shut up in the face of this kind of manipulation and abuse.
Feminists could break away. But that’s not a day I usually expect to live long enough to see. I’m amazed that NARAL showed even this much nerve, and I hope it’s not a one-time thing. Because it should be obvious to anyone with eyes that the Democrats will pull this shit again. They always do.
Honestly, though, with people like Kos, who even needs the Christian Right to hold any political office ? We had steady erosion of women’s right to choice all through the Clinton reign. Has everyone forgotten that Billy was the one who first trotted out all that “rare and legal” shit that his equally craven and opportunistic wife is now blabbing about ? And it’s the worldview of people like Kos that helped create that erosion, and that helps it continue today. The man clearly has some serious internalized sexism to deal with, just like his masters.
Solidarity is not a one-way street. NARAL is a special-interest nonprofit dedicated to preserving abortion rights. If the Democrats–or any particular Democrat–really want NARAL’s support, then they can do a better job of…preserving abortion rights. It’s that simple. And if they want to stop alienating women, they can stop acting as though they _deserve_ women’s votes by virtue of being the lesser evil when it comes to women’s rights. Women and feminists know from entitlement, and we don’t find it terribly attractive.
Pingback: Staff of Ra
I think it is eminently sensible that some Democrats may want to make compromises on abortion in order to win elections.
It would not make sense, however, for NARAL to do so, as it is a (more-or-less) single-issue group, and by definition, it can only “win” an election when pro-choice people are elected.
I also think that there is something to be said for loyalty. After endorsing Lincoln Chafee, NARAL might lose some support among pro-choice Republicans if it were to turn on him.
This isn’t a zero sum game. I do not think NARAL should ever endorse a Democrat who is pro-life, but NARAL could have waited to see who the RI Democratic candidate would be, since it didn’t endorse Chafee until AFTER Langevin dropped out. What is the short term here? Presumably the 2006 elections. The following Republicans could be in trouble — Burns, MT; Chafee, RI; Snowe, ME, Santorum, PA, Allen, VA, and probably a couple of others. Frist is leaving. In 2008, Coleman, MN, is probably vulnerable. To say there is “no chance” of resuming a majority in the next two election cycles is not correct. It’s an uphill battle, to be sure, but it’s possible.
I also do not see those who were upset over the endorsement as wanting a compromise on abortion rights. Harry Reid, a pro-life Democrat, has done more in the last six weeks to preserve choice than Lincoln Chafee, a pro-choice Republican ever has or will. Chafee is increasingly just a tool of the Republican establishment. Mouthing the right words shouldn’t be enough to get NARAL to fall all over him.
…Harry Reid, a pro-life Democrat, has done more in the last six weeks to preserve choice…
Ummm…. Excuse me ??!!
Maybe that was too strong. However, the strategy to attack the legality of abortion now centers, if it doesn’t absolutely begin and end, with the judical selection and approval process. Having a Senat Dem leader who can deal with a clear Republican majority is not only a plus, it is basically indispensable to maintaining that right. Tom Daschle and Harry Reid are both pro-life (at least nominally) but they are light years apart in how they are dealing with an out of control majority party. Look, I don’t like the status quo any better than anybody who posts here, but I’m willing to give credit where it is due. I just think NARAL jumped the gun for its own tactical reasons and I think less of it as an organization. Securing the legality of a right to abortion isn’t synchronous with what is good for NARAL, even if NARAL sees it that way.
I have to say, Barbara, that you manage to get a lot of meaning into very few words. Are you meaning to imply that a solidly pro-choice Democrat –which Reid most emphatically is nowhere near– could not or would not have “dealt with” Tom DeLay. WTF ?
And I stand by my belief that there’s something deeply weird about expecting a pro-life champion from any political party to save abortion rights, whether through the auspices of courts or anything else. We have the Clinton years, after all, as sound testimony to the fact that even good judges can only do so much when the rest of the legislative branches are hell-bent on sticking their overprivileged heads firmly in the sand.
Are you so sure that the sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing outcome of the whole “nuclear filibuster” game cannot be at least IN PART attributed to the fact that folks like Reid ARE pro-life ? Is it possible that they DON’T want women’s rights secured or saved– only to avoid being blamed for any failures related to those rights ?
You know, the only thing worse than an aggressive sexist asshole (DeLay) is a passive-agressive sexist asshole (Reid). In that sense, perhaps I ought to praise Kos for the proud “Hell, No !” which Amp quoted above, rather than burying Kos. I–and a few other malcontent/apostate feminists– have been trying for years now to explain to other feminists why expecting Democrats to save our rights is a dubious proposition. In fact, one that becomes more and more dubious with each passing election cycle. But it’s damn rare to see a liberal sexist himself rip the lid off to expose the sexism and paternalism in his own party as proudly and openly as Kos has done.
You know, I’m sick to fucking death of hearing male progressives urging me to compromise when it comes to my civil rights.
Bullshit.
This willingness of the male progressive left to roll over and play dead–or rather, their willingness to command us silly bitches to do so–is what is killing the progressive movement.
Of course, I’m the one who has to worry about reproductive rights, since I’m the one who can get pregnant and/or be denied birth control by a zealot at the pharmacy. I’m a mere woman, and I suppose it’s high time that I, and other women, realized that we are only good for baking cookies and batting our eyelashes at overly-entitled pseudo-progressives.
They want to start winning? Then they can give me a reason to throw my support behind them. I’m sick to fucking death of liberals and progressives expecting my support for selling my rights out. Bullshit. You don’t support my rights, I don’t support you. It’s that simple, really.
Screw it, the Dems are spineless, protect-their-own-ass, women’s rights are negotiable, beholding-to-the-same-corperate intrests as the Repubs, and still say their the “people’s party”. Fuck it, I’m going to the Greens. I don’t really like their no-car policy, but I like them a lot better than what I like about the Dems.
You know, Alsis, and anyone else, I have two daughters who are potentially more affected by this than just about anyone I know. Abortion is a conundrum specifically because, although I sincerely believe that most people more or less feel as I do about it, perhaps a little less strongly, nonetheless most people don’t stake their votes or much else of their well-being on maintaining its legality. Not even a sizable majority. They don’t. If they did, we wouldn’t be where we are. It’s true that courts can’t protect what popular will abhors, that’s why de jure segregation outlived the Civil War by 100 years and de facto segregation is still with us. There are some localities where it is basically impossible to obtain an abortion as a result of this. Places like South Dakota.
But more than any other issue, the continuing legality of abortion in these same places depends on courts, because that’s the way abortion became legal in most places to begin with. I won’t even go into how this has distorted the political landscape, and no, I don’t particularly wish that Roe v. Wade had never been decided or anything radical like that. I just see this as a very difficult proposition — where a lot of people can write the legality of abortion out of their political calculus so long as nothing too weird happens at the level of the Supreme Court. So even though these people agree with you, they don’t align themselves with you when it comes time to vote.
So you can talk rights until you are dead from suffocation, but you can’t change the fact that is where we are at this juncture on abortion. NARAL has no long-term strategy for protecting the legality of abortion (unlike, say, Thurgood Marshall’s long-term strategy of ending segregation), except for keeping various judges off the court. Which is why, no doubt, it sent me, literally, two or three e-mails a day about the whole filibuster debacle as it was getting set to take place.
Lincoln Chafee won’t preserve your rights any better than Harry Reid. I am sure he won’t preserve your rights better than a more solidly Democratic Senate or House, or better than a Democratic RI counterpart who might be pro-choice (obviously, not Langevin, about whom I know nothing and would never expect NARAL to endorse).
But the core problem is that there is a huge disconnect between what voters expect in terms of their right of autonomy over a whole range of sexual, reproductive and related rights, and what it is that they perceive can happen to them in the near term. They are not sufficiently spooked.
The Rhode Island Senate race is not the only one where an anti-choice Democrat is going up against a vulnerable Republican.
How would you deal with the situation in Pennsylvania, where Rick Santorum is vulnerable, and the leading Dem candidate is Bob Casey Jr., who is anti-abortion but pro-birth-control? (There is an alternative, though – Chuck Pennachio.
NARAL did do a tactical blunder by endorsing Chafee long before the Democratic nomination was secured. However, I don’t think it’s a big a sin as the Dems think it is. Unless you’re a one-issue pro-choicer, it’s not going to swing the election, and I think most Dems and liberals are still going to vote for the Dem in the general election if he/she is competent. What’s important is making sure the Dems have someone who is strong enough (whatever their views) to capture the swing voters, and that strength includes the paradoxical ability to be able to compromise but also not to flip-flop on the issues he or she is strongest on.
Ultimately, though, a Democratic takeover of the Senate is in pro-choicers’ best interest, and certainly in liberals’ best interest. Anti-choice bills like the parental notification act Alsis cites are likely not to make it out of committee if the Dems chair the committees, no matter if they’re chaired by an anti-choice Dem like Reid or, say, Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer.
