MyDD :: Is the Democratic Party really inclusive?

Is the Democratic Party really inclusive?

by falcon4e, Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:08:12 PM EST

It's a question that often baffles me. I'm a pro-life Democrat, but I constantly see posts about how the left wing of my party disapproves of a pro-lifer either on top of the ticket or on Senate races.

I am a Democrat, not because of one issue. But because on the majority of the issues I side with the democrats and I feel ostracized from my party because I'm not pro-"choice."

I read a current journal entry that suggested that the online blogosphere support Rhode Island Senatorial Candidate Matt Brown instead of Congressman Jim Langevin. Langevin is pro-life. Brown is pro-choice. One issue automatically determines how qualified you are to represent your constituency? I totally understand the Democratic party is the party that supports a woman's right to choose, but I also realize it's the party that supports gay and minority rights, health care for those who can't afford it, achieving the best education for all. That's my party right?

Apparently not. If you're pro-life you aren't wanted. Let the people of Rhode Island choose their candidate. Current polls (which mean nothing by the way) have Langevin puttin a whoopin on Lincoln Chafee while Matt Brown trails the Senator. I am GLAD the national party is WISING UP and attracting candidates that give them the best opportunity to win the seat and preach on the principles of what the Democratic Party are about. Ok, we disagree on issue? Can't we be a little more inclusive? I'm happy the party is going after Bob Casey in PA, and Langevin in RI.

The Democratic Party is very out of touch with mainstream American values. That's why they lost last election. Plain and simple. A move to the center will do the party some good, until then, the Republicans will continue their stranglehold on the federal government.

Is the party really inclusive?

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 28 Comments :: Post a Comment

We're inclusive... (none / 0)

...Look here: Democrats For Life.

There are a lot of pro-life Democrats. Jerry Brown is pro-life. Dennis Kucinich is, although he tried to pass last year. There's actually a rich tradition of pro-lifers in the Democratic Party. They just happen to be the kind who oppose the death penalty and pre-emptive war.

by craverguy on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:22:30 PM EST

There's a difference (none / 0)

between being included and being in charge. A lot depends on the district and the mechanics of the individual race. A woman's right to choose is a vital issue that a very large core of the Democratic party supports avidly. Considering the efforts coming from GOPers to dismantle Roe, how do you expect them to react?

You can interpret the party any way you choose. You can make peace with the Pro-Choice majority in the party or you can try to fight it. How you resolve your internal struggle is none of our business. The fundamental dynamics of the Democratic party are not going to change.

Which mainstream values do you believe the Democratic party is out of touch with? Are you talking about the party's failure to address kitchen table economic issues for the middle and working class? Perhaps you mean the failure of the Democratic party to stand up to Bush's ill conceived invasion of Iraq? You might have a point if you explained which values and in which direction you want the party to move.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:35:26 PM EST

Reason for Loss (3.00 / 1)

Can you back this up?

The Democratic Party is very out of touch with mainstream American values. That's why they lost last election. Plain and simple.

The current conventional wisdom is that Democrats lost because too many voters didn't have confidence in Kerry in a time of war. Not to mention the enormous advantage that President Bush had as the commander-in-chief in a time of war.

Which values are Democrats out of touch on with the majority of the American public? Keep in mind, we aren't trying to get Republicans to vote for us, just Democrats and those who don't strongly identify with either party.

by Curt Matlock on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:36:11 PM EST

I agree with this post (none / 0)

I am also pro-life for the most part. Its sort of a nuanced position where I totally disagree with abortions but don't want to press views on anyone else. But the rabid hostility toward anyone who isn't pro-choice makes me question the so called big tent of the party. I don't think that the Democratic Party lacks values, In fact we have more values than the Republicans will ever claim to have.

by NJDEM1 on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:58:47 PM EST

Re: I agree with this post (none / 0)

That is exactly what the Democratic position is. This is a personal matter that everybody is entitled to make according to their individual conscience. The rabid hostility isn't towards those who are pro-choice. It is towards those who would impose their pro-choice beliefs on everyone.

