« Lapse | Main | Eminent Domain »
March 04, 2005
Is Abortion a Core Democratic Value?
News that Bob Casey is entering the Pennsylvania race to dethrone probably the most evil person in the Senate (Rick Santorum) should be cause for celebration. But it isn't universally... One commenter lays out the key opposition to Casey among the netroots Democrats (hate that term), mainly that CHOICE is a key core value among Democrats that is not to be bargained about.
My question, and I'm not trying to be smart or dumb here, is, when did that happen exactly? Certainly being pro-choice wasn't a key core non-compromising position as recently as 1976, when Gerald Ford was arguably the pro-choice candidate with Democrat Jimmy Carter being the pro-life candidate (neither were that solid in either direction).
I bring this back to Casey, who is pro-life, because someone familiar with Casey and his Democratic primary campaign in 2002 against Rendell (which labor unions largely funded) told me that people who used to vote Democratic, particularly rural working class whites, that describe to focus groups and pollsters why they no longer do, and what it would take for them to start voting Democratic again, pretty much describe a politician like Casey to a T. In other words, voters that we've lost on abortion we haven't lost on other "core" Democratic values, and more people like Casey might bring them back.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I wonder how abortion became a "core" Democratic value when those opposed to our position make it a primary reason to vote against us, while those in favor of our position do not likewise return the favor. Go to exurban and rural areas and the pro-life voters will tell you that they can't vote for Democrats because we are "baby killers." Go to the suburbs, though, and see that about half of the voters that vote for Republican candidates self identify as pro-choice and aren't in any hurry to leave their mostly pro-life party.
In summary, how can we expect the Democratic Party to carry the water for interest groups that aren't able to deliver votes in an election, but whose position drive potential voters away? Especially when you consider that someone like Bob Casey isn't going to Washington to outlaw abortion (though he may cast that vote if it comes up) but that his much higher priorities are improving the lives of working class Americans. Furthermore, you have a group like Emily's LIST that demands politicians be not only pro-choice but also a woman to recieve their support, further alienating a large percentage of the Democratic base, especially at a historic time, such as now, when women are voting less Democratic than before and men are starting to trend our way.
Many of these men are attracted to the Democratic party because of our moderate stances on social issues, but if one of them decided to make a run for office against a pro-choice woman, he'd instantly face a money disadvantage because of his sex. I thought one of our true core values was that we don't discriminate based on the way someone was born, and yet here (because of choice politics) a dubious core principal runs headfirst into a solid core principal that neither I nor any Democratic politician I know of is willing to compromise on.
How we deal with choice warrants some deep thoughts among party activists. Nearly every comment on DailyKos about Harry Reid starts off with the commenter admitting that he was skeptical of Reid but now thinks he's great. And that skepticism is almost universally attributed to Reid being pro-life. You'd think that some people would learn their lesson and get to know Casey beyond how he might answer one question out of many on a candidate survey, but apparently not everyone has. It's too bad.
Posted by Chris at March 4, 2005 02:41 PM
Comments
The venn diagram for the choice position includes that of right-to-life, so you can choose to have a surgical procedure or choose not to have one. This seems like the big-tent notion Dems have always embraced regarding personal issues; what's insidious is that not one person ever chooses an abortion happily but that the prolifers have framed the issue to suit themselves and sold it to the less aware among us as a disregard for the sanctity of life combined with a very optimistic estimate of when "life really starts". Next week the Pope will no doubt pronounce masturbation to be a mortal sin because of the potential being lost (and Saddam might have had WMDs too).
I think we've got to argue that these legislators of ours in the Georgia house are not our chosen doctors, haven't the scientific expertise to make judgements on issue, have no moral position relevant to issues between a doctor and patient, are not our religious leaders, are not our parents, and need to understand that their position in the legislature assumes the duty to serve their constituencies as a whole whether they received their votes or not.
Posted by: bkfab ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.chrisishardcore.com//nav-commenters.gif)
at March 4, 2005 09:17 PM
I'm just as bummed about the waiting period as the next guy, but a huge majority of Georgians were having their priorities expressed in that vote. At some point the majority has to get its way on some things. The real tragedy is the rape exception. I suspect some suburban Republicans will be seeing that in their mailboxes next November (or even in a Republican primary)
Posted by: chris at March 5, 2005 01:26 AM
Since when is abortion a "value?" Democrats support a woman's freedom to control her own life. FREEDOM is one of our moral values. The freedom of women to make their own decisions regarding ending a pregnancy. It is an issue between the woman and her doctor and not the business of government.
TRUST is another Democratic value. The trust we place in a woman's abilty to control her own medical decisions. We don't want the government to control our personal medical decisions.
You sir, need to understand the difference between issues and VALUES. The right of a woman to control her own life is the issue. Why do we support this issue? Because we hold certain values to be DEMOCRATIC MORAL values. FREEDOM, TRUST, FAIRNESS.
Posted by: Sander Bellman at March 9, 2005 12:36 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)