I’m not trying to dis you or your daughters, Barbara. I just don’t think that falling back on judges alone is going to help anyone in the long term except the usual opportunistic fundraisers and politicos. If the other branches are disengaged and written off, ACCESS will continue to suffer and suffer badly, just as it did under Clinton.
Also, can we please not forget that because the Democratic leadership cut and ran on the filibuster issue, those bad judges you fear are now comfortably ensconsed where they wanted to be all along ? What makes you think that there won’t be more ? Is there no one in your party with enough courage to stand up and say that even one is one too many ? Since that doesn’t appear to be the case, and since the big boys (and occasional woman) in charge seem to care much more about getting along with their golfing buddies across the aisle than they do about protecting your daughters, why should I take seriously your pleas about juddges ? Hell, even if I really believed that this one-note approach would reap anything but superficial benefits, I’d have to be nuts to believe that they are even managing to pursue this approach in any but the most superficial and self-serving manner.
I don’t just want preservation, Barbara. I want ADVANCEMENT. I want someone who will push back at the Right Wing, and come out for something, not merely against something. I am not a champion of NARAL, either. I cut them off my donations list for good a few months ago, because of my continual fury at their hostility or indifference towards 3rd Party candidates. One way, it seems to me, to advance the cause of women’s rights is to push for their inclusion in as many places as possible. So I can’t really fault them for endorsing Chaffee, even though I’m not ready to return to their fold.
Fuck “reframing.” Throw out the damn frame and give people something they haven’t already seen repackaged and force-fed to them five zillion times.
And let’s not forget the hypocrisy of assholes like Kos for daring to berate NARAL for its “bipartisanship,” even as they applaud all this “bipartisanship” when the oligarchs they cozy up to and tithe to on a regular basis do it. WTF ? When one of their own does it, it’s okay ? But those uppity feminists, who do they think they are ? Please.
Monopolies, as I’ve written in internet-land about 5 billion times since the 2000 campaign, are bad in politics, as they are in most places. Giving one party (or two parties where your so-called “servants” have much more in common with each other than they do with you) a monopoly on important issues has been a disaster for us all. Monopolies lead to the deification of money and clout at the expense of respect and human feeling. They lead to arrogance and entitlement of the sort so clearly demonstrated by a party machine that promotes pro-life candidates to high office while pretending it gives a fuck about the pro-choice women who have given it so much money and time. They lead to the sort of clueless cheerleading so popular among people like Kos. Democratic power-brokers are much more concerned with what their supposed “red-state” colleagues think of them than of what you think of them. And Kos cares much more about what his fellow males –who months after Des Femmes went up– are STILL running around demeaning other men by calling them “bitches”– think of him than he care about what you think of him.
How does that feel, Barbara ?
“Anti-choice bills like the parental notification act Alsis cites are likely not to make it out of committee if the Dems chair the committees, no matter if they’re chaired by an anti-choice Dem like Reid or, say, Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer.”
That’s terrific, Aaron. Now tell me what they’ll do once that boot is off my neck to help me stand up and move around. You know, to improve access and affordable medical coverage for women and kids across all races, classes, and regions, without which choice will continue to be gutted by the far-Right even if Roe stays on the books.
Here’s a hint: Blathering about what a “sad and tragic choice” abortion is doesn’t do shit to enhance access. It doesn’t promote better healthcare or sex ed. Oh, and neither does promoting pro-lifers in your own party and then feigning bewilderment when even the most feeble attempts to defend choice continue to founder on the rocks.
Remember the old Indymedia adage: You can’t ever expect to win if you’re hell-bent on playing defense all the time.
Seems like pro-abortion folks have gotten about as much from the government as they’re going to get. If they legalize pot I wouldn’t expect the state to open grow rooms for the public; that’s up to private citizens.
Maybe NARAL should start providing the capital to open clinics in these underserved areas, if access is the holy grail.
“Is there anyone out there besides me who doubts that the nomination of a pro-life Democrat was an accident ? Is there anyone out there besides me who fails to feel sorry for the poor, shocked boy-liberals who got their feelings hurt when NARAL, showing some spine for once, actually told their supposed “allies”? where to get off ? If so, please raise your hands.
So very much is wrong here that it’s hard to even know where to start. But we do live in a political shared monopoly, so what else can you expect ?”
You’re not the only one…This whole situation may sound surprising to some, but not to me. Choice is an issue that perhaps not as a platform but as a belief system crosses party lines. This situation which isn’t all that uncommon really, also shows the overlapping of both political parties into increasingly one interest group, which if allowed to go unchecked, or unchallenged(which many democrats seem loathe to do) will disenfranchise, more and more people from the political party.
Female democrats, surprised? You shouldn’t be. This party has made itself abundantly clear that women are expendible EXCEPT for a short period every four years during presidential elections.
————————————
Abortion isn’t the only “choice” issue by a long shot, but it’s an easy target both to attack and to sacrifice, so it’s a good first target in the latest round of men whittling down women’s rights. The other things that enhance and protect women and their families will follow, in the footsteps of abortion as something that was a necessary sacrifice to beat the Republicans…
Beat the republicans by becoming them…hmmm….
“I just don’t think that falling back on judges alone is going to help anyone in the long term except the usual opportunistic fundraisers and politicos. If the other branches are disengaged and written off, ACCESS will continue to suffer and suffer badly, just as it did under Clinton.”
That’s my whole point, and that’s a basic problem I have with NARAL because as far as I can tell, that is its whole strategy, which makes endorsing Chafee all the more perplexing. I admit that NARAL is in a bind, but a judicial strategy is almost by definition disconnected from voters, who are nonetheless indirectly responsible for who is nominated as a judge.
I don’t remember defending Kos, and I believe that it’s neither necessary nor effective for Democrats to resort to “pro-life” candidates as a strategy. In fact, I think it’s fairly stupid (at least in most states). I just don’t think it’s necessary to be reflexively “anti” every pro-life candidate under all circumstances. It’s at least worth asking what they plan to do with their views.
And I don’t see NARAL endorsing the Greens anytime soon.
Interesting thing about the legalization of pot. In our very conservative criminal courts, members of our very conservative jury pool nullified when it acquitted on a case of a man charged with less than an oz of possession of pot found during a traffic stop. In my state, the intent of people, if not the government, has moved further away from criminalizing it.
The fight against abortion has gone beyond the judges. It’s in the hospitals being “merged” with Catholic owned institutions, mostly in poorer neighborhoods. It’s doctors opting and giving the optioin not to learn, teach or train, or use gynacological procedures that are used to treat other medical conditions and to perform abortions. It’s a climate of fear of being killed, or your family harassed which has led to the doctors who did abortions beginning yesteryear to not be replaced when they retire. It’s the reality that only 13 % of all counties allow women access to abortion, which places a harder burden on some women than others.
Personally, I’m apprehensive on abortions. Politically, and otherwise I realize it’s a part of the larger choice issue, both access to them and freedom from coersion to get them. Allowing women of all backgrounds access to information and assitance to learn of all their options so they can choose their option freely.
———————————————–
“Ultimately, though, a Democratic takeover of the Senate is in pro-choicers’ best interest, and certainly in liberals’ best interest. Anti-choice bills like the parental notification act Alsis cites are likely not to make it out of committee if the Dems chair the committees, no matter if they’re chaired by an anti-choice Dem like Reid or, say, Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer. ”
Pro-choicers best interests? By the time the Democrats retake the Senate, it will be a limited mandate. The only way the Democrats think they can win, is if they go further central, meaning right and increasingly, being pro-life in “vulnerable” districts. A pro-choice Republican who only favors abortion rights is NOT really prochoice, unless he backs other related issues of which there are many, some fought by the GOP, some increasingly fought by the Dems.(see welfare “deform” and “tough on crime” laws which imo, especially in the area of drugs, is a WAR AGAINST WOMEN)
Maybe the trouble is that people look at this and go “either/or” or omigod, what do I do? Choose this women’s right or that women’s right…Maybe the best option is to start looking elsewhere for politicians that truly support women’s rights, and fewer and fewer, are in either of the “two” parties.
“I just don’t think it’s necessary to be reflexively ‘anti’ every pro-life candidate under all circumstances.”
IOW, calling themselves Democrats provides them with protective cover. Got it.
“It’s at least worth asking what they plan to do with their views.”
Then ask when they’re running for school board or Mayor. Don’t wait until they’re ready to be crowned the damn Minority Whip or Senator or Congressperson, for pity’s sake. By the time they’ve reached the level Langevin did, it should be obvious from studying their records what they plan to do. And if you wouldn’t study a candidate’s record, how could you call yourself politically engaged– As opposed to just being an indiscriminate flag-waver for the Party itself ?
