Back Room Democrats considering throwing another constituency group overboard
" The Guts-Ball Play for the Democrats: Let Roe Go
By: Nick Danger · Section: Social Issues
Writing in The Observer, Gaby Wood mentions the unthinkable: the Democratic Party letting go of its long defense of abortion rights. In this scenario, the Democrats put up little or no struggle against obviously anti-Roe Supreme Court nominees; let the Republicans do the dirty deed. This so that Democrats can put the issue behind them.
Why would they do this? As Wood tells us:
Cynthia Gorney, author of A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars, says she has 'heard it coming from people who you certainly wouldn't have heard it from three or four years ago. It's people who are ardent Democrats, fed up with the vacillations and ineffectiveness of the party. One aspect of that was: we've hung on too long to things that are destructive to us ultimately and clinging to Roe is costing us more than it's gaining us.'
In the Atlantic Monthly, avowed pro-choicer Benjamin Wittes advised abortion-rights supporters to 'let Roe die'. Commitment to it, he wrote, 'has been deeply unhealthy for American democracy'. The battle over Supreme Court nominees is likely to become 'an ugly spectacle in which a single narrow issue pushes to the sidelines discussion of a broad array of other important legal questions' and liberals should have faith in the pro-choice majority.
This thinking might be a bit premature, but surely there are Democrats who see nothing but trouble in long-time Democratic voting blocs like Catholics slipping away; who see promising new Democratic voting blocs like Hispanics drifting into the GOP column, and now even African-Americans are starting to leak from the boat, mostly over these social issues.
So maybe the time has come to throw the feminists under the bus, on the grounds that they have become more trouble than they are worth.
It's an interesting hypothesis, because if Democrats were to do it, they would increase their electoral prospects by quite a bit. Kim Gandy and the NARAL coven would be furious, but what are they going to do, join the GOP?"
Re: Back Room Democrats considering throwing another constituency group overboard
If the GOP makes abortion illegal, they can pretty much throw away the next election.
Re: Back Room Democrats considering throwing another constituency group overboard
That's an interesting view, it might just serve the public right for burying their heads up their arses for so long, maybe that's would it take to shake some people out of their doldrums. I don't see it happening though as a majority of the population still appear to be against overturning it and thus IMO it would be a bit counter-productive.
Re: Back Room Democrats considering throwing another constituency group overboard
Quote:
If the GOP makes abortion illegal, they can pretty much throw away the next election.
They don't have to make it illegal; they know that if it were ever overturned by the SCOTUS (which is highly improbable), the 10th Amendment would kick in, and individual states would create their own guidelines for abortion.
There is no threat to abortion.
Re: Back Room Democrats considering throwing another constituency group overboard
Agreed re abortion reverting to a state's rights issue. However, focusing solely on abortion misses the larger point ... that today's democratic party is essentially split between traditional groups of 'regular americans' and a coalition of special interest groups i.e. feminists, environmentalists, gays, unions etc. As the article points out, dogmatic support by democrats on matters which cater to these special interest groups is beginning to create political fallout which is resulting in a loss of support among traditional 'regular american' supporters i.e. catholics, blacks. Democratic leadership is beginning to realize that catering to the special interest groups may in fact be costing them a great deal in terms of loss of their traditional base.
Re: Back Room Democrats considering throwing another constituency group overboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Agreed re abortion reverting to a state's rights issue. However, focusing solely on abortion misses the larger point ... that today's democratic party is essentially split between traditional groups of 'regular americans' and a coalition of special interest groups i.e. feminists, environmentalists, gays, unions etc. As the article points out, dogmatic support by democrats on matters which cater to these special interest groups is beginning to create political fallout which is resulting in a loss of support among traditional 'regular american' supporters i.e. catholics, blacks. Democratic leadership is beginning to realize that catering to the special interest groups may in fact be costing them a great deal in terms of loss of their traditional base.
Maybe I will write a little article about how the special interests of the republicans - ie corporations, NAFTA, CAFTA, illegal immigrants becoming legal, H1-B/L1 visas killing high tech, outsourcing, the holy rollers influence, secret courts, invasions of privacy, and their love of debt (and then blame the chinese for it) - are pissing off mainstream republicans.
Re: Back Room Democrats considering throwing another constituency group overboard
I agree with Deogol's comment above.
I know some old school republican people who are highly irritated at the current trend of their party leaders to ignore the founding principles of the party itself.
Re: Back Room Democrats considering throwing another constituency group overboard
Melonie, the way you title this thread is laughable.