I am not aware of a single Democrat, elected official or voter, who would argue that pro-choice people should be compelled to have an abortion. That's the liberty and majesty of a pro-choice position. Every woman is a queen and the master of her own destiny according to her own conscience.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:44:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Suspicious (3.00 / 1)

Youc ome here, post a diary with the following Republican sounding quote:

The Democratic Party is very out of touch with mainstream American values. That's why they lost last election. Plain and simple. A move to the center will do the party some good,

You also make complaints that lack quotes, links or specifics. Let's just say I'm a little suspicious.

by Chris Bowers on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:19:58 PM EST

Re: Suspicious (none / 0)

Suspicious cause he is new or suspicious because there is a wing of the dem party that wants to move center?

We are often left of the most popular opinion on abortion which IMO is legal but not encouraged.

Its important we don't come off as the Jack Korvikian's of the issue.

by donkeykong on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 07:02:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

anti-choice (none / 0)

....The Democratic Party is very out of touch with mainstream American values. That's why they lost last election. Plain and simple. A move to the center will do the party some good....

Who are you calling "they"?

You can only be "pro-life" if you're also against the death penalty, if you support prenatal and postnatal health programs, if you support access to health care for everyone, if you support humanitarian foreign aid and sustainable development in underdeveloped nations, if you support AIDS research and assistance internationally, and if you are against all wars - just to name a few. Then, and only then will I buy it, otherwise you're just appropriating an extremist created and marketed label for political purposes.

The Democratic Party is in the center. The republicans are the ones who have have skewed far to the lunatic fringe.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:59:09 PM EST

darn tool ain't in the shed (none / 0)

I'm beginning to think people who feel passionately about the abortion issue on both sides of the debate are assholes. The righteousness and the "you don't know what you're talking about" attitude drives me nuts.

Here's how I see. Both camps are wrong.

The Dems aren't gonna win by emphasizing abortion rights with affluent Republicans and GOP women.

The Dems aren't gonna win by moving closer to or taking an anti-abortion position.

So if you're looking for the winning formula for Dems, stop wasting your time on the abortion issue. The tool you're looking for ain't in this shed. Time to go look someplace else.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:40:49 PM EST

Re: darn tool ain't in the shed (none / 0)

Oh, there are plenty of pro-choice GOP women (and men for that matter).

They don't vote on abortion because abortion is still legal. Just wait and see what happens to the GOP "big tent" if and when the fundies get their precious anti-choice legislation through the courts.

by bellarose on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: darn tool ain't in the shed (none / 0)

In case you haven't noticed the GOP has continued to be able to use the abortion issue to motivate a loyal constituency and it hasn't lost them pro-abortion rights Republicans.

But if the best you can do is to advise the Dems to wait until things get really bad, I don't want you doing strategy work for the party.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:37:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: darn tool ain't in the shed (none / 0)

Where did I advise Dems to wait?? I don't think Dems should give an inch on abortion because they're on the right side on this (and most) issues.

In case you haven't noticed, Republicans purposely code their abortion language (re: Bush's Dred Scott reference during the debates) so that they don't scare away moderate, pro-choice Republicans.

As I already typed, this constituency doesn't vote solely on abortion specifically because it's not illegal.

by bellarose on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 06:11:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: darn tool ain't in the shed (none / 0)

Oh, I get it-- you're referencing my "wait and see" to mean "just sit around and don't fight it."

Not so. I think Dems should do everything in their power to stop this type of legislation. But I also know with both houses in his pocket and a potential change in nomination procedures in the works, Bush may be in a position to nominate whomever he chooses to the Supreme Court. This is when a non-issue becomes a real issue for pro-choicers who have previously voted Republican.

by bellarose on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 06:50:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: darn tool ain't in the shed (none / 0)

Quit perpetuating Republican lies.

Once again, Bush doesn't give a damn about abortion. Look at his Texas record if you don't believe me. He just uses the issue to get votes.

