What women should do if the Democratic Party abandons them on Choice

[Cheswick2.0]

We should join up with the other groups that the party takes for granted and kick out all the dead weight who don't understand who their strongest constituency is. Minorities and women should band together and get rid of the white guys who would rather appeal to the Nascar Dads than the people who actually vote for the party on a regular basis.

[Caution]

1. generally not a good idea

to abandon large voting blocks in a democracy. Better to actually make an attempt to sway them to your point of view.

[Maddy McCall]

13. Oh if that were possible...

Unfortunately, the "abortion is bad" mantra is a difficult one to pry from the minds of many otherwise well-intentioned liberals, much less John Q. Public, who is a moderate considering the party.

I am fervently pro-choice, but also a realist on this issue. It's just about impossible to change core beliefs of people, and, while they might join us on the economy or the war issue, I doubt we will bring many over to our way of thinking on abortion.

[JI7]

2. i'm not a white guy

but i understand that to keep choice legal that we need as many people to vote for us as we can get. we can't win by only reaching out to those who vote democratic on a regular basis.

[Cheswick2.0]

3. makes no sense

we should betray women on choice to attrack other votes.... to save choice? Huh?

[JI7]

9. i didn't say anything about betraying choice, i am a woman and i'm

prochoice. i'm saying that to win we have to get votes from those who don't regularly vote democratic. that can be done many ways.

[Sparkly]

I agree, except

I don't think we need to bend on this issue at all -- most people support women's right to choose.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. And there doesn't appear to be any movement afoot

to change the party's platform on this issue.

[Sparkly]

14. Exactly

:shrug:

[JI7]

10. agree, we aren't going to bend on this issue at all

[Maddy McCall]

26. Just because "we were here first" does not mean that we retain...

...authoritative conrol of the planks of our party. As the party has evolved through the past five decades, so has its planks.

Look at welfare reform.......

[Cheswick2.0]

28. I agree most people do agree with us

but there are some men who think they have a right to change the party platform on this issue. I think they are just uncomfortable because they party majority doesn't look like them. Too many women and minorities dontcha know? Gotta get more white guys in the voting block.

[JI7]

39. for those who are anti choice they already have a party

the republican party or some third party that is anti choice.

[Maddy McCall]

45. Maybe so...but most voters aren't single issue voters...

They may be anti-choice BUT the war and the economy are also issues to them and will affect their party choice.

Plus, there are many people who oppose abortion who are already members of the Democratic party.

[mydawgmax]

75. What exaclty are you talking about?

Who, what,why, where. This seems like kind of a strawman argument without any specific example.

[stopbush]

4. Are the Dems planning on dropping the choice issue?

First I've heard. What's your source?

[Maddy McCall]

5. Sad thing is that it's hard to form a cross-minority union...

Choice, which I as a woman firmly support, is a volatile issue, and it is difficult to form such a union across interest lines. It was difficult during the 60s feminist movement, and--thanks to Reagan and Schlaffly's "pro life" movement's momentum--it would be even more difficult today.

Isn't it amazing that many liberal thinkers still have hang-ups about abortion? That "partial birth abortion" bullshit and, well, the whole lexicon that came out of the religious right and the "pro-life" movement has infected the minds of many well-intentioned liberals.

I wish it were possible to do what you propose, but I just don't see it. Sorry I am such a pessimist. :-(

[Cheswick2.0]

43. The day may come when the democrats really do spite themselves to

oblivion in their pursuit of the elusive white conservative vote.
I had my eyes open at the Take Back America Conference. I learned about who actually supports the party and who does not. It makes no sense to chase the white male vote. Better to protect the constituency that is dependable and try to involve non voters who are also socially liberal.
The only way to appeal to the white male vote is with jobs. Everything else is divisive betrayal of loyal female and minority voters.
I think you are right, it is very difficult to create a cross minority coalition, but when people get taken advantage of long enough they might see the sense in it.

[Maddy McCall]

47. Let's pray they do. :-) n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. What makes you think that the party might abandon choice?

Did I miss something? :shrug:

[Maddy McCall]

17. I kind of see her point...

When moderates flock to the party--and they will in November--Cheswick is worried that the influx might affect the base platform.