I mentioned when Reid was confirmed that it was interesting to note that mainstream feminists mostly fell over backwards to paint it as something other than a slap in the face for their years of loyal servitude to the Democrats. I actually got called by NARAL that week and was treated to some of the most egregious and pitiful backpeddling that I’d heard from any Democratic apologist that year. Considering the general tenor of the election, that’s really saying something.
Meanwhile, hardcore Christian pro-lifers were busy giving Arlen Specter a six-alarm headache and extracting from him a promise that he would never, never stand in the way of a pro-life court appointment. I asked what was wrong with that particular picture, but I think my post got eaten in a server mishap before anyone could answer.
I’d still like to know if any feminists who remain so steadfastly loyal to the Democratic Party see the lack of symmetry in these two events. I’d still like to know what’s wrong with being as aggressive as the pro-lifers were in this circumstance. Those people are proud of their beliefs to the point of arrogance. They are obnoxious, unlikeable, and shameless. Yet these same qualities made them demand 100% of what they wanted — that 100% would have culminated with Specter’s removal from his post– and get pretty much get all but of 1% of that. After all, they made him promise to enforce their own beliefs, not his own.
If choice is so important, it ought to be more important than having the opposition consider us pleasant, charming and cooperative. It ought to be more important than having an opposition barely disguised as a friend (ie– Kos) patronize us. Why isn’t it that important to us ? Why is the core of the Democratic Party made of stale, soggy whitebread, rather than a hard core that will risk humiliation, anger, and failure but not budge on an issue that it claims in election years is its main –perhaps 0nly remaining– linchpin. I honestly don’t understand.
“And I don’t see NARAL endorsing the Greens anytime soon.”
Which is an error on their part, and exceedingly short-sighted. It’s why I finally cut them off for good. Even ten dollars twice a year to a group that actively undermines my goals while pretending to defend them is twenty dollars too many.
Alsis – we don’t have to always play defense, but we must play aggressive defense whenever possible. If someone wants to put a ridiculous “abstinence-only” sex education plan in the public schools, counter them with religion-neutral sex education providing good medical information, complete birth control information (and access to condoms, Pills, etc.), and techniques to turn down unwanted sexual encounters.
We can call it “science-based sex education”. Science is good – it tells the moderates that this isn’t the feel-good “our kids don’t have sex, because we tell them not to!” crap that passes for sex education in many districts.
Likewise for access to family planning information for adults. Call the act the “Abortion Control Act” – and have it fund low-cost clinics and Ad Council PSA with science-based family planning information on TV, radio, billboards, etc.
As much as you support them, third parties just are not viable in current national politics. Third parties would have to caucus with one of the two majors anyway – Bernie Sanders and Jim Jeffords currently caucus with the Dems. Likewise, so would Ralph Nader if he ran for Senator from Connecticut. (There, I said it. I think Nader should run for Senate to replace the excreable Joe Lieberman.)
(Any UK residents – how does Labour and the Lib Dems do their caucusing? )
Why is the core of the Democratic Party made of stale, soggy whitebread, rather than a hard core that will risk humiliation, anger, and failure but not budge on an issue that it claims in election years is its main ““perhaps 0nly remaining”“ linchpin. I honestly don’t understand.
For politicians, power is more attractive than ideological coherence. The power that can be derived from being hardline pro-choice is marginal at best, and most of it is held by activist groups. Come out as hardline pro-choice in all but a few Congressional districts, and you lose the election. Not many people like the hardline pro-choice position.
Reid would rather be a Congressman than have your approval.
“For politicians, power is more attractive than ideological coherence. The power that can be derived from being hardline pro-choice is marginal at best, and most of it is held by activist groups. Come out as hardline pro-choice in all but a few Congressional districts, and you lose the election. Not many people like the hardline pro-choice position.
Reid would rather be a Congressman than have your approval. ”
————————–
Really?
Thanks for informing us that politicians like power. I really thought that the councilman last week who wanted to rip 73 families out of their homes by Eminent Domain under some bogus RD scheme was really as concerned about their lungs as he claimed, rather than simply returning a favor to one of his best friends, who happens to be a developer salivating over that parcel of land. Now I know better….
Kos contradicts himself. He claims both that being pro-choice isn’t a core principle of the Demaocratic Party, (and can be thrown out of the window at will to win elections), yet the single issue, pro-choice NARAL is “myopic” for not supporting democratic candidates anyway, because the Democratic Party will protect abortion rights. Huh?
Btw, I like the fact that all candidates from any party are not clones of each other. It isn’t as simple as the alternative, but it is much more honest and actually takes into account that some “liberals” are conservative on some issues, while some “conservatives” are liberal on some issues. To a two-party country like USA, any less would be insane.
Au contraire. NARAL has endorsed Greens when other candidates are anti-choice. This doesn’t happen too often in larger races, but it happens occasionally in rural state rep and state senate races – I have seen it. Generally, if there is a sizable pro-choice constituency in the district, the Dem candidate is pro-choice. But if a large majority of the district is anti-choice, the Dem candidate is also anti-choice.
Many single-issue organizations have a policy to endorse the incumbent, if the incumbent has a favorable record on the issue, no matter what the challenger looks like. After all, incumbents have a huge electoral advantage in 99% of cases. This occasionally leads to the conundrum here. One way out of this is to issue the formal endorsement for the incumbent, but to list the position of the challenger AND to state their policy of endorsing incumbents. Then voters will have all the info, and the incumbent will have the endorsement.
Barry,
I’m female and I commented on a related issue here, after you made this post:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/the_walloper/25340.html
The Democratic Party doesn’t support support civil liberties, doesn’t oppose war, doesn’t support labor, doesn’t support racial minorities, doesn’t support gay rights, and doesn’t support women’s rights.
Why should we support them?
“Many single-issue organizations have a policy to endorse the incumbent, if the incumbent has a favorable record on the issue, no matter what the challenger looks like. After all, incumbents have a huge electoral advantage in 99% of cases. This occasionally leads to the conundrum here. One way out of this is to issue the formal endorsement for the incumbent, but to list the position of the challenger AND to state their policy of endorsing incumbents. Then voters will have all the info, and the incumbent will have the endorsement.”
If we’re stuck with a system that invariably favors incumbents, (I know you’re in the “we’re stuck” camp, Nancy, even if I’m not) but that system is actually not good for the preservation of that particular right, NARAL’s tack has some problems. What they ought to do in a situation where the incumbent and the 3rd-Party challenger are both pro-choice is to endorse neither incumbent nor challenger. If they want to escape the impression that their main purpose is to rubber-stamp Democrats, that seems like the best way to do it.
BTW, it may well be that I missed NARAL’s endorsement of Green candidates. Possibly this escaped my notice because I live in an area where the GP seems to keep a very low profile. Then again, you’d think NARAL would have wanted to play that up at some point in the oceans of literature and phone calls they’ve sent my way over the last five-odd years. Unless they’re too timid to risk alienating me. Guess that backfired, as their timidity has pretty much alienated me anyway.
“Why should we support them?”
Oh, c’mon, Brian !! Don’t be a wet blanket. Aren’t you looking forward to seeing their brilliant plan for selling 0ut– er, “compromising”, on Social Security. It’ll be funnnnnnnnnn !!! [munches popcorn]
The issue is pretty damn pertinent to me, and to every woman I know. Every freaking Democrat uses the anti-choice boogeyman to insist that women vote for them, no matter what. (Even if the candidate approved the appointment of uber-misogynist anti-choice judges.) And then, after the election, they dither on about family values and building coalitions (with anyone but the women who supported them). They kill abortion rights through neglect, through indifference when access is curtailed (but the legality remains), when our rights are chipped away, when they “compromise” by approving more judges who would prefer to reenact The Handmaid’s Tale.
It’s oh-so-easy for smug, arrogant, entitled guys to shrug it off because it’s soooo divisive. Yeah, until you need one, or someone you know needs one. And maybe you have to go out of state and go through a waiting period. Or maybe you want to get the pill and can’t because, gosh, it’s an abortificant, or it encourages premarital sex, and it offends the delicate sensibilities of the self-righeous asshat pharmacist who tears up your scrip. And yes, you can make a stink about it, but some women don’t have the time. And some of us are sick to death of being urged to make a stink when sexual predators could get Viagra paid for by Medicaid, when any guy can get Viagra with nary a cocked eyebrow from a zealot behind the counter. These guys aren’t inconvenienced but we are, and that’s apparently okay. These guys aren’t publicly humilated by assholes who inform rape survivors that they won’t kill babies, so who cares? It’s a non issue. Just a bunch of bitches after all.
You know, I’m really tired of the false commiserating by these so-called progressive men–they are quite happy to take on the right wing on choice, but suddenly decide that choice isn’t all that important when someone from their own damn party is against it. If they want cred, they can actually do something besides tell us to kiss the asses of anti-choicers.
