The DCCC throws women under the bus

[Guinevere]

Just when you thought Dems couldn't possibly be more unraveled than the Republicans, the DCCC Chair is proposing to fund and support anti-choice "Democratic" candidates in red states. I note the chair is a male, and that the most prominent supporter of this plan is also male (although not actually a Democrat), aka Bernie.

I'm horrified. This is about liberty, about economic parity, and about civil rights and human rights. We will not go back.

This editorial says it all, exceptionally well:

"I relate to the flailing panic that is no doubt undergirding such a morally putrescent idea. Nineteen hyenas and a broken vacuum cleaner control the White House, and ice is becoming extinct. I get it. I am desperate and afraid as well. I am prepared to make leviathan compromises to pull us back from that brink. But there is no recognizable version of the Democratic Party that does not fight unequivocally against half its constituents’ being stripped of ownership of their own bodies and lives. This issue represents everything Democrats purport to stand for.

To legislatively oppose abortion is to be, at best, indifferent to the disenfranchisement, suffering and possibly even the death of women. At worst it is to revel in those things, to believe them fundamental to the natural order. Where, exactly, on that spectrum is Luján comfortable placing his party?

Democratic candidates are perfectly welcome to refrain from terminating their own pregnancies. But to be anti-choice on a policy level is absolutely indefensible from an economic justice, racial justice, gender justice and human rights standpoint. And if the Democratic Party does not stand for any of those things, then what on earth is it?

It’s true that the left will have to choose (and soon) between absolute ideological purity and the huge numbers required to seize the rudder of the nation and avert global catastrophe. But abortion is not valid fodder for such compromise, nor is racism, nor is L.G.B.T.Q. equality, nor is any issue that puts people’s fundamental humanity up for debate. Abortion is not a fringe issue. Abortion is liberty."

NYTimesEditorial

I want a big tent. I'm fine with that tent including those personally opposed to abortion but supporting pro-choice law and policy. I want to do everything possible to make abortion rare, birth control accessible and used properly, to ensure women and men are fully educated to make their best possible choice about sex and reproduction. But I cannot and will not ever support anti-choice as a policy option. Never. Ever. I will leave the Democratic Party before I give up this core value.

[Lord Jim]

Well now, this is what I call ironic....

Just as I am standing on the edge of supporting a Democratic take over of the House, you want to start imposing single issue ideological litmus tests that will guarantee that doesn't happen...

Are you saying that if the choice is between a Democratic candidate who opposes Trump, supports expanding medical coverage, supports a higher minimum wage, supports higher taxes on the "the rich", supports increased gun regulation, supports stronger environmental regulations, and a whole range of other Democratic party positions...

And would also be a vote to enable the Democrats to take over the House and make Nancy Pelosi Speaker...

But also happens to be pro-life...

That you would rather have a Republican who supports Trump, and opposes all of those positions, (and was also pro-life) and would be a vote for the Republicans to retain control of the House (and of course the House Judiciary Committee) win, than support that Democrat?

Really?

If that kind of self-defeating single-issue view is common in your party, small wonder you only control both the governorships and state legislatures in six states...

[Big RR]

So in other words a political party should stand for nothing? It can hold no positions that it presumes all its members, and certainly those they support for election, will hold? I don't think Guin opposes the pro life position--she says as much in her post "including those personally opposed to abortion [pro life, right?] but supporting pro-choice law and policy"; hell, few people are pro abortion, but most recognize that there's a big difference between saying "I will never have an abortion" and "you can never have one". There are a lot of issues which are more nuanced and which have positions that are not diametrically opposed to one another, but abortion is not one--you either want to drastically reduce or outlaw abortions, or you want to keep it legal and available. If the dems don't have some basic core tenets, what is their reason for existence?

Now I'll admit I say this as someone who basically doesn't like political parties, and always votes for the person (even though most of them tend to be democratic, I have cast votes for many republicans, even if senatorial elections, as well as many third party candidates), but I do think that a common set of beliefs on serious issues is the only good part of a party.

and while I understand why Bernie and the dem leadership are pushing this, they should be ashamed of themselves.

[Guinevere]

I never said I'd rather have a Republican of any stripe.