Now, Reagan DID have an anti-Roe litmus test and appointed three justices to the court. But only one out of the three actually voted to overturn Roe in 1992. (Scalia voted to overturn, Kennedy and O'Connor voted to uphold)

The current court stands at 6-3 in favor of Roe. Assuming Rehnquist, who voted against the original Roe, is one of the justices who retires, Bush would have to appoint three anti-Roe justices and all three would have to vote that way when a case came up - not very likely.

Even if this unlikely event happens, it would just go back to the states.

If abortion remains legal in your state, then overturning Roe wouldn't motivate that many people. The affluent have had access to safe abortion for years and would continue to do so. Also, while pro-choicers are a majority, they are less likely to vote on that issue alone. I suspect that pro-choice men would be extraordinarily unlikely to vote on that issue alone, and, surprisingly, surveys indicate that men are more pro-choice than women.

by wayward on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 08:21:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: darn tool ain't in the shed (none / 0)

How exactly am I perpetuating Republican lies?

by bellarose on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 08:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: darn tool ain't in the shed (none / 0)

That Republicans, especially Bush, have any serious intention of banning abortion.

They talk about it, they make speeches but won't do a damn thing about it. Why should they? The abortion issue has brought them plenty of single issue voters, especially Catholic voters, for a relatively small price.

If the abortion issue went away, then they couldn't propose unconstitutional and ineffective legislation that makes Democrats look like baby-killers, like the Partial Birth Abortion ban. Even if the Court doesn't strike it down, it wouldn't stop one single abortion, but who would want to say they were for this gruesome procedure?

The Bush Administration has no intention of banning abortion, and it is a shame Democrats perpetuate this myth instead of calling them out as the hypocrites they are.

by wayward on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:15:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: darn tool ain't in the shed (none / 0)

All too true.

Affluent pro-choice Republicans will still vote Republican. (The affluent never have had to worry about "coat hangers".)

Many pro-lifers are socially conservative across the board, and would remain Republican. Moving right may bring some Catholics back, but if the party moves too far, then they risk of losing pro-choice voters to a Green movement of some sort.

All the Democrats need to do is to take a position on abortion that doesn't LOSE them votes. Safe, legal, and very, very, rare.

by wayward on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 08:10:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: darn tool ain't in the shed (none / 0)

"Many pro-lifers are socially conservative across the board, and would remain Republican"

Yep, I agree with you here. But what position doesn't LOSE Dems votes in the future when it comes to people who vote to ban abortion. What changes are you proposing?

by bellarose on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 08:48:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: darn tool ain't in the shed (none / 0)

If these people are anti-choice, then they're anti-choice. Rarely do you see people switching sides on this debate. The only workable strategy is to distract them with economics and hope they forget about it.

by craverguy on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 08:54:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: darn tool ain't in the shed (none / 0)

More about how we talk about it than any changes in policy.

Safe, legal, and rare.

The Democratic Platform should not change, however, I believe that we should talk about steps we would take to reduce abortion. No one likes abortion, but many people do not believe criminalization is a wise option.

Too many women have to face the hard choice between a baby they cannot take care of and an abortion they do not want. While many pro-lifers have good intentions, the simple reality is that the Republican policy of banning abortion, but doing nothing to help women will give women the choice between a baby they REALLY can't take care of and a dangerous, illegal abortion they don't want. That is not acceptable.

As for pro-life Democrats, we should do what the Republicans do when it comes to those who disagree with the party's platform on that subject. Welcome them in and support them, but do not change the platform. Not every Democrat agrees with every plank on the platform, nor should they have to. This issue should not be the defining issue of what it means to be a Democrat.

by wayward on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think guns and trade cost Kerry the election: (3.00 / 1)

If Kerry wasn't anti-gun (proposing a bill to ban semi-autos) and if Kerry took a moderate or left of center position on trade or fair trade, rather than his right of center position; Then he would have won West Virginia, Ohio, and Iowa. Abortion was probably a small degree of it and the party should stop letting abortion special interests groups control the Party.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04024/265080.stm

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:14:20 PM EST

Thank you (none / 0)

Anyone who thinks Kerry lost on abortion doesn't understand how little the GOP cares about that issue.