Hers is not a fanciful prediction, but one that might come to fruition. Of course, the abortion plank won't be the only one affected...race issues will be in the balance, too.

[Sparkly]

18. It doesn't work that way

If moderates vote for Kerry, it doesn't change the Democratic party platform afterwards. I don't understand why anyone is even questioning a position the Democrats have held and fought for for decades.

[JI7]

22. right, those who vote based on abortion issue and are agianst abortion

will not vote for kerry anyways. the goal is to get enough votes to win so the abortion rights and other things can be saved. and this means getting moderate voters who aren't as prochoice as most democrats are, but they arne't anti choice either.

[Maddy McCall]

23. It absolutely DOES work that way...

The membership of a party affects the party's planks--in the long run. That's just a political fact.

The abortion plank is not secure just because it is a core plank of the party. As the party evolves, so will its planks.

[JI7]

30. but it's not about increasing party membership, it's about getting votes

they don't need to be party members to vote in a general election. the goal is just to get their votes in the election. not to make them permanent party members and voters.

[Maddy McCall]

32. I disagree. See post 31. Remember the congress. n/t

[JI7]

37. yes i saw that, and i said increasing party membership is a different

issue.

[Maddy McCall]

48. I replied to you in post 42 below. :-)

[Sparkly]

60. I see your point, but there's no huge mass moderate movement

who'd be mowing over the party and its platform. We're talking about 4% in the middle whose votes both sides are fighting for, aren't we?

[no name no slogan]

83. It truly does

We used to have a plank in the national party platform that supported universal health care for everyone-- that one disappeared in the 1990s when the white male DLC took over control of the party. Same goes for "welfare reform", too.

It's one thing to appeal to party outsiders in the general election-- it's quite another to give them the keys to the castle in exchange for their votes-- especially if you can find other supporters more in line with your philosophy elsewhere.

I'm all for reaching out to non-Democrats, but we should do it by showing why our position is in their best interest, not by adopting the other party's position.

[JI7]

20. moderates support roe vs wade

but when talk of late term abortion , parental consent and other issues come up they tend to be less supportive. so as long as kerry frames the debate in terms of roe vs wade and doesn't let the right wing hijack the issue and make it into "partial birth abortion" he will win.

[Maddy McCall]

24. But if the party moves right as it becomes more moderate, the planks...

will evolve with the party membership.

Cheswick, isn't this basically what you are saying?

[JI7]

27. the goal isn't to increase party membership, it's to get moderate voters

in this campaign. not to make them permanent democrats. that's the way it is in all elections. you try to get votes of those who are not regular party members in various ways.

[Maddy McCall]

31. Huh? So use them and toss them out?

Yeah, that will make us really secure in future elections.

Plus, that little matter of congressional elections...I would like to see our party control Congress. Without congressional control, we won't be able to repair the Bushian damage.

[JI7]

35. no, that's not what i'm saying

there will always be people a party reaches out to that are not regular party members or voters. these people will never be regular voters of any party, but they are important as they do vote.

increasing party membership is a different issue.

[Maddy McCall]

42. I see this as a much different issue than swing voters...

Bush has polarized this country. Just like the Democratic exodus during the fifties and sixties--those who moved right to the Republican party--and also in the eighties--this just might be the time that moderate Republicans permanently abandon the Republican party. They have seen the truth behind Republican policies throughout the Bush II administration, and many will find a new home in the Democratic party. With that influx, the party and its planks will eventually evolve.

Sorry if I am argumentative...I do believe, though, that we will see party growth during this election cycle, and I am not just talking about those "swing voters." I am talking about folks looking for a new party.

[JI7]

49. yes, i have no problem with that

i was just referring to the swing voters though.

[Maddy McCall]

52. Aha! Common ground...

I think we were talking past each other...I agree with you about "swingers." :hi:

[Frances]

7. How ungrateful can you be?

Kerry is standing up to bishops and archbishops

What more do you want? A Bush victory?

[Sparkly]

11. True, Kerry is staunchly pro-choice and taking hits for it

The big "He's a BAD CATHOLIC" charge is being trumpeted all over because of his stance on choice. You make a good point. He's not abandoning us.