BigRR gets it. If you don't stand for something, if there is no line which you would not cross in order to achieve power, you end up with, let's say, the Republicans of 2017, a Trumpanzee as President who can't even get anything through a Congress controlled by his party (except sanctions that he opposes), and how did the editorial writer put it "nineteen hyenas and a broken vacuum cleaner controlling the WH."

[ex-khobar Andy]

And yet and yet . . . If there were a presidential election and the choices, thrown up by the primary process of choosing the most likely winner (= the least of the evils) among the candidates of the parties, were Trump and an anti-choice but otherwise mainstream Democrat, I assume that I would hold my nose and vote for the Dem. I think that in my voting history, I have probably held my nose far more often than not.

I may write more about this in another thread, but for various reasons I have recently been reading about some of the great British scientists from the early half of the 20th century, men of the left such as JBS Haldane and JD Bernal. Both wrote somewhat approvingly of eugenics, although Haldane at least, as one of the great evolutionary biologists, presumably understood that Lysenkoist ideas of inheritance of acquired characteristics were nonsense. So too did Margaret Sanger who more than anyone is responsible for the easy access to birth control and abortion rights in the US. And let's not forget that it wasn't until Griswold in 1966 (had to look that up) that birth control was legitimized in the US. All this is to say that the perfect politician for me does not exist unless I were to become dictator-for-life which I think is a splendid idea: but about which I am realistic enough to understand that there may be those who would disagree.

[Lord Jim]

I never said I'd rather have a Republican of any stripe.

So there are circumstances under which you would support the election of a pro-life Democratic candidate?

[Scooter]

Guin now I am getting the problem BSG was having, even on a widescreen monitor. Please take that ridiculously long link and put it in a tag with a shorter title.

[Big RR]

Jim--I think the answer to your question (at least for me) would have to be, of course, given what the alternative candidate might stand for.

However, Guin was talking more about the democratic party, not individuals, and I think she stated she would not be a member of a political party that did not stand for pro choice--I would not as well.

Again if a party does not stand for something, what is it there for?

[Lord Jim]

It can hold no positions that it presumes all its members, and certainly those they support for election, will hold?

We have plenty of political parties in this country that impose ideological rigidity on all of their candidates; they rarely get more than 1% of the vote...

So in other words a political party should stand for nothing?

American political parties (at least successful ones that are seriously interested in holding power) should stand for broad philosophical principles that are then fleshed-out by a whole set of policy positions. If they choose to exclude support for candidates based on their position on one or two specific policies, even if they embrace the broad principles and most of the positions, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

This is particularly true in the case of the Democratic party in the next election cycle, where their only hope of regaining at least a portion of national power rests with their ability to attract voters who don't agree with all of their policy positions, and that will require candidates in some districts that don't either.

"What you "stand for" doesn't amount to squat if you don't win elections and thus have the ability to put your principles into policy action. If that means accepting a minority faction within the party on some issues that deviate from the majority position, it's a small price to pay.

That's how majority parties are built. The DCCC seems to understand this. (For decades, the Democratic Party in general understood this.)

If a large number of current Democratic voters don't understand this and either insist on nominating candidates that can't win the districts they live in, or stay home if a Democratic nominee doesn't meet their rarefied standards for ideological purity, then they might as well just slap a "Paul Ryan For Speaker" bumper sticker on their car...

[Lord Jim]

However, Guin was talking more about the democratic party, not individuals, and I think she stated she would not be a member of a political party that did not stand for pro choice--

Well Big RR, based on her vociferous criticism of this:

the DCCC Chair is proposing to fund and support anti-choice "Democratic" candidates in red states.

I got the distinct impression that she was opposed to having the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee provide any financial support of any democratic candidates based solely on their position on abortion. That's a far cry from taking pro-choice out of the Democratic Party Platform, or somehow otherwise renouncing the pro-choice position as the party's dominant policy stand.

Presumably the DCCC isn't going around looking for candidates to back because they are pro-life. They're looking for candidates that will have appeal in the districts they are running in, and all they're saying is that if that means in some cases backing a pro-life Democrat who generally supports most party positions they are prepared to do it. They're not going to use a pro-life position as an automatic disqualifier.

It's smart politics, and it's exactly the position they ought to be taking, if they really want to get back into power.

[Big RR]

Well Guin can speak for herself, but I wouldn't support a party that would provide such support to candidates. Smart politics? Certainly, but not where I want my money to go.