I vote for the people who will promote my interests. Likewise, NARAL will throw their support behind the people who support their interests. How Harry Reid will support NARAL’s goal to keep abortion safe and legal (and to increase access) is beyond me. NARAL isn’t part of the Democratic party, and it’s telling that so many people think that NARAL is beholden to them. Toeing the line has gotten us screwed six ways to Sunday–exactly what motivation do we have for doing this now? Compromising our rights (and compromising them some more, and yet some more) in the name of solidarity has done exactly nothing for reproductive rights.
The democrats figure they can screw over progressive women because we’ve got nowhere else to go so NARAL’s move is a good way to let them know that screwing over can work both ways. We ought to be doing a kit more to get the message across that if they want our vote they damn well better earn it. But the more important thing I think women need to do is to get more involved with the dems on the local and state level.
I keep thinking about what happened in my state back in the 70’s when I worked to get the ERA passed. When we started there was no way the legislature would pass it so rather than try to change unchangeable minds, we changed who was in the legislature. It took a couple of elections before we got enough people elected but we did succeed. (Actually, we achieved even more than we thought we would because not only did we get the amendment passed but the legislature changed or rescinded over 300 gender-biased laws. )
I’m really convinced that shoving from the bottom up is the only way to get their attention.
Even leaving aside whether, through some indirect means involving congressional committees and stuff, NARAL would somehow do more to advance abortion rights by endorsing Langevin than Chafee (which isn’t at all clear), there’s the issue of NARAL’s credibility as a non-partisan advocate of abortion rights at stake. NARAL would hurt itself institutionally, and abortion rights in the longer term, if it eroded its credibility by making itself appear to be a subsidiary of the Democratic Party. In fact, they might even hurt the Democratic party, very indirectly, by ceasing to be an effective voice that usually (but not always) favors Democrats while maintaining its independence.
BTW, I’m curious about the 87% of counties don’t have abortion access statistic. Two questions spring to mind:
1) What percentage of the U.S. population lives in that 87% of counties?
2) What percentage of hospitals perform abortions?
Pingback: XX » Blog Archive » I am not going to carry your water.
Outside of California and New York and probably a few others, very few hospitals perform what are considered to be totally elective abortions. First trimester abortions are typically performed in clinics. Many hospitals have been “disciplined” by pro-life groups. They are afraid of negative publicity. NOW tried to do something about this about 25 years ago via resort to various legal theories, but it didn’t work. There are many hospitals that perform abortions in which medical issues with either baby or mother arise (certainly the latter).
There’s no doubt that the 87% of counties that don’t have abortion providers is, to some extent, deception by statistics. For instance, I know that in Virginia, which has something like 95 counties, there are no more 10 (and that’s probably overcounting) where abortions are performed, but the population of most counties wouldn’t support an abortion provider. But there are whole states where there are no abortion providers. Of course, some of those states probably don’t have enough population to support a clinic (like North Dakota, which has a total population of about 600,000 — people travel to Minnesota). The bigger issue, at least in my mind, is the level of legal harassment and intimidation and outright threats that abortion providers are subjected to in places such as Kansas, for instance, where the population does support clinics.
Let me be clear in case I wasn’t before — I agree that NARAL should never endorse someone like Langevin, for all the reasons you stated. That would never be a credible move and would seriously undermine its integrity.
Brian Vaughan (#27): Couldn’t have said it better myself!! Eight years of Clinton made me nearly ill with dramimine poisoning.
Sheelzebub (#29): Right on!! Vote your conscience, vote your interests!! Does this mean that others are entitled to do the same? Or, if Bill Frist goes against Hilary in ’08 and Nader tries again, will you be like all the other Dem bootlickers and tsk-tsk anyone who’d vote for Nader?Just curious.
Frist vs. Clinton ?
Kill me now.
Pingback: Left in the West » Blog Archive » Revisiting This Old Subject
“The Democratic Party doesn’t support support civil liberties, doesn’t oppose war, doesn’t support labor, doesn’t support racial minorities, doesn’t support gay rights, and doesn’t support women’s rights.
Why should we support them? ”
Oh, yeah, that’s why the party is going further right, and doing its damnest to alienate liberals, and progressives, while still demanding loyalty from them, by saying a vote that’s not cast for us, is cast for the other side.
In my county, democrats do not enjoy a majority of the women’s vote, a majority of the African-American vote either and they are losing ground in both group, with only themselves to blame.
I mean, the Democrats showed how much they valued African-American’s RIGHT to even cast a ballot when they refused to investigate massive violations of the Voting Rights Act and refused to support Black Congress representatives from Florida districts impacted by the massive theft of Black votes and voting rights, when they challenged the certification of the 2000 election. Because, you see, when push comes to shove, pale males will always support one another, no matter what their political stripe when it suits them. Often pale females will side themselves with the pale males against other women. I know many women of all races and men of color who hold their noses when they vote Democrat. The either/or situation. Yet their loyalty to the party goes pretty much unrewarded.
And besides, the Demobrats were too busy trying to shut up and punish the evil third parties for “costing” them an election, lost because of voters’ fraud and malaise against the Democratic party caused by its own decision making.
—————————————–
“BTW, I’m curious about the 87% of counties don’t have abortion access statistic. Two questions spring to mind:
1) What percentage of the U.S. population lives in that 87% of counties?
2) What percentage of hospitals perform abortions? ”
A lot of them are probably rural counties since the percentage of women without access is 1/3 of all women in the U.S. One woman who couldn’t freely exercise her choice is one too many for me, but I realize for those in the Democratic Party who don’t ever have to be put in this position, a higher number is probably in order. So, here’s hoping 1/3 meets that standard. The number of providers is declining, probably due to retirements exceeding newer doctors coming in.
Very few, less than 10 percent of abortions are performed in hospitals. Most are done in clinics. The clinics at least in these parts are vulnerable to buyouts, especially if they are affiliated with larger medical institutions. Vulnerable to not having leases renewed, or having higher rent imposed mostly due to the harassment and terrorist acts perpetuated on them by the “pro-life” movement, which thinks nothing about blowing up or shooting women to death to save the “unborn” and protect the sanctity of life and all that. I had a friend who ran the clinic here. Exhaustion and burnout drove her out, after a few years b/c of threats, acid attacks, vandelism and harassment.
BTW, How dare them, these women for not living in the right counties! These women probably would be very adversely impacted in relative to some but not all female populations in higher density or urban counties.
I’m not crazy about abortion, but I do know that the “pro-life” movement is about men controlling women. So I know that all the options women would have besides abortion would be subject to that same problem of men controlling women. At one time, I thought the Democrats cared about women, until Welfare Deform. Caving on nationalized healthcare. And increasingly, thinking it’s perfectly fine and dandy to endorse and run pro-life candidates.
Chafee is a mixed bag. I like some of his positions. Others, eww. But the Democrat is the usually young white male, clean-cut in a slick way candidate. Yawn.
The moment when I decided that the Democratic Party was the problem, not the solution, and beyond redemption, was when I was at a mass demonstration at UC Berkeley to support affirmative action, after affirmative action had been banned in the UC system but before Proposition 209 passed, banning it in all state programs. There were tens of thousands gathered in Sproul Plaza — it was, possibly, the largest demonstration there since the Vietnam War, and definitely the largest since the campaign for divestment from South Africa.
The focus of the rally was a speech by Jesse Jackson. And his speech was, simply, “Keep hope alive, and vote Democrat in November.” He mentioned affirmative action in passing, and complained that there was nothing the Democrats could do because of Republican opposition.
At the time, the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. It dawned on me that if the Democrats wouldn’t even say they supported affirmative action, a highly popular program, when they controlled the federal government, then they’d never actually fight for anything.
In the years since, my encounters with the Democratic Party have, consistently, always been to find the Democrats being the ones deliberately shutting down grassroots movements and silencing the Left.
I think people fail to see that the Democratic Party doesn’t just accidentally shut down the Left all the time — it’s deliberate policy.
My big worry about the Greens is how they will deal with the problem of Green party members who are trying to sabotage the organization on behalf of the Democrats. The undemocratic nomination of David Cobb, whose campaign amounted to an endorsement of John Kerry, made the gravity of the problem clear.
“The moment when I decided that the Democratic Party was the problem, not the solution, and beyond redemption, was when I was at a mass demonstration at UC Berkeley to support affirmative action, after affirmative action had been banned in the UC system but before Proposition 209 passed, banning it in all state programs. There were tens of thousands gathered in Sproul Plaza … it was, possibly, the largest demonstration there since the Vietnam War, and definitely the largest since the campaign for divestment from South Africa.
The focus of the rally was a speech by Jesse Jackson. And his speech was, simply, “Keep hope alive, and vote Democrat in November.”? He mentioned affirmative action in passing, and complained that there was nothing the Democrats could do because of Republican opposition.
At the time, the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. It dawned on me that if the Democrats wouldn’t even say they supported affirmative action, a highly popular program, when they controlled the federal government, then they’d never actually fight for anything.”