[Cheswick2.0]

36. WTF are you talking about?

who said anything about Kerry?

[Frances]

50. Kerry is the nominee of the Democratic party

or haven't you heard?

This is absolutely the nuttiest thread I have ever seen on DU

[Cheswick2.0]

58. well this is absolutely the nuttiest response on the thread

Go back and read my post. I think you missed the point.

[emulatorloo]

12. ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Did you get a hold of some bad breakfast cereal or something?????? What gives you the idea the Dem party is going anti-choice?????

[IA_Young_Dem]

19. The Dems will always be pro choice.

[Cheswick2.0]

40. read some other threads

there are people here who think they party should abandon women on this issue. I am just giving them a chance to get a clue.

[emulatorloo]

69. Ok in answer to your Hypothetical: NO! Dems should not abandon

pro-choice women (and I doubt they will)!

[Cheswick2.0]

70. fabulous... just remember that when the next anti-choice

democrat says we need to compromise our civil rights to win the conservative white guy vote.

[Classical_Liberal]

79. They've abandoned those opposed to the Iraq War and they`

have abandoned the poor, on the notion that they have nowhere to go. Why wouldn't they take naral for granted as well? Kerry also recently bragged about voting for Scalia.

[emulatorloo]

81. No, he recently said it WAS A MISTAKE. . .

You are confused. . .do a google he recently said voting for Scalia was a mistake. Right Wing Bloggers and Free Repug are all flip-flop flippery over the statement.

I also don't agree w yr interp about "abandoning" anti-war and poor. . .but I doubt we will agree on that.

[Padraig18]

15. Have you heard something the rest of us haven't?

I've heard no mention at all that the party plans to abandon its staunchly pro-choice position.

:shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

38. Just trying to educate a group of people here who thinks it should

!

[Padraig18]

53. Oh. n/t

[librechik]

16. No sex for the DNC. Get a doll. n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

29. Good idea!

:7

[efhmc]

21. The party will cease to exist.

[Cheswick2.0]

34. absolutely

the party will cease to exist if it abandons women on the choice issue.

[DBoon]

25. You want to get rid of otherwise liberal Hispanic voters too?

And religious African-Americans?

Never!

Hispanics give the Democrats their majority in California (and a large part of their base in other state). Ditto for African Americans.

Many of these folks are very conservative on social values.

You kick them out and you assure Republican domination of our government for decades.

Why not just join the Greens instead? They have a place for ideologically pure white liberals who love losing elections.

[Cheswick2.0]

33. pro-choice women are a much bigger group than either religious

or ethnic group you have listed, you want to get rid of pro-choice women? Keep pushing.

[JI7]

41. nobody is saying anything about getting rid of prochoice women

as a prochoice woman myself i know that to protect those rights it requires getting those who disagree with us on the issues at times to vote for us. and this is mostly from the conservative anti choice latino men. they will vote for us based on issues like workers rights. you don't need to change the party stand on abortion. you just need to appeal to them on issues where they do agree with us on . and latino men agree with democrats on things like workers rights .

[Cheswick2.0]

46. agreed

appeal to them on other issues. Unfortunately there are men here who think abandoning women on choice is the issue to appeal to those voters on. You may not be saying so, but some of the men are.

[JI7]

56. i think i know the thread you are referring to

i don't think i even opened it . or if i did i did not take the time to read it through. but the women are too powerful in the party for that to happen.

[liberalpragmatist]

73. Please read the other post

I posted that and I feel that Cheswick has completely misrepresented and misunderstood what I was saying. I stand by what I said, which was that we should take Roe v. Wade from the courts and codify it into statutory law to end the debate and grant the unrestricted right-to-choose for the first two trimesters, while restricting third-term abortions exc. in the case of the life or physical health of the mother (thereby overturning the partial-birth abortion ban).

But maybe you think I'm being unreasonable too. (Sorry if I'm feeling quite cynical right now. Half the board is accusing me of being anti-choice and hating women when all I'm trying to do is suggest getting this out of the courts and settling the debate along the lines that 80% of the country thinks). Sorry if you're not like that.

[liberalpragmatist]

74. Sorry-double post

n/t

[Monte Carlo]

44. Isn't this far-fetched?

What makes you think the Democratic Party will do a 180 now on abortion rights? A few threads on DU? Is a little speculation worth all this?