Again I think a party has to stand for some bedrock values or it has no value at all. I recall you listing some values you believe are essential--would you support a republican party that would use some of that support to fund candidates who sought to gut the military or otherwise turned away from the principles you listed as nonnegotiable? And that's the point, either all the party's values are up for grabs when its "good politics" or they are not. And if they are, can you give me one reason why I should support one party over the other?

Now don't get me wrong, I think the republican party can embrace (and have done so) left leaning republicans and the democratic party can embrace right leaning democrats (and have done so as well), but we do need some common values to be a party IMHO. We can argue what those values should be (and I think you would not include pro choice as one), but a party has to stand for something other than "we're not the other person".

[MajGenl.Meade]

If, in a given race that will likely result in a Republican win, the viable candidates are a Republican (pro-choice) and a Democrat (pro-life), the Democrat party should simply not help the Dem get elected at all?

Let's suppose both are pro-life - same thing? Don't support the Dem at all but allow the Rep to win?

"Throw everyone else under the bus, just to avoid having a pro-life Dem enter the legislature".

Nose - face. Face - nose

[Big RR]

Is that true of every issue Meade? Let's say it was a dem who supported allowing the cops to beat suspects and said he would try to change the law permit this (and only approve judges who would support this)? What about a dem who supported a return to Jim Crow laws? Or one that wanted to use our nuclear arsenal against (fill in the blank) as a first strike? Or wanted to amend the constitution to outlaw any religion? Or whatever?

Again, unless all our values are up for grabs, everyone can see a scenario where they would ever condone supporting such a candidate, and that is what I think is at play here. You may not see pro choice as rising to that level, but many do; and they will not financially support a party who uses some of that money to support a candidate who espouses a contrary position, regardless of how politically expedient such support might be.

And FWIW, not every issue rises to this level. I am an unashamed opponent of the death penalty, e.g., but would not condition my support of a national party based on some candidates supporting legal execution; I'll still work to end it, but appreciate that not everything can happen at once. I think most of us have issues we feel passionately about that fall into this this category. But some issues are nonnegotiable. it doesn't mean compromises cannot sometime be struck in practice, but it does mean that I want the people I support vigorously endorsing my side of the issue when the compromises are being hammered out--and willing to walk away when the compromise is unacceptable.

[Guinevere]

Guin now I am getting the problem BSG was having, even on a widescreen monitor. Please take that ridiculously long link and put it in a tag with a shorter title.

I don't see it, but edited the link. Better now?

[Scooter]

Yes, thank you.

[Bicycle Bill]

Why would it be necessary to provide easy, unrestricted, inexpensive access to abortion?  After all, we all know what causes pregnancies and how to prevent them (some methods, of course, are more effective than others).  And since the latest catchphrase when it comes to coitus is that "No means No" all intimate relations between a man and a woman are therefore presumed to be consensual, right?  No more rape, no more coercion, no more incest — and if there is, we have laws and courts to deal with any low-life scum who would dare to take advantage of a modern, emancipated, empowered woman who is capable of making her own decisions instead of being treated like chattel.

So long as the prevailing mindset seems to be one in which "enjoying physical intimacy with another human being is one of the greatest experiences we have, and it is an essential part of our humanity" (link) maybe we need to also accept the fact that all actions can and do have consequences.  You overeat, you are likely to gain weight.  You drink to excess, you could wind up with all sorts of maladies including (among others) cirrhosis of the liver.  You fail to keep yourself in good physical shape and you set yourself up for all sorts of respiratory and cardiovascular problems in later life. And if you "enjoy physical intimacy with another human being" you could find that the two of you have reproduced the species.

And it is my personal opinion that a human embryo is not the equivalent of a malignant tumor that needs to be surgically removed from the body as soon as possible.

-"BB"-

[Sue U]

This was precisely the issue in the 2006 Pennsylvania election for US Senate: Bob Casey Jr., a pro-life Democrat (and son of a pro-life Democrat governor) was running against Rick you-should-pardon-the-expression Santorum. A pox on both their houses would have only gotten you more pox.

