No.
I had to read this article twice, and it still didn’t make sense. Wooing “pro-lifers” to the Democratic Party by implementing more laws restricting abortion? No. Just no.
Many pro-lifers were already frustrated with a party that merely goes through the motions and lacks a coherent plan when it comes to protecting prenatal children from violence. After last year’s conservative-led effort to defund Planned Parenthood failed, Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the pro-life Christian Defense Coalition, charged Republican congressional leadership with the “betrayal” of “the pro-life community that helped elect them”; and when Republicans yet again failed to pass antiabortion legislation last year, conservative commentator Erik Erickson declared that “the pro-life movement must stop being whores of the Republican party.”
Democrats can make a home for these stranded voters. Opening a big tent to pro-lifers would not only offer a hospitable climate for Democrats who value a “whole life” ethic, which weaves together common Democratic concerns like care for the impoverished and elderly with an equal interest in the unborn; it would also put them in a good position to win the next generation. Millennials and Latinos, after all, are trending more antiabortion than any other young generation in recent U.S. history. Only 37 percent of young people think that abortion is morally acceptable — while 54 percent of Latinos think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
Hey, I know another way to add more D voters. Let’s embrace the NRA! Just look at all those new voters we could get. This is Nixon’s Southern Strategy all over again. How’s that working out for the GOP?
It’s difficult to predict just how many disaffected pro-lifers currently attached to the Republican party might cast their votes for Democrats given the opportunity. But there is good reason to believe that, especially among Millennial voters, such a strategy could have meaningful returns for Democrats. In 2010, research conducted by NARAL found that there is a significant “intensity gap” between pro-life and pro-choice Millennial voters: While 51 percent of pro-lifers under 30 considered abortion a “very important” voting issue, only 26 percent of pro-choice Millennials said the same. The fact that such a high percentage of young pro-lifers consider abortion a top priority suggests that, should Democrats shift their stalwart pro-choice stance, the next generation of antiabortion voters may well lend them much-needed support. Judging by the example of 2006, such a groundswell could bring about a real, lasting boost for local and congressional Democrats.
It’s difficult to predict? But there’s good reason to believe? I should have stopped reading right there. It’s tempting to flip this argument. Republicans could win if they welcomed pro-choice Dems. If it works one way, then it works the other. The reason for the “intensity gap” is obvious. Abortion is still legal. Change that and watch what happens to the “intensity gap”.
The idea that “pro-lifers” would be satisfied with a few tweaks to abortion waiting periods and access is a big lie – and Professor Charles C. Camosy knows it. If you are “pro-life” then your end goal is to outlaw abortion. (I’ll eagerly await a “pro-lifer” to tell me I’m wrong and explain why.) And for many in this group it also involves banning contraception. It always comes down to one thing: controlling women. It’s not enough for you to be “pro-life” and to not have an abortion, you have to make sure everyone lives by your rules. And if they disagree with you? Too bad. Abortion will be illegal so it doesn’t matter what they think. It only matters what you believe. “Pro-lifers” are always in everybody’s business.
There’s plenty of room for anti-abortionists in the Democratic Party. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. See? Problem solved. But that’s not their agenda, and it’s why they fit in so beautifully with Republicans. They, like the GOP, are authoritarians. They are quite comfortable in telling (legislating) everyone what to do and what to believe. They have been quite capable of justifying their abortions while limiting the choices of others. This group does it all the time. Their welfare is different. Their tax based roads, libraries, internet access, etc. are different. Their Medicaid and unemployment benefits are necessary… and merited.
But what is this professor really proposing? That Dems should have a “pro-life” and pro-choice platform? How would that work? It wouldn’t, because there really is no compromising with “pro-lifers”. And I get that. They are entitled to their beliefs. Right now Dems enjoy the women’s vote – they win with it. Why would they ever take this article seriously and risk losing their major voting block?
I’m very sorry “pro-lifers” feel like they don’t have a home, but they don’t get to come into mine and rearrange the furniture so they’re comfortable.
Tags: Abortion, Women's Issues
Agreed. I wish more Democratic voters would draw similar red lines on economic issues as well.
“pro-life” is a cynical racket, so naturally Dem consultants would be interested in it.
Here is my litmus test for “pro-lifers.”
Are you interested in reducing the number of abortions through methods proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies such as access to contraception and comprehensive sex ed?
If they answer “yes” … welcome aboard. If they answer “no”, then fuck off.