————————————————-
Oh yeah, I remember the UC regents trying to get AA out to help Pete Wilson push his 209 proposition which was supposed to do for a presidential bid, what 187 did for his second governmental bid. Mercifully for the rest of the country, Wilson did fall flat in his ambitions. You don’t know how lucky you all were. The xenophobes in our state adored him, of course.
They’re no more vocal on issues like AA which uh oh, are chased out of existance by claims of reverse racism and the disenfranchisement of the more deserving, merited White men and White women, the latter being the greatest(by far) beneficiary of AA programs.
Why should the Democrats defend AA? They don’t want to be viewed as a “Black” Party or a “Women’s” Party by the other side, thus leaving white men out in the cold….And if you don’t think this could happen, you weren’t in California when they were painting anyone who supported AA as being anti-White., anti-Male(although the anti-male received far, far less play than the anti-white argument did, for obvious reasons)
THEY JUST WANT OUR BLIND LOYALTY AND VOTES!
Women and men of color are more likely to be loyal to a political party when the other one is actively running an agenda against us and a lot of rights that we enjoy. Unfortunately, those same rights are ready to be jettisoned by the “friendly” party when the going gets tough, b/c EVERYONE is after the White, male vote so enjoy them while you have them!
“My big worry about the Greens is how they will deal with the problem of Green party members who are trying to sabotage the organization on behalf of the Democrats. The undemocratic nomination of David Cobb, whose campaign amounted to an endorsement of John Kerry, made the gravity of the problem clear. ”
No kidding. Peter Camejo wrote about this extensively over at Counterpunch not long ago. I was majorly creeped out by the dynamic he described as taking place in the GP’s upper ranks. :(
Democratic loyalists like to paint Nader voters as being part of some kind of weird cult of personality, but if Cobb had run a real campaign –as opposed to one designed from the start to placate Kerry’s people– I would have had no trouble voting for him instead of Nader. I want to build a 3rd Party, too, but a subsidiary of the Democrats disguised as a 3rd Party is something else again. :(
AndiF (#30): I agree, the Democrats don’t really earn progressive votes. They don’t have to. Come election day, mainstream liberal saps get so worried about their pet issue, the Donkey gets its pass and we get screwed—again. This trend will only get worse. Any one read Bill Clinton’s book? His advice to the Demopathetic Party: don’t turn left.
Folks, it’s time to admit Nader was right all along and to do something with that in mind.
Because, you see, when push comes to shove, pale males will always support one another, no matter what their political stripe when it suits them.
Explain the Civil War, World War I, and World War II.
mostly due to the harassment and terrorist acts perpetuated on them by the “pro-life”? movement, which thinks nothing about blowing up or shooting women to death
Explain why the number of women who have been blown up or shot to death related to abortion is not in the hundreds, or tens, or single, thousands.
Or more generally, explain why anyone who is not a rabid partisan of your views already should take seriously the statements you make about anything, when your rhetoric is so out of touch with empirical reality?
When I was in my early twenties, I used similarly clueless rhetoric in talking about my pet issues. I wondered why nobody would listen to me, except people who were already equally nuts on the subject. I don’t wonder that anymore.
Oh good Robert, I’m glad you don’t wonder why no one listened to you. That makes one of us.
I was talking about in U.S. politics, how white men support each other when their priviliage is under attack even by members of groups, they purportedly support. I was not talking about violent conflicts, either on a national or international scale. But I think you know that.
Do you deny that women and sympathetic men haven’t been killed and maimed by the “pro-life” movement? Does the “pro-life” movement condemn these acts? Does the government currently in power still align itself with the agenda of those who commit violent acts and campaigns of harassment against clinics? Do you not believe it’s a contradiction that there are men out there who are engaged in the practice of killing women but saying that they revere life(well, unborn life anyway)?
If you don’t want to take me seriously, then stop reading my posts, and stop responding to them. Really. Believe it or not, it’s no skin off my teeth if a white man doesn’t want to participate in a discussion.
I’m responding to your patriarchal condescension with good manners, lest I hear anyone give me a lecture on the importance of male-defined “civility”. Been there, done that.
Tsk ! Oh, radfem ! Now we’ll NEVER get husbands !!
[passes popcorn]
And after I threw my life savings in subscriptions to all those Wedding magazines, COSMO-GLAM, and Red Ladies Home Journal(oooh, that came out wierd) and bought a nice Hope Chest to keep them in….
Lies, all lies!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the popcorn. I think I’ve got some Swizzler-vines…
You know, Amp, I have to say that this is a fantastic write-up. You were smack-dab on the money in laying out NARAL’s reasoning and ‘message’ to the Democratic party. Sell out the issues, and lose the support. It’s that simple.
I’ve been gnashing my teeth lately about the inclination for the current Democratic reps. to sell women, minorities and gays down the river in hopes of some weird show of a willingness to be ‘moderate’. If they want to be moderate, start a freaking moderate party, but for the love of all things just and fair, quit selling out the party base.
You know, Alsis, and anyone else, I have two daughters who are potentially more affected by this than just about anyone I know.
I don’t know about that, Barbara. The right of choice is what has made it possible for me to have two daughters that are here, hence HAVE been affected by this more than anyone I know.
Do you deny that women and sympathetic men haven’t been killed and maimed by the “pro-life”? movement?
Well, yes, I would deny that. The “pro life movement” hasn’t killed anyone. Would I deny that a handful of lunatics have blown up clinics or killed people? No, I wouldn’t deny that at all.
Does the “pro-life”? movement condemn these acts?
Yes, me among them. Whenever they occur. Which is how often exactly?
Do you not believe it’s a contradiction that there are men out there who are engaged in the practice of killing women but saying that they revere life(well, unborn life anyway)?
Sure, it’s a contradiction. Lunatics often don’t make a lot of sense. And?
Why don’t you list all of your favored causes, and we’ll see how many of them don’t have any lunatics who have done violent crimes out on the fringes. Let’s see, off the top of my head:
any group advocating left-of-center economic policies
any group taking pro-Palestinian stances in the middle east
any group advocating concern for the environment
any group that believes industrial society is destructive to the human spirit
any group that takes any position at all on any religious topic
any group that works for animal welfare
any group that works for women’s rights
Ironically enough, most of those groups have way more violence on their margins than the pro-life movement.
Believe it or not, it’s no skin off my teeth if a white man doesn’t want to participate in a discussion.
Nice racial and gender grouping. “I don’t care about your views because your skin is the wrong color and your genitals face the wrong direction.” Good to know that you consider that a valid reason to dismiss another human being; when you’re dismissed by some bigot because of your gender, the rest of should care…why, exactly?
More probably in line with you fit the stereotype of the white man.
I don’t care (and I’m guessing radfem doesn’t either) what color your skin is, or what gender you are, or what your orientation is. Heck, I like Amp and to my knowlege, he is white, male, and heterosexual.
We don’t like those in power crying about how we’re taking away their rightful power. We don’t care if you talk to us, because we know the drill. We especially don’t care if you talk to us in light of your lectures on “civility” and then turning around and using ploys against the rules of debate. Whatever.
personally, I hope you stay. When we all agree, the posts normally end at 5. When you post, they go into the major double and triple digits.
I’d just like it if there was no thread drift.
NARAL did the right thing.
We don’t like those in power crying about how we’re taking away their rightful power.
Understandable.
Radfem said that the pro-life movement was composed of people who think nothing of murdering women. I object to being considered a murderer for thinking that abortion is wrong.
Could you explain to me how objecting to being called a murderer is crying about having my power taken away?
Thanks.
The basic pro-life position is radical. Sure, there are conditional, moderate pro-lifers, who would only criminalize abortion when the pregnancy wasn’t caused by “a woman being a slut”, or when health isn’t endangered. I am talking about the position: abortion is murder. See, with logic like this, it makes perfect sense to harrass and terrorize women who abort, after all, if they can be bullied to not abort, a murder is prevented. It would also make perfect sense to kill an abortion provider, after all, if the the doc cannot perform the the abortions he/she would have otherwise made, then what is one life to many unborn lives?
You can cry “unfair, I condemn them!” all you want, but as long as the rhetoric remains “abortion is murder” – style, then these acts will happen. And if these acts are condemned, then the position is illogical and arbitrary, and “abortion is murder” is really only a rhetoric tool.
Robert:
But of course this is off topic… So let’s not get into a big fight over this (So maybe my post was kind of cheap shot here), even though we obviously see things different.
Yeah, Tumos kinda summed it up for me.
[shrug.] I don’t write my comments to entertain trolls, Antigone. If you choose to, that’s your affair. Note that his answer to me was no answer at all. It pretty much had fuck-all to do with what I wrote. Just typical baiting and slimy, patronizing smugness all the way. Business as usual, Robert-style. But oh, so “civilized.” [snicker]
radfem, you should collage those magazines. It’s very theraputic. ;) A few crafty maneuvers with that hope chest and you’d have a great feline clubhouse, too. Let me know if you need to borrow my sander.