As long as we vote in this country for candidates and not parties (which maybe should change?), you will always have individual candidates who are out of step with the party on some issue(s), whether great or small. The key to success is to prioritize those issues on which there is the greatest unanimity, because that's where any attempt at legislation is most likely to be successful, and there is only a very limited amount of policy that any government will enact into law. Other stuff, now matter how divisive, becomes unimportant.

[Sue U]

Why would it be necessary to provide easy, unrestricted, inexpensive access to abortion?  After all, we all know what causes pregnancies and how to prevent them (some methods, of course, are more effective than others).  And since the latest catchphrase when it comes to coitus is that "No means No" all intimate relations between a man and a woman are therefore presumed to be consensual, right?  No more rape, no more coercion, no more incest — and if there is, we have laws and courts to deal with any low-life scum who would dare to take advantage of a modern, emancipated, empowered woman who is capable of making her own decisions instead of being treated like chattel.

First, there is a difference between "provid[ing] easy, unrestricted, inexpensive access to abortion" and outlawing abortion and contraception. To conflate the two is disingenuous at best. Second, "a modern, emancipated, empowered woman who is capable of making her own decisions" is capable of choosing to have an abortion or any other medical care that is personal to maintaining her own health, and the government can kindly keep its fat fucking nose out of that decision.

So long as the prevailing mindset seems to be one in which "enjoying physical intimacy with another human being is one of the greatest experiences we have, and it is an essential part of our humanity" (link) maybe we need to also accept the fact that all actions can and do have consequences.  You overeat, you are likely to gain weight.  You drink to excess, you could wind up with all sorts of maladies including (among others) cirrhosis of the liver.  You fail to keep yourself in good physical shape and you set yourself up for all sorts of respiratory and cardiovascular problems in later life. And if you "enjoy physical intimacy with another human being" you could find that the two of you have reproduced the species.

And by that same "logic" we should deny cancer treatment to anyone who smoked, or chose to work in an industry subjecting them to toxic exposures, and deny cardiac care to anyone who doesn't get "enough" exercise, and deny ER trauma care to any motorist who didn't use a seatbelt or cyclist who didn't wear a helmet. You're just full of good ideas.

And it is my personal opinion that a human embryo is not the equivalent of a malignant tumor that needs to be surgically removed from the body as soon as possible.

You're entitled to your opinion, just like every other asshole. But don't impose it on anyone else -- especially when it's not your body, health and life that's affected.

[Big RR]

As long as we vote in this country for candidates and not parties (which maybe should change?), you will always have individual candidates who are out of step with the party on some issue(s), whether great or small. The key to success is to prioritize those issues on which there is the greatest unanimity, because that's where any attempt at legislation is most likely to be successful, and there is only a very limited amount of policy that any government will enact into law. Other stuff, now matter how divisive, becomes unimportant.

so Sue, is there any single issue which would rise to the level of absolutely not, never, in terms of your support for a party? Because I think that is the issue here.

I understand your point about getting legislation passed in the areas where there is the most agreement, but I still maintain that there have to be some positions which the party will not support under any circumstances.

As for your question re voting for a party and not an individual, I see no benefit to that and a lot of downside. I could not support it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

As long as we vote in this country for candidates and not parties (which maybe should change?), you will always have individual candidates who are out of step with the party on some issue(s)

Welcome to the pending disaster that is South African democracy. Voters have no remedy to rid themselves of national government "representatives" who fail to "represent". The party puts up a slate of candidates in a given area - usually including zero people who actually reside there and always including favored apparatchiks - and you vote yes or no. Those folks are are then in for as long as they toe the party line (or share bribes or allow the president to abuse power or support his chosen successor).

It's the party slate or vote for the opposition party slate. Either way, there is no electoral sanction against the lazy, the incompetent, the venal, the criminal, the dishonest.... This applies on a provincial and even local basis as well.

Despite Big RR's unusual obfuscatory herring, the question remains. In an election where the other party is most highly favored to win, should the party refuse to support their own candidate if he or she has one litmus test moral issue that the party does not support? That is, let the bad guy win - even if he/she supports racist, homophobic, pro-rich, policies whereas the good guy is sold on all those.

It is absolutely facetious to equate moral beliefs with illegal beliefs. That is, abortion laws can be changed (as they have been) because there is no universal wrong involved in changing. To advocate murdering black people because they are black - that's universally wrong as is unequal treatment etc. I'm not phrasing this very well but an honest reader would understand the point