Guns is a major issue that the GOP fields, because I guarantee you there are many, many more persuadable gun issue voters than there are aboriton issue voters.

The abortion voters have 99 other reasons to hate the Dems. They'll hate us on the gay issue, then hate us on the role of church and state. Then they'll hate us for not endorsing crypto-racism.

Many labor voters are also gun voters. This puts them into an awkward position between the two parties. But, as labor has gone the wayside, and the Dems have done nothing to save it, most of these voters have just chucked it and become GOP on the gun issue.

Revive labor, lay off guns, and the Dems will get these votes.

But, you can't field some jackass like Kerry, who voted for an assault weapons an that bans an arsenal of guns his dumb ass actually owns. That's bullshit, and gun voters seem to smell these things out quicker than most voters.

by jcjcjc on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's where. . . (none / 0)

. . . the difference lies:

If you're a pro-choice Democrat, you don't ever have to have an abortion. You can rail against abortion publically, say what you will to convince your friends not to have abortions, support adoption alternatives, etc.

If you're a "pro-life" Democrat, you're calling for the government to impose an abortion ban on the rest of us.

One position allows for disagreement and choice. The other simply does not.

by bellarose on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:17:35 PM EST

Falcon, I've got a question: (none / 0)

I think most human beings are pro-life. The question is, are you pro-criminalization? Do you advocate criminalizing abortion, and all the consequences that would result from such an act?

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:50:06 PM EST

No abortion litmus test (none / 0)

If Langevin and Casey are the strongest Democrats, then we should support them. I, for one, am particularly disturbed by those in the blogosphere who would oppose otherwise good Democrats over ONE ISSUE, especially when they support more moderate candidates who agree with the platform on this issue. (I wouldn't be suprised if some people here would go so far as to choose Chafee over Langevin because of ONE ISSUE.)

The Democratic Party is very out of touch with mainstream American values. That's why they lost last election. Plain and simple. A move to the center will do the party some good, until then, the Republicans will continue their stranglehold on the federal government.

No, the Democratic Party is in touch with mainstream American values. However, they have done a poor job articulating these values and have let the Republicans define what Democrats stand for. (Sadly, some of our good liberal friends have said some rather tactless things that have done more harm than good.) If Democrats stressed the rest of their platform as much as they do abortion, I guarantee you, we wouldn't be having this conversation because the Democrats would have won.

by wayward on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 08:34:13 PM EST

Ragging on pro-life democrats (none / 0)

or pro-life and pro-contraception Republicans is NOT a way to build bridges and reframe the debate.

I just spent a day with the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which is launching a campaign to preserve access to birth control. (The Bushies are planning to limit access to contraception, step by step, the same way the Right Wing has already cut back on access to abortion.)

A couple of folks from Planned Parenthood pointed out that pro-family planning / anti-choice folks often feel they have no home, but that, when push comes to shove, they'll go with the anti-choice Republicans if they are forced to choose.

Working together to preserve access to contraception (which was illegal for MARRIED folks until Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and illegal for everyone else until 1972) is a WORTHY goal. And if we become a society that is less hostile to caring, respectful conversations about sexuality, then rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion will drop. Right now our rate of teen pregnancy is ten times higher than that of the Netherlands - and our rate of teen abortion is six times higher than theirs.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/news/events/stdytour.htm

Pro-family planning / anti-choice folks bring something to the table. We need them and they need us. Consider accepting them as they are and not trying to change them. They are not the enemy. We have work to do together.

by Frisbeedog on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:25:09 PM EST

Re: Ragging on pro-life democrats (none / 0)

I believe that's Harry Reid's position on the issue. He opposes abortion, but has consistantly voted for access to contraception.

by wayward on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:44:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't need the. . . (none / 0)

. . .anti-choice folks. I'm cool with contraception, however. Family planning has been the way to go since M. Sanger's day.

by bellarose on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:44:06 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.