Where was your "Back room Republicans throw another constituency group overboard" thread about Log Cabin members (Republican gays) when Bush decided to push anti-Gay marriage legislation in the run up to last year's elections? That at least was a deliberately conceived snub of a constituency.
Let me understand you more clearly...If Dems raise a big stink over any judicial nominee who they SUSPECT might overturn RvW, you would APPLAUD them?
Or are they just "damned if they do, damned if they don't" in your eyes? Either they're failing to support feminists and "bailing out", or they're being hopelessly partisan and abusing the right of advice and consent?
I'm sure the feminist movement will be rushing to embrace the Republican party if a Bush-stacked judiciary overturns RvW.
To be clear on my personal views, I'd be quite happy not to see the Dems raise a fuss over this guy. And I wouldn't be too horrified to see RvW disappear, though I think it's a mistake given the current realities of the US.
But I think you're being pretty disingenuous to pick on the Dems for this when you would have launched another thread, equally or more derisive, if the Dems had decided to fight hard against the new nominee (I've already forgotten his name).
Re: Back Room Democrats considering throwing another constituency group overboard
Democracies are typically ruled by coalitions of groups with different agendas, and it is perfectly normal for these coalitions to evolve and shift over time. In parlimentary democracies, these coalitions and the "deals" which hold them together are much more explicit and out-in-the-open than they are in our two party system, but the underlying political reality is not very different. Basically the ascendancy of the Republican Party over the past few decades is due to its gradual wooing of socially conservative Southerners away from the Democratic Party, to which they once adhered rather faithfully.
-Ww
Re: Back Room Democrats considering throwing another constituency group overboard
Quote:
Where was your "Back room Republicans throw another constituency group overboard" thread about Log Cabin members (Republican gays) when Bush decided to push anti-Gay marriage legislation in the run up to last year's elections? That at least was a deliberately conceived snub of a constituency.
Yes indeed it was a calculated decision on the part of republicans, balancing the interest of a few thousand gay republican supporters versus the interest of millions of 'family value' republican supporters, probably handing the support of those few thousand gay former republicans to the democratic party.
However, the democrats face a very different situation due to the fact that the size of each of their 'special interest' supporting groups numbers in the millions, and that the principles/laws/policies advocated by specific groups increasingly result in a clash with the principles/laws/policies advocated by other groups, such that any decision the democrats make in regard to the principles/laws/policies they will advocate or oppose will please one group but piss off a different group. Granted none of these pissed off groups is likely to transfer support to republicans, but it is increasingly likely that the support of pissed off groups could shift to say the Green party. This would again magnify the 'spoiler' effect a la the 2000 presidential election, where Ralph Nader effectively handed the election victory to GWB by siphoning support away from Al Gore.
Quote:
Let me understand you more clearly...If Dems raise a big stink over any judicial nominee who they SUSPECT might overturn RvW, you would APPLAUD them?
The democrats, via taking more and more extreme positions on certain 'special interest' issues, DO run the risk of pissing off remaining 'regular american' democratic supporters. And THESE voters may very well transfer their support to republicans. So yes a high publicity democratic filibuster against Roberts would garner my applause, as it would undoubtedly lead to senate rules being changed by republican senators (i.e. the 'nuclear option') as the very same rules were changed in 1975 by democratic senators.
For the record, my personal opinion on Roe v Wade is that it was an over-reach of the actual content of the US constitution i.e. a de-facto manufactured right to privacy which overshadows other rights, specifically 10th amendment rights. Again my personal opinion is that the subject of abortion should be left to the individual states and their voters to decide. Blue states will always have legal abortion available.
Quote:
I know some old school republican people who are highly irritated at the current trend of their party leaders to ignore the founding principles of the party itself.
This is absolutely true as well. Lots of old timers began looking upon GWB as a fiscal democrat after he introduced the prescription drug entitlement program. However, these very same old timers are highly unlikely to switch their support to democrats, whom they see as even 'worse'.
Re: Back Room Democrats considering throwing another constituency group overboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
...In the Atlantic Monthly, avowed pro-choicer Benjamin Wittes advised abortion-rights supporters to 'let Roe die'. Commitment to it, he wrote, 'has been deeply unhealthy for American democracy'. The battle over Supreme Court nominees is likely to become 'an ugly spectacle in which a single narrow issue pushes to the sidelines discussion of a broad array of other important legal questions' and liberals should have faith in the pro-choice majority...
At last someone on the pro-choice side I can agree with. What the extremists on both sides of the abortion issue need to realize is that there are millions of Americans like me that consider Roe v. Wade an overreach of the constitution and inconsistent with the 10th Amendment. Most Americans would prefer a middle ground on the issue. Saying people want to, "murder" the unborn on consign women to, "back alley abortions" doesn't further understanding one bit. Let's send this back to the states where it should have been decided. That will force the extremists to compromise and we can settle this issue.