[Maddy McCall]

51. People who are attacking Cheswick for supposedly being ungrateful...

...are not understanding her original post. Please read back through the thread before you issue attacks on her. Her concerns are valid and, one would think, should be shared by everyone at DU.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. What should we do if the Party goes Anti Environment?

I have trouble with a hypothetical question without at least some discussion about why you raised the question in the first place. There is a reason why most of us on this board are Democrats rather than belonging to one or another third party. The Greens generally come closer to my overall political beliefs than the Democrats do. But then again my closest friends generally come closer to my political beliefs than the Greens do. How marginalized and unable to directly effect policy do we want to be? The Democratic Party is a huge and somewhat amorphous coalition. If it ceases to provide an effective counterpoint to dangerous right wing political forces I will cease to consider myself a Democrat. Until that time I will fight inside the Democratic Party to move it in the directions that I believe it should move.

Pro Choice politics are an essential component of my core political beliefs, and I will always fight for them. They are not the only core aspect of my political beliefs however, so I would not shatter the Democratic Party over an occasional "pro-life" candidate running for or winning office as a Democrat. I would fight to counter the influence of those Democrats within our party on that issue while continuing to view them as Democrats so long as their prevailing set of political beliefs, and their votes, were generally consistent with the platform of our Party.

I don't envy sincere "pro-life" Democrats, because they will never be a majority in our Party because, as you suggest, our Party would break up over that issue were it ever to back away from a predominantly pro-choice perspective. Unless proven otherwise, I will regard "pro-life" Democrats as individuals who have sincere moral reservations about abortion, but who otherwise believe much the same as I do. They may hate Bush's War and Economic policies for example. They are not single issue voters and they back what I believe in most of the time. It must be painful for some of them to vote for and support Democratic candidates who disagree with them on abortion, but nonetheless they do, because they oppose most of what the Republicans stand for. We need their votes, but I will continue to fight them over the issue of abortion. If we start losing that fight, talk to me again about third party movements.

[Maddy McCall]

55. Beautifully said, Tom!

Hi! :hi:

I always enjoy your well-stated posts. :-)

[Cheswick2.0]

57. I am pro-environment

however environmental voters are not the loyal party base that women and minorities are.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. I don't disagree with that statement.

And I think it would be suicidal for the Democratic Party to become clearly identified with positions that oppose the interests of women and minorities. I don't think that will happen, but I don't think anything should be taken for granted. I am becoming more, not less, involved with the Democratic Party to maximize my influence within it.

[Cheswick2.0]

61. good, I am too

I am becoming more involved too. The point about the environmental votes I would like to make is this. They get upset when the advances are not big enough. Some hold puritanical positions on whether certain politicians go far enough in their support of environmental issues. Just look at the green party rhetoric against Al Gore in 2000.
BTW, at the conference there was a group promoting an apollo project to get us away from using oil and other non renewable energy sources. They made a great and very convincing presentation with the argument that jobs and the environment are not opposing sides of the debate. I will try to find their web site if you are interested.

But on choice issues, women are not even asking for advances. We are simply asking that the party not agree to go backwards to appease the growing pro-life activists groups.

[Nashyra]

62. Has anyone seen the MOB site

it is mothers opposing bush I beleive it is www.mob.com
It is not an all "mommy"site Check it out.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Since making my initial reply

I realized that there was at least one thread on DU that may have triggered your wanting to raise this topic. You are right about too many environmental voters, and that web site does sound interesting. Why not post it here since others may now be curious about it as well? In general, it appears that we are in near total if not total agreement. I guess that my only caution is that many important battles have ebbs and flows within them as they play out toward hopeful eventual victory. Should we experience an ebbing away from the positions I think that you rightfully feel are critical for our Party, that is foremost the time to redouble our efforts to reverse that flow. It will take more than a few setbacks to make me abandon the best vehicle we have to effect positive social change. However having said that, I will not go down with the ship. A time could come when I would cut my losses, but not without a good fight first.