You’re like a broken record, puck. 😉
Jason, they have a clearly stated end goal: No abortions. There is no compromise here. Contraceptives have a failure rate, like all medication, which means there will always be a need for safe, legal abortions.
And I really don’t know what “pro-lifers” are complaining about. The only thing being accomplished legislatively are anti-abortion laws – and they still aren’t happy. They want it all. I don’t want them in the D party.
That hard line shows what a cynical racket the “pro-life” stance is. There is a pro-life industrial complex built up around agitating for the goal of “no abortions” because they know it is unworkable. They, therefor, can continue applying their contributions to “salaries & overhead” in perpetuity.
I won’t vote for a pro-lifer, but isn’t this another discussion about “who is allowed to be a real Democrat?”
The thing is, the only way we can keep people with a certain viewpoint from running on the Dem ticket is to vote or contribute against them whenever they pop up. We utterly failed to keep the trickle-down Dems out; that is a lost battle. I hope we have better collective sense with the pro-lifers.
It strikes me that just the existence of that article is more spinoff of the crackup of the GOP. Still, it seems like an epic bit of trolling to try to convince the Dems that the way to increase their voters would be to ignore the rights of at least half of the current ones.
Anti-abortion liberals, if they exist (and I highly doubt it) are welcome and encouraged to vote for the only party whose policies actually reduce abortion: the Democratic Party. We encourage safe sex education for our teenagers. We encourage adoption. And we keep abortion safe and legal for those who wish to chose that option, so as to protect the life and health of the mother.
The party will not become an anti-choice party to appeal to a fraction of the population who feel they need to make choices for others.
No.
A better approach to morality in the Democratic Party — Justice
“Anti-abortion liberals, if they exist (and I highly doubt it)”
They do….I’m pretty much there. It is possible to be anti-abortion and pro choice. Liberals are all about shades of gray after all, no? Personally, I am against abortion for the most part, but for a variety of reasons, I don’t think banning them is good policy. Collectively, we should work to reduce their number through access to sex ed, birth control, and economic growth and stability. Swaying from that view to include the hard core in the pro-life movement is not good policy either.
“Are you interested in reducing the number of abortions through methods proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies such as access to contraception and comprehensive sex ed? ”
As someone who abhors litmus tests (no one is ever pure enough), I make an exception for this litmus test. Regardless of your stance on abortion, this is a test that should apply to each and every politician and human being. So yeah, probably my one and only litmus test that is universally applicable to everyone.
And I’m an anti abortion centrist who does not feel they have the authority to regulate women’s bodies.
Welcome, purists. It’s nice to find out there IS a limit to the size of the tent.
there’s always a size limit. If someone’s philosophy includes that there is only one right way to go about something, it is fundamentally incompatible with an inclusive philosophy. Either you exclude them, or EVERYONE else. It’s why I feel no need to be tolerant of intolerant bigots. I’m not being a hypocrite, I’m just drawing a line.
It’s bad enough when the other side sends stealth candidates into local and state elections purporting to be Democrats, then they reveal their true colors when they legislate. Why do we want to add a constituency with the same degree of untrustworthiness?
If Cassandra is right that this is more evidence of the GOP crack-up, and I think she is, it naturally follows that Democrats must consider what it means to be a Democrat. I’m sure the “establishment” Dems will take away all the wrong lessons from the GOP crack-up and see it as “radicals” getting too much voice. In reality the GOP is experiencing the effects of an establishment having pissed away all of its credibility.
Is the Dem establishment on the same trajectory toward an absolute loss of credibility? Obviously, they are.
Pro-lifers are most welcome to vote for Ds and to not have an abortion. See how that works? No one is saying, “No pro-lifers allowed!” We’re saying that they’re welcome, but they don’t get to change the party platform to suit their needs – and only their needs.
Pro-choice includes the choice to continue the pregnancy. It’s a respected option in the pro-choice community. What’s the other option in the “pro-life” community? What’s their compromise? Women can have abortions/access to abortions in/when/if… I’m having trouble finishing that sentence.
What’s their compromise? Women can have abortions/access to abortions in/when/if…you are the daughter of a GOP member of congress, or otherwise rich or well-connected enough to have a semester at a boarding school in Switzerland.
finishing the sentence…..
Women can have abortions if… that “abortion” is actually “throwing away diner if she ruined it”.. and then ONLY if they can have a NEW diner ready for Husband when he comes home and only IF the “replacement diner” comes out of her allowance.
