I think this is a mistake: I believe the Democratic Party should support candidates with all views on this issue.
I’m staunchly pro-choice, but recognize that this is one issue that reasonable people can disagree on. So yeah, I think it’s counterproductive to impose such a purity test. Like it or not, the Democrats are going to have to run some slightly conservative-leaning candidates if they want to win back Congress. That’s the way it was done in 2006, and that’s the way it’s going to have to be done again.
This commentary from the DNC chair shows that Democrats haven’t learned any lessons from the last election cycle, or from the fact that they have become the minority party in most of the country. <smh>
This is very foolish and in practice means sharply reducing the chances of Democrats winning Congressional seats in red states and districts which is something they need to do at least occasionally. It’s striking that the Republicans haven’t imposed this kind of purity test on abortion.
I agree. If Perez wants ideological purity in the Democratic Party, I’ve got a better place to start: get rid of any Democrat stupid enough to publicly state that their largest voting bloc is not entitled to equal protection under the law.
Oh wait, that’s him.
So says Tom Perez athough Pelosi disagrees.
I get that most Democrats are pro-choice but surely, as Nancy Pelosi implies, there has to be room within the party for those on the other side of the question. Perez by his stance is in danger of alienating some Democrats and driving them away. I know this issue is vitally important but I don’t think it should become a shibboleth for the Democrats.
Perez said: “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health.”
Does Perez believe in stripping citizenship from Americans who are not pro-life? I doubt it. I don’t think he was saying the very label Democrat cannot be applied to pro-life politicians. I think he was saying that Democrats should be pro-choice.
Is there some additional context that makes it clear that he was saying something other than that he will use his resources to encourage Democratic candidates to take pro-choice positions?
Not great symbolism. Nancy Pelosi wasn’t too positive about it when interviewed. However it is basically symbolic. There isn’t a whole lot of credibility IMO at this point to Democrats presenting themselves as pro-life, or GOP’ers presenting themselves as pro-choice, especially for national office like Congress. They are telling voters they are off to join an organization on Capitol Hill implacably opposed to them on a major issue. Why? is the natural question from voters.
And I think that credibility problem is worse for pro-life Democrats. Pro-choice includes the position ‘I believe abortion is immoral but not something that should be a matter of law, like all kinds of other immoral things which aren’t’. And ‘let’s just drop it as political issue’ means a known status quo of basically legal abortion. A pro-life politician is pushing (at least nominally) for change (back to, anyway change) to some other state of affairs. There’s IMO more contradiction therefore in a pro-life Democrat, going to join the Democrats in DC to push for change in abortion laws or naming judges who overturn Roe…directly against the position of that party they’re joining, than a Republican ‘pro choice’ just to the extent of saying ‘let’s stop talking about this issue’.
One way I see this working, is – well, it’s a long shot, but imagine the GOP is dumb enough to reply in kind, with a crisp and brisk “oh, yeah, well” declaration that every Republican should be pro-life, as should every American.
Now that, I figure, would backfire – and so I figure they won’t do it; I figure they’ll say something about a Big Tent, and mention that pro-choice Republicans exist, and so on, instead of taking the bait and boldly staking out an unpopular position as a national party. But I can’t help but wonder if Perez’s plan was “hey, let’s roll the dice on them hearing this and knee-jerking back an equally black-and-white response.”
Seeing as this was the deciding issue for a ton of Trump voters I know, definitely not.
I hate it. The actual answer with abortion has to basically be pro-choice, even if you believe that people should choose life. But it’s ridiculous how this one thing ties a lot of moderate to liberal minded people on social issues to a certain political party. It is the ultimate wedge issue.
And it’s a problem I don’t know how to solve, for most of us. But, if we do happen to have a candidate who can willingly say they are pro-life, then we need them. Use them.
Heck, if we get back control and can nominate a Supreme Court justice, pick a genuine liberal who is willing to say they are pro-life. As long as they then say “but the constitution doesn’t let me overturn that right.” That guy would sail through the Senate.
I’d hoped that we could progress faster in getting people to be more pro-choice. My mom has transitioned, even though she still thinks abortion is wrong, and probably would prefer not to use the word “pro-choice.” That’s just a labeling problem.
But it seems it still is the main issue for way, way too many people for us to ignore. Figure out some way to bring those people on board, and any electoral problems we have are solved.
Existing thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=824640
(I personally am in a position where I can say both “I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life” or just say “I’m pro-choice,” depending on what I think the audience believes I mean by those words. I’m effectively for choice up to a certain point.)
No interest in the Democrats winning back The House, then, right? House candidates are not “national candidates”. They are quite local.
Merged thread from Great Debates around post #6.
[/moderating]
Not being a US citizen, the Democrats’ identity doesn’t affect me, but I do consider myself to be generally liberal in my political beliefs, and I would be offended if people made assumptions on my feelings about abortion based only on that.
It’s an issue that I’m very torn on. I see abortion as being a horrible thing, and yet also see denial of a woman’s right to an abortion as a horrible thing.
This statement I don’t see a problem with. Although it’s a broadly-encompassing statement (“Every Democrat . . . every American”), the tone of the language is such that it could be interpreted as merely a strong expression of personal conviction.
That’s where the problem is. He does seem to be drawing a line in the sand there.
I can imagine that would be a welcome message to those who are firmly pro-choice, but it could rub a lot of others the wrong way, and turn away many independents who, even if willing to accept the necessity of abortion rights, do not like having that line drawn in the sand at their feet.
Perez needs to listen to Bernie more. The whole party needs to listen to Bernie more.
Perez: “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said in a statement. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”
That’s a beaut. He forgot to add “except when it comes to buying health insurance, when we will tell her (and men, too, of course) what a ‘good plan’ is and what she must buy.”
This strikes me as one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t issues.
If Perez says that being pro-choice is mandatory, then he’s just like those Bernie or Bust types. If he doesn’t say such a thing, then he’s one of those Clintonistas with no principles.
Whatever. He has zero ability to keep a candidate off the ballot in any congressional, state, or local election.
Pro-choice is pro-life.
Opponents of legalized abortion have no respect for the sanctity of human life, inasmuch as they want to demean it by subordinating a person’s interests to that of a parasite.
I am fairly agnostic on abortion. It is a complex issue involving all sorts of ethical and moral judgments, not to mention some rather deep philosophical questions.
However, one thing I do know is that using the term parasite in regards to pregnancy isn’t going to win you any arguments. You might impress those that already agree with you (Oh, that guy thinks babies are parasites. He is so cool!) but in the real world all you will do is offend those whose minds you wish to change.
It is a rather stupid tactic.
As a litmus test, this is a rather stupid one for the Ds. I suspect that for most Democrat supporters abortion isn’t a big deal. However, for the those who are anti-abortion and pull D, this could easily be a deal breaker.
Though, given the Democrats recent track record, I expect a bunch of candidates to run around screaming that anyone who is pro-life is evil and despicable. 'Cause there is nothing quite like insulting people into voting for you.
Slee