Oh, and lest I be acused of furthering drift, allow me to yank things back a bit. Like Brian and some others, I tend to see the Democratic leadership as having a kind of chloroforming effect on positive social change. There’s the remote possibility that NARAL is starting to get wise to this fact, or perhaps I’m not the only irate feminist that’s started to hit them in the wallet. You never know.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar05/Selfa0325.htm
“…Broadly speaking, there exists a clear common pattern underlying the dynamic by which the Left continuously loses ground to the Right. The Republican Party seizes the initiative by actively mobilizing its assets, ideas, and ideology to work toward its radical goals. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party does not pull in the opposite direction. It does not mobilize aggressively for its own goals. Nor does it defend vigorously against right-wing designs. This passiveness takes on major significance precisely because the party poses as a friend of ordinary people. In this context its inaction becomes action ““ a tacit acceptance and approval of right-wing maneuvers. The Democratic Party’s role as the legitimizing agent of right-wing stances allows and locks into place political boundaries in which only right-wing ideas can prevail. This initial acquiescence constitutes phase (a) of Democratic Party cultivation of conservatism…”
“…Its leadership has already declared more “nuanced”? positions on abortion and steered clear of defending gay marriage on principle. This retreat, undeniably manifest in recent months but already present in its embryonic stages years ago, quite literally activated the conservative agenda: the vast majority of those millions of Christian evangelists who turned out for Bush in the last election had never even been politically active in the past. They were mobilized by the expansion of the right-wing (and shrinking of the left-wing) presence on the political spectrum, a reality typified by phase (b) of the conservative-creating dynamic. That the Democrats are technically less “reactionary”? on abortion and gay marriage is therefore totally irrelevant; they are contributing de facto to the ideological atmosphere that will ultimately end up destroying support for these causes…” — M. Junaid Alam at Dissident Voice
So is Alam saying that recent Republican victories represent new people joining the political process?
Robert, I see you’re bothered by hearing from someone who doesn’t hold her breath because a white man comes in the room and says something.
You dismiss women’s views here all the time, Robert. How do you think they feel? A bit like you do, now, maybe? Of course, it’s not the same thing b/c we’re not all equal partners in this society, and we never have been. Whether we ever will be, remains to be seen.
You listed causes and assumed that I took the positions obviously the most repugnant to you, without knowing my views. That’s okay, Robert, b/c this society gives men the power to define the identities of the women around them, without criticism or reproach. But if you’re a woman and try that….oooh yeah.
See, as women, we are taught that the only “truth” comes from the mouths of men, from the time we are babes, society teaches us that. We are taught that how men discourse, is the good, rational, only exceptable or valid method of processing information and transferring it between different people. Given your indignation, condescation and massive hyperbole of my comments, I can see that not being treated how women are taught to treat men, and men are taught, to expect to be treated stings in the way that it does, when priviliage given by society, is challenged. I know that sting, Robert. It fades, and you learn that there are others out there who don’t have society’s blessing to sit on the same alter as White men, but still are just as smart, and just as determined, passionate and oh dear, I’m getting more into those undesirable “feminine” qualities .
I did not say that all people who oppose abortion or are pro-life are advocating the murdering of women. But can you deny that there are those who do advocate and have done so to women? Do you really think that a domestic terrorist like Eric Rudolph hid from the FBI(which admittedly wasn’t really looking) all those years WITHOUT assistance? And would you disagree that when it happens, this “pro-life” movement is pretty silent or mumblish on the issue?
ALF, ELF(two environmental groups, which I DON’T support. I had a friend who lost 20 years of research b/c of a huge ALF robbery that took place at a local university a while back so you’re dead wrong in your assumption I support them) have damaged and destroyed lots of property. They haven’t blinded a female nurse, scarred most of her body with shrapenal put inside a pipe bomb with the intention of shredding bodies, not damage property. They haven’t killed an off-duty security guard who was actually an opponant of abortion but who was onduty when the bomb went off. They didn’t murder two workers at a clinic in Brookline, Massachusitts who were shot to death. They didn’t fire inside a doctor’s house where he was with his family including small children, killing him. They haven’t forced people to go to jobs in relatively low-risk professions(overall) wearing bullet-proof vests and carrying firearms.
Whoever carries out these attacks are terrorists, b/c they target the abortion providers to stop or slow their work. And they do what all terrorists do, is spread fear among the targetted group of people and those they serve. Are they the most violent terrorists? No. The Ku Klux Klan and some governmental separationist groups have committed greater violence, and taken more lives. But this movement doesn’t just focus on damaging property, they focus on killing people. And the larger “pro-life” movements hardly condemn their actions, and when they do, it’s always on the scale of saying “yeah, that is tragic, but it’s nothing compared to the zillion, billion babies aborted each year blah, blah, blah and that’s tacit approval of violent acts in my book.
Well Kim, me too. I had an abortion when I was 19, and another due to a catastrophic chromosomal defect that allowed me to conceive one of my current daughters six weeks later. You could say that they both owe their lives to the legality of abortion. But in all seriousness, what I really meant is that now that I am close to 45 I am not likely to have an oops pg anytime soon, especially since I am currently pg. What I dislike so much about this thread is the assumption that looking at things strategically, and weighing different strategies, is the same as willing a compromise on the legality of abortion. I think whoever posted that diatribe on Kos was wrong to single out abortion the way he did, but I also think NARAL could have done better than to endorse Lincoln Chafee.
btw, I’m not here to fight, and I intend to adhere to the patriarchal language of civility, as closely as possible. All of us women are at least bilingual in that sense. ;-)
As far as the radical “fringe” pro-life terrorists, I’m not convinced that they don’t receive more than tacit approval from some “pro-life” organizations.
I know many people who are pro-life meaning anti-abortion, but also anti-death penalty, anti-using men and women as cannon fodder so larger corporations can profit off of the wars that are fought. They view all life as important not just the unborn. I have a lot of respect for that point of view. I think it’s possible to hold that view, but then I think it’s also possible to hide behind that title your intent to promote an agenda that is all about controlling women’s bodies.
————————————-
I’m really not here to fight. I had a big fight last night at a meeting, and I’m really quite tired.
alsis, you have a SANDER? You know, a lady isn’t even supposed to talk of such things, let alone TOUCH one…. oooooh.
Where the smelling salts???? ;-)
Thanks for your links, btw. And since Otis kicked the other kitties out of the cube house, the others are keen for some new lodging.
———————
While I don’t disagree with NARAL’s actions and do agree that they don’t really owe the Democratic party anything and are better positioned as a genuinely non-partisan organization, I still think it merits mention that Chafee hasn’t done much to deserve the endorsement as a sitting senator. It is fair to point out that a pro-life Senator like Reid has done more acting on behalf of a caucus that is solidly pro-choice than Chafee has done as a small minority in the ruling caucus.
I think progessive angst with the Democratic Party is highly misplaced. I’m envious of what hard-right Republicans have been able to do with their party, but that doesn’t mean I really think my party should follow suit. I’d agree with them if they did, but I see a value in leadership that is moderate. Our greatest problem is that the hard-right activists have successfully duped people into believing they are enacting a moderate plan. What Democrats of all stripes need to do is get the message out that they simply aren’t representing the beliefs of average Americans. The public at large doesn’t dislike the Democratic party because they think we’re weak. The’ve bought the Republican line about mainstream values.
One would have thought it would be a good thing to be attacked by the right as being too liberal while being attacked by the left as too conservative. The reality is that it just means candidates who believe in progressive causes are attacked from all sides while Republican discipline is much stronger (though starting to crack; NARAL’s endorsement could end up hurting Chafee if a hard-right GOP’er decides to challenge him in the primary). I just don’t think its fair to slam the Democratic party for not caring about progressives. Especially on the basis of what they haven’t been able to do in the face of an unmovable GOP majority for the past 11 years. No, we shouldn’t stop pushing Democratic leaders to lead on these issues, but we also shouldn’t be so swift to declare defeat and start digging our own grave. The Democratic Party absolutely needs people who won’t back down from the support and activism for progrssive causes, even when some Democrats may differ. But those people also need to reign in the defeatism and negativity that many seem so swift to embrace as they cry “sell out” if they don’t get everything they want irregardless of the circumstances. I cheer when I see Republican activists act like this because I know what a poisin it can be. So I cringe when I see it happen with much greater frequency amongst liberals.
Speaking of links: I’ve heard Peter Camejo speak a few times, since he’s in the Bay Area where I live, but he’ll be speaking in Chicago around the beginning of July.
http://www.socialismconference.org/speakers.html
Barbara wrote:
I actually agree, to some extent. I do think NARAL should have a full strategic toolbox available – and that includes have the option of strategically not endorsing Chafee. It’s a matter of weighing interests. As I implied in my post, not endorsing Chafee would have (imo) made more sense if the Democrats were closer to having a majority.