The challenge for Democrats in the next few years will be shutting the door to “reasonable” Republicans trying to join the last remaining viable party.
Agreed.
““reasonable” Republicans trying to join the last remaining viable party.”
Delaware has been in the vanguard of that movement for decades, and we have accepted them with “YUUUGE” electoral margins.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The Republicans are still quite viable in various states and will most likely still control the House after this election….they will then block everything and blame Hillary for the failure, leading to a Republican revival of sorts. Frankly, I hope I’m wrong, but the electorate has amnesia, so even if Trump is the nominee and loses badly, I think voters will forgive the Republicans and all will be forgotten rather quickly….and back to the topic at hand, the Democrats should not just surrender all of their beliefs to accommodate even if there is a total collapse of the other party.
That certainly is a challenge for the Democratic Party. However, I don’t know I would call it “THE” challenge. At least equal to any challenge is the continued growth of voters who identify as independents.
Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling. http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/
Since the Democratic Party is the one with the big tent, why is the Independent tent getting bigger and everyone else’s getting smaller? Granted the independents include many who are what Pew calls “partisan leaners.” But why not affiliate with the party? I think Pew has the answer in their discussion of the partisan divide over values: http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-1-understanding-the-partisan-divide-over-american-values/
My takeaway is that people are really turned off by the polarization and the extreme partisanship in our politics. Pew shows that even independents have become extremely polarized. This continued movement away from the parties for many independents could be a just protective strategy (selfish herd behavior) they are too embarrassed to be associated with either party. Who knows?
Anyway, I would be less worried about Reasonable Republicans than I would about having a big tent that’s pretty empty.
@puck: Delaware illustrates the point perfectly. And it’s Clintonsim — or should I call it Bill Clintonism? — that got the Democratic Party to this point.
@Dave: Who voters identify with is meaningless, and if it’s neither party, good. Parties have set themselves up as middlemen of American politics, and eliminating middlemen is always good for consumers.
@LeBay: No need for such evasions. Just reference Hillary’s “proud to have been a Goldwater Gal” line from the ’96 re-election campaign.
I tried the Hillary Stumper with one of her supporters this morning: “Name me one of her accomplishments.” No answer.
I’ve looked online, too. None of the “accomplishments” her apologists have offered include any actual, y’know, accomplishment of goals. They’re all “she fought for this” and “voted for that” in the Senate.
There is a looming battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. If you think that Hillary will fight on the progressive side, well, I hope you’re right, but I fail to see any sign in her record to indicate that will happen.
Why do people think Hillary is being genuine with all her statements that are seemingly pro-Conservative, but is being dishonest with all her statements that are seemingly pro-liberal….. it’s just an idle thought. I think she is calculated in everything. If she calculates that being progressive will help her win (i.e all the pressure from the Berners) that is how she will govern.
This is so tiresome. You don’t have to support Hillary, but to pretend she has no accomplishments defies reality… unless your definition of accomplishments means a person succeeds at something only on their own, with no assist from anyone else. By that standard, no politician has accomplishments – since politicians need support in Congress and State Houses.
Just for fun, what are Bernie’s accomplishments? Be sure to apply the same standard. No voting for things. No trying for things. No credentials like being mayor, senator, secretary of state. Just actual, concrete accomplishments. I’d say he has quite a few, but given this new definition of accomplishments, maybe not.
Bernie and Hillary both accomplished failure on Health care reform in the 90s. Later, Bernie failed to accomplish holding out for a Pony (universal health care)
More “just for fun.” What were Barak Obama’s accomplishments prior to his election? I betcha that didn’t stop these same people from pulling the lever for Obama. Now, accomplishments have primacy and the only ones that count are ones that meet a few people’s definition?
I agree with Pandora, it is tiresome. I don’t mind real policy disagreements but hypocrisy is probably the worse of sins in my view. Live what you believe, but don’t throw out the BS about principles unless you consistently apply those principles everywhere to everyone. Otherwise they are just principles of convenience, which is essentially no principles at all.
And if eliminating the middleman is good for consumers then who gives a hoot about the looming battle for the soul of the party?
If Clinton wins the progressives can enjoy more misery and angst just like they’ve been doing for 8 years of Obama. You purists are entertaining, whether you are from the left or right. Clinton is a flawed human being who will attempt to govern as best she again. She is just like most everyone else. Doing the best they can under the worst of circumstances. I don’t put my trust in saints whether they are Mother Teresa or Saint Bernie.