[Cheswick2.0]

64. here you go

http://www.apolloalliance.org/

There were most impressive! Enjoy

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Thanks for the link

That IS an impressive alliance. Obviously I've just glanced at it for now, but I will be looking further into it. Years ago I was a founding member of The Abalone Alliance (late 70's early 80's anti-nuclear coalition in California) Labor Outreach Task Force. That was a great experience, finding common ground and promoting mutual aid between environmental and Labor activists. It is very fertile ground to toil, looks like they are hard at work and far along.

[Nederland]

66. Question

Do you think supporting a ban on late term abortion constitutes an abandonment on Choice?

[Cheswick2.0]

67. yes

[Nederland]

86. You're in a small minority then

Tough to win elections when 70%-80% of the population disagrees with you...

I guess that's the problem with looking at abortion as a black and white issue with only two possible positions.

[sangh0]

68. They should wake up!!

That's the only sure-fire solution to having a bad dream

[WI_DEM]

71. choice seems to be one of the few issues that the party

has stuck to-but I wasn't impressed when Kerry said he wouldn't have a limtus test for pro-choice judges.

[Beatrix]

72. Not a concern

if there is ONE THING the democratic party is good for - it's a solid pro-choice stance. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. But that won't happen...

Right to choose is KEY on the democratic platform. If they abandoned it, the party would collapse.

[Cheswick2.0]

77. I agree, but you should go read some of the remarks of the MEN

on another thread bargaining away reproductive rights because "it is the right thing to do". :eyes:

[ACK]

78. Glad to hear it

There are some positions where moderation for political points makes sense.

Sorry but the wimp issues have killed Dems for years:

1) Gun Control
2) Death Penalty
3) Military spending (lip service only Clinton cut defense and still got elected)

However, there is not one damn fundie in this nation that will ever, ever, ever vote Democratic. Period.

There are core values that Democrats cannot moderate on. The voting public screams for a choice.

This is one of those principals that paints in large part the Dems as being in the mainstream and the Repukes as the radical Fundie pandering extremist bastards they are.

Moderate? Hell no.

There is no reason morally at all. And there is no reason politically.

It just logically without any emotion makes no sense.

Pro-environment, Pro-choice, Pro-union, Pro-sensible-regulation, Pro-social safety net, and fiscally responsible to boot.

When idiots tell me they fiscally conservative but liberal on social issues I shake their hands and say, "Great welcome to the Democratic party!"

_

[roach23]

80. I am not worried

I am definitely pro-choice, but there was a bill proposed called The Freedom of Choice Act. I can't find the status but here is the basic text and sponsors:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN02020:@@@P

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03719:@@@P

It's actually two bills, one in the Senate and one in the House. The House has 82 cosponsors, and the Senate has 17.

82. Im tired of the "blame the white guys" mentality

I'm a white guy, and I don't share the sentiments that you attribute to other white guys, and neither do my "white guy" friends.

Most people would probably say that I should just deal with it, but I have been dealing, and I'm tired of this game. I've even been told that white men are the source of all the evil in the world. I find that both patently offensive, and incredibly ridiculous.

I don't expect people to feel sorry, I just hope you all can
open yourself to seeing your behavior for what it is - prejudice.

If you doubt me, just listen next time some nice, proper progressive types talk about white guys. Then--inside your head--replace "white men" with any minority group. See how you feel.

[Cheswick2.0]

87. the difference

White men are not victimized in this society. That's like the KKK claiming affirmative action is racism and discrimination against them.
Get back to me when women and minorities have reached equality. In the meantime try to understand the undeserved advantages you enjoy just because of your status as a white guy. The fact that you could acuse me of prejudice indicates to me that you are not a part of the solution.


I have been involved in lots of party politics. It is never the women or the minority members of the campaign suggesting we should compromise on choice, gun control or affirmative action to win over Joe Sixpack. It is always some white guy, often with a newly minted Poly Sci degree from GWU, who argues that the base compromise.... as if the lack of decent jobs is not reason enough for those guys to voite with us.

[TexasSissy]

84. The Dem. Party isn't abandaning pro-choice platform.

Why bring up something that's not in the works? Seems we have enough to be concerned about w/o worrying about things that are might, but are unlikely to, happen.

[Cheswick2.0]

85. why answer the thread?

I think it is pretty clear why I brought it up.