What bothered me the most about Ezra’s and Kos’ posts – and many others just like them – is not that they disagreed with me about the question of endorsing Chafee. I can see pluses and minuses on both sides of that question, and I bet most of the decision-makers in NARAL can, too. On the whole, in this instance, I think the pluses outweigh the minuses, but that’s a question reasonable femniists can disagree on.
What bothered me about Ezra’s post was the oh-so-condesending “stupid, stupid, stupid,” as if this isn’t a question that smart people can disagree on. What pissed me off about Kos’ post was the tone of outrage that NARAL dared not support the Democrats. What Kos’ post was about wasn’t strategy; it was about the belief of many Democratic activists that their party is entitled to NARAL’s support.
And that false sense of entitlement – not just disagreement on strategy – is what I most object to.
I cringe whenever I see the Democratic Party sell out its liberal and progressive members. I cringe even more when some of those same folks, then turn on people who have left the party b/c of similar frustrations as traitors to the party and collaborators of the evil right-wing GOP. A difference of opinion, but an equally valid one.
“The public at large doesn’t dislike the Democratic party because they think we’re weak. The’ve bought the Republican line about mainstream values.”
It is weak, though. Taking Bill Clinton’s advice(lol, from the man who destroyed the party for his own personal ambition) to disavow themselves from liberals, is what is making them weak. Yet, they still scurry further to the right. Why? Because the Republicans have successfully sold their right-wing agenda as “mainstream values” AND the Democrats have let them. If this is the way the party keeps going to “win” elections, then it’s through as a viable political party imo.
The Democrats and Republicans share the same fundamental political principles: commitment to capitalism and US hegemony. All other considerations are secondary. The Democrats only appeal to oppressed groups as a tactic to gain votes, and they’ve never offered more than the bare minimum they could to maintain credibility.
In more expansive times, and when challenged by a militant left, the Democrats (and the Republicans) offered minor reforms. Since the US passed the zenith of its power in the era of the Vietnam War, there’s been general agreement between the leadership of both parties that the way to maintain power is to tighten the screws on ordinary people. Instead of posing as the friend of women and minorities by offering minor reforms, they’re trying to pose as friends by attacking us slightly less badly than the Republicans.
Eventually, this will break down, and the Democratic Party will collapse. Will we have constructed anything else in the meantime?
I think whoever posted that diatribe on Kos was wrong to single out abortion the way he did, but I also think NARAL could have done better than to endorse Lincoln Chafee.
I agree Barbara, it would be better had NARAL not endorsed either with a public statement as to why. If this is the sort of thing they are building up to, then I will be supportive of that. No endorsement for anyone that isn’t willing to really keep on the level about their belief sets and intentions.
As I implied in my post, not endorsing Chafee would have (imo) made more sense if the Democrats were closer to having a majority.
Another part of the strategic picture is the incentives that various groups present to the individual members of Congress themselves. NARAL’s action is consistent with awareness that politicians will change behavior in response to the incentives that are offered.
The best case of this that I know of is Slade Gorton, who was a senator from Washington state. In Slade’s early career, and in his first term in the senate, he was pretty reasonable on environmental issues, which were a major factor in state politics. He wasn’t on any green groups’ list of best friends, but he wasn’t terrible, either.
The state enviro groups, by and large, absolutely refused to give him any credit for anything that he did that advanced their agenda. They endorsed Democrats whose environmental records were the same or worse than Slade, drummed up money to defeat him, provided good soundbites to Dem campaigns, and so on.
This was sound coalition politics – they wanted a Democrat in that seat come hell or high water. But it also meant that Slade’s payoff matrix for his environmental positions had a big line of zeros and negative numbers in the column that read “be reasonable on the environment”, and a lot of positive numbers in the “nuke the whales” column. Not being a complete idiot, he jettisoned environmental moderation and became a hard-core develop-the-rain-forest nuke and paver. Why shouldn’t he? He wasn’t going to get any votes from the enviros if he took their position on some things, and he would get votes from the loggers and developers if he stopped being a moderate on some issues.
The net result of the greens’ attempt to remove a (environmentally) moderate Republican and replace him with a liberal Democrat was to change a moderate Republican into a hard-liner.
It’s possible, though dubious, that Lincoln Chafee really has a major commitment in his heart to abortion rights, and that he’d jettison his political career to hold the line on abortion. I doubt that he does, though – I imagine that he is responsive to external incentives. If NARAL et al did what the Washington greens did and just blindly supported Democrats whose position on abortion rights was worse than Lincoln’s, then he would lose his incentive to be a moderate on the question and the political calculus would probably shift him back into the anti-abortion camp.
NARAL probably does care about abortion rights; they probably care more about it than they care about keeping the Democratic coalition alive. (Especially when that seems increasingly like a mug’s game.) Their action is rational and prudent, and in keeping with their commitment to their supporters, who presumably give them money and time because they hold ideological positions in common, not because they want there to be another reliable Democratic front organization.
“.. What I dislike so much about this thread is the assumption that looking at things strategically, and weighing different strategies…”
Barbara, why do you keep acting as if those who want an end to the two-party system –because we trust neither party’s motives– are failing to advocate strategy ? Our strategy differs from yours, it’s not nearly as popular. Yet, it is a strategy.
“…No, we shouldn’t stop pushing Democratic leaders to lead on these issues, but we also shouldn’t be so swift to declare defeat and start digging our own grave…”
I’m tired of trying to push Democratic leaders. They don’t listen. They kick pro-lifers upstairs and then expect me to be pleased. They are hopelessly insulated and absolutely untrustworthy. When I persist in wanting an alternative to their hegemony and hopelessly fucked-up priorities, they try and blame ME for what has happened to choice, when it’s themselves that they should blame.
I could also do without the notion that the act of dissent itself indicates a desire to “dig one’s own grave,” or the power to do so, for that matter. Sort of like when Janeane Garofalo stood up to the Right-wingers when they told her she was a de-facto terrorist sympathiser because she opposed the war. A few months later, with no discrenable trace of irony, she snidely informed a *Bitch* interviewer that Nader should sit down and shut up, because all he could do under the circumstances of our lovely election was help Republicans. Fear, as they say, is contagious– and very easy to catch when you’re surrounded on all sides by the fearful, I guess.
My feeling is that it’s always the right time to speak out when you feel your concerns are disregarded by the powerful. There seem to be an awful lot of Democrats who think that it’s NEVER the right time to do so– IF the powerful person in question is a Democrat. There seem to be an awful lot of Democrats (ie– Norman Solomon) who think that it’s only important to speak up when absolutely nothing is at stake that could negatively impact our ever-more-dubious “allies.”
I don’t agree.
Maybe someone already mentioned this, but doesn’t NARAL have foundation status? I don’t think they can blindly just endorse Democrats without losing that status.
I’ve noticed that NARAL has been doing a lot lately to embrace pro-choice Republicans. I say, good for them for being consistent and for not being hypocrites.
I get frustrated with the whole ball of chaos, in terms of who will maintain their ties to the Democratic party and who will dissent. I’ve seen the snideness happen on both sides. I identify as a socialist, but am still (mostly) committed to supporting the Democratic party if I am comfortable with the people at a national level. At a local level, I want to see the notion of change and diversified options get enough ground to lead to eventual acceptance and viability of more political parties.
I think the dissenters tend to be just as vocally disapproving of us they view as ‘towing the party line’. I don’t like that sort of thing happening in either direction, and I can’t help but think that the Roberts of this world are pleased as can be with it, so much that they like to sit down and offer ‘well meaning’ commentary and critique that seems to only have the value of creating more dissent.
What’s the old saying, ‘divide and conquer’. So while I definitely agree with the right to division, I do wish we would see more respect offered in the common ground, so as not to feed the ones that want to see both sides of our squabble reduced to nothing.
value of creating more dissent.
… should read value of creating more animosity. I didn’t realise I used the word once in a nuetral light and then brought it in as a negative connotation, as if dissenting was the problem. The problem isn’t the dissent, it’s the animosity and lack of cohesion on either side of this problem. I think it’s possible to work together while at the same time recognizing the problems that each side has as legitimate and worthy of respect.
I can’t help but think that the Roberts of this world are pleased as can be with it, so much that they like to sit down and offer ‘well meaning’ commentary and critique that seems to only have the value of creating more dissent.
Think of me as the Emperor, sitting in my command throne on the view deck, cackling maniacally, watching father and son battle it out.
Redneck;
I think I tend to agree more with Barbara with regards to NARAL blanketly endorsing Republicans. There still is the problem of the Republican party being nearly completely anti-choice. I think that maybe it’s time NARAL thought a bit outside the box as well, with regards to throwing support.
I honestly feel that a few well written letters stating the goals of NARAL and why neither are acceptible choices from their perspective would help the goal of diversifying the playing field.
Yes, Palpatine, I’m quite aware of your motives. But just to put you in your place:
Grand Moff Tarkin ALWAYS > Palpatine …
(even posthumously).
Oh yah, that and the Emperor dies at the end.
If Robert is pleased, that’s no concern of mine.
As far as divide and conquer? The Democratic Party did that, all on its own, then it and some of its members then accused those who are fed up with the party’s tactics, as being the ones creating the conflict, lol. As the ones weakening the effort to fight the good fight against the evil right wing. See, that way they can keep doing what they’re doing and it’s those who call them on their own divisive tactics who get tarred and feathered, especially post-election(which also allows the Democrats to ignore widespread and racist voters’ fraud and the fact that you have candidates who can’t win their own states(Gore)). Who instead of sticking up for the voters who got disenfranchised, just caved and validated the tactics of those who stole those votes.
And for being upset that the Democrats sell out women three years out of every four or give them consolation prizes to keep them loyal, I’m dividing and conquering….whatever.
I’ve got some bad news for you, Kim: This IS the respectful me.
Frankly, I could care less about creating a favorable impression for the Right Wing. It’s that particular desire on behalf of the DLCers and their apologists that keeps us screwed six ways from Sunday in the first place. I don’t feel like putting on a happy face while I’m having my future sold out from under me lock, stock, and barrel by predators. Fuck whose watching, and why.
I suspect that almost no one reads the links I post, so let me sum up Alam’s column more succinctly for those who have more pressing concerns:
The problem isn’t that liberalism isn’t getting a fair shake. The problem is the nature of liberalism itself.
Oh yah, that and the Emperor dies at the end.
Having succeeded in his goals of destroying the corrupt Jedi oligarchy, replacing the sham democracy of the Republic with an efficient and orderly decentralized state that devolves executive decisions down to the regional level instead of enabling power-hungry Senators to leverage their authority for personal gain, and creating an effective and inexpensive military power capable of defending civilized space against maurading alien hordes.
Sure, he dies at the end. Everybody dies. Not everybody achieves their career goals. I can handle that career tradeoff.
[Dan Ackroyd:]
Staaar Warrrrrrrrrrrrs
I’m sick of Staaaaaaaaarrrr Warrrrrrrrrrrrrs
Fed up with Staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrr Warrrrrrrrrs
TAKE IT AWAYYYYY !!!
[\Dan Ackroyd]
Alsis;
I know that such is the real you. I actually wasn’t pointing fingers at either of you, but commiserating that it’s indeed a frustrating quandry.
I do think you both (you and Radfem) read into what I was saying to interpret it as concern for what people see, instead of genuine concern for mending fences (even if it means we don’t share the same political party) with people whose political bottom-lines mostly match my own. Perhaps I should have clarified that the frustration I have with the right wing in this situation is that they instigate further hostility because in-fighting suits them. The proverbial ‘peanut gallery’. My concern with finding common ground and realising common goals is genuine. The concern offered by Republicans on this matter is far less well intentioned.
I’m not apologising for or justifying any of the mistakes of the Democratic party. I’m frustrated with these things too. But like you said a bit ago, Alsis, people have the right and obligation to choose their own personal political strategies to work towards the outcomes they desire. For me that’s grassroots local change, with whatever support I can morally come to terms with nationally. That doesn’t mean I feel you need to agree with my strategy, nor do I think it means I need to apologise for it any more than you need to apologise for yours. This does mean, however, that I’m willing to discuss these things that concern myself and those who I share this common ground with, with a open mind and hope for solutions that will work for us both (us being the royal us).
Great. Just don’t morph into Eric Alterman. He gives me hives.
Alsis (#67): I agree on all counts. I’ve had to closthespin my nose supporting Democrats my whole life; ironically, the abortion issue is usually the shoe that whaps my head when I wonder aloud what I or the country is getting by supporting these clowns.
I couldn’t be more pleased at the discomfort felt by Kos or, for that matter, NARAL and its supporters. Ha-ha to Kos for thinking feminist groups would shill for the donkey forever. As for the feminist groups themsleves, NARAL’s actions make me realize I was a fool for supporting anti-drug politicos because they were pro-choice (eg, Bill&Hil). I won’t make that mistake again. Nor will I keep the gloves on when feminists angrily deride my prioritization of the drug issue as “Selfish”—as we all know they will when they shill for the Donkey in ’08 on the basis of the abortion issue alone. Thanks, Alsis!!
You’re welcome, DP.
BTW, I was a little too flip with Kim last week, so I wanted to follow up on one of her points. Kim, you wrote:
“…This does mean, however, that I’m willing to discuss these things that concern myself and those who I share this common ground with, with a open mind and hope for solutions that will work for us both (us being the royal us).”
Well, this end of the “royal us” would love it if grassroots Democrats supported electoral reforms that would kick the door open to challenging the closed shop that’s been enjoyed by Democrats and Republicans for far too long. This would go a long way toward reassuring me that Democrats who claim common ground with us stragglers from further left were really serious about making the societal changes that we all are supposedly in agreement about. Otherwise, I’m forced to conclude that the only solutions that will ever be up for serious consideration will be those that shore up the current system in terms of who is allowed at the table of power and who is not. This puts the leftward stragglers like me in an awkward position regarding Kim and other determined team players: There’s just not much common ground to be found if, at the core, I find that the team player is working diligently to shore up a system that –to my mind– exists to kill the positive changes that we both supposedly want to see.
On a related note, there’s this column by Sam Smith:
http://prorev.com/greener.htm
“…based on public opinion polls, Greens – despite their meager electoral showing – are the party that best reflects the view of a majority of Americans on such issues as the Iraq war, the environment, health care, campaign financing, population growth, genetically modified foods, and marijuana use.
“In short, while the public may not elect us, they agree with us far more than they do with the so called major parties on a number of major issues. That they don’t know this is a reflection of media bias, the successful agitprop of the GOP and the Democrats, the Greens’ lack of the legalized bribery that funds the major parties, but also, sadly, it reflects a willingness of Greens to accept the marginal role assigned to them by America’s establishment.
“There is another poll that I can not prove we have won, but evidence is pointing increasingly in its direction – and that is the poll of history. History is always the last precinct to be heard from…”
Smith is about as loyal an American Green as you’ll find anywhere these days. I don’t think he’s perfect, or that the Greens are, but I’d urge grassroots Democrats to read his column (hell, read all his columns. He’s criminally underrated compared to a lot of other progressive commentators) and consider whether the POV he pushes for resonates with you. If the answer is ‘yes’, I urge you to consider whether you will really create fertile ground in the United States for this POV by supporting a party that does everything in its power to stifle 3rd Parties.
I want unity, but not at the expense of speaking my mind. I look at the miserable specimens continually trotted out to defend my rights under the Democratic banner and don’t see any improvement in that regard coming any time soon. Six or seven years ago, I might have still said that those defenders were somewhat well-meaning, if inept. Now I don’t even give them that much credit: When I hear someone like Hilary Clinton go on and on about “sad and tragic” choices, I firmly believe that I am hearing someone who is genuinely hostile to my being a free citizen in any sense– but unlike her brethren in the Republican camp, she doesn’t have enough self-respect to want to take credit/blame for what she works so hard at taking away from “nobodies” like me. Her livelihood, after all, depends upon maintaining and illusion of conflict with Repubs. Even if I look at her voting record and the idealogical tenets of the DLC and conclude that most of that conflict is artificial. It’s based on what serves politicians, not on what serves the public. Any good that comes to the public through such machinations might be a fortituitous side-effect, but it’s neither reliable nor substantial compared to what is being sold away without my consent. I can no longer kid myself into thinking that it’s the main point for Democrats in power.
When I look at how men like Dean and Kucinich have functioned to corral those with Lefty aspirations and bring them “home” to numbly endorse a worthless, vacillating candidate and policies that they would march against three years out of four, I am forced to conclude that they are scarcely worth any more to my overall goals than is Ms. Clinton. As long as they remain in the party, they simply cannot be worth a damn to those goals: The nature of the duopoly will not allow them to be worth anything. It paralyzes them, and they in turn work to paralyze us– for which their overseers richly reward them.
I continue to not understand what being confined in the Democratic pen can possibly do to the change this. And I can’t help thinking that Kim’s POV doesn’t address a fundamental problem with the split between Democrats and stragglers. When liberals like to lament the “Leftist circular firing squad” they perpetuate the illusion that everyone in the circle has the same distance from everyone else in it, not to mention the same firepower. Far as I can see, Kim has less power than Dean, but I have less power than Kim. The system makes sure of that. I want to know what would-be peacemakers like Kim think they can do to change that– WITHOUT my having to “come home.” Because I refuse to. That’s not my home any more.
Pingback: the_walloper: Do pro-life Democrats oppose restrictive abortion legislation?
Pingback: Rad Geek People’s Daily 2005-11-03 – Goodbye to All That. Again.