I also agree that the abortion issue is going to sideline the much more important issue of the ever-growing power of the federal government. That should be a larger concern to people than someone's opinion on one issue. I have to say that I've been impressed with what I've heard about Judge Roberts' views so far. He seems to favor restricting the power of government, as do I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deogol
Maybe I will write a little article about how the special interests of the republicans - ie corporations, NAFTA, CAFTA, illegal immigrants becoming legal, H1-B/L1 visas killing high tech, outsourcing, the holy rollers influence, secret courts, invasions of privacy, and their love of debt (and then blame the chinese for it) - are pissing off mainstream republicans.
Pissing off mainstream republicans? Then how is it that they been successful in attracting mainstream America? Taking over both houses of congress, winning 5 of the last 7 presidential elections tells me that it is the Republicans that are in touch with mainstream America.
Re: Back Room Democrats considering throwing another constituency group overboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
Pissing off mainstream republicans? Then how is it that they been successful in attracting mainstream America? Taking over both houses of congress, winning 5 of the last 7 presidential elections tells me that it is the Republicans that are in touch with mainstream America.
Because they are like me - voting third party - or not voting at all! They are leaving us behind also. I know many republican oriented (I am registered independent but did lean towards the right - does it show?) people who are ditching the republican party and just plain don't know who to vote for.
I don't have the stats at hand, but I believe I read somewhere where the last election brought out more new voters than ever before. These are new people in the new republican party - not the old vanguard.
Also remember this New Republican Party only won by slim margins. While they won the vote per se, they didn't get much of a mandate from the nearly 50% of the population that doesn't agree with them.
Re: Back Room Democrats considering throwing another constituency group overboard
A few admittedly biased personal observations if I may ...
The republicans learned a painful lesson with Ross Perreau - namely that under America's election system third party candidates only serve to siphon support away from the republican or democratic candidate the third party ideology is closest to. It is arguable that Ross Perreau's candidacy is singlehandedly responsible for the Clinton years. It is also arguable that Ralph Nader's candidacy is singlehandedly responsible for the GWB years. Unlike European parliamentary systems, there is no way for a third party candidate to transfer his 'votes' to another candidate to enable their election as Prime Minister. Therefore in the USA third party voters are not only 'wasting' their vote, they are also arguably actually helping the candidate whose political ideology is the furthest from their own.
Quote:
I believe I read somewhere where the last election brought out more new voters than ever before. These are new people in the new republican party - not the old vanguard
The democratic party has traditionally been very active in drumming up new voter registrations in areas where their support has traditionally been strong i.e. inner cities, union halls, college campi etc. The republican party has traditionally not done much drumming of new voter registrations in areas where their support has traditionally been strong i.e. rural areas, smaller cities. Thus republicans had much more room for improvement than democrats. If the Christian Coalition had any major role in this, it was to stimulate registration of new republican voters. Liberal extremist positions on issues which do not fly well in rural areas i.e. gay marriage only serve to motivate more rural Americans to register to vote in opposition. Of course there's also the issue of many many young people who are beginning to connect the dots regarding gov't payrolls, taxes, social programs, and take home paychecks.
Quote:
Also remember this New Republican Party only won by slim margins. While they won the vote per se, they didn't get much of a mandate from the nearly 50% of the population that doesn't agree with them
Again the differences in US representative republic versus pure democracy. For a fact, under America's laws, the 'huge' majorities which democrats are able to carry in stronghold states like California and New York essentially count the same whether democrats carry 51% or 61% or for that matter 81% of total state votes. Our founding fathers deliberately created this system to inhibit the 'tyranny of the majority' - otherwise Al Gore would have been President (actually not, see below). My personal belief is that this is a good system because it balances the interests of Americans throughout the country as a whole against the 'special interests' of large urban concentrations.
I would also add as a non-democrat New Yorker that attempting to draw conclusions based on US popular vote totals vastly distorts reality - for the simple reason that many republicans in California and New York or Illinois for example know with absolute certainty that their votes are meaningless! Thus only those blue state republicans who wish to make some particular point or those who wish to influence local election results really bother to go out and vote. This causes your popular vote total to be millions of potential votes short i.e. probably 2.5 million additional New York republicans and 1.5 million Illini republicans and 3 million additional California republicans would make the effort to go out and vote if the system was such that their votes actually counted toward national election results. In other words, if republicans in NY and IL and CA knew in 2000 that their votes would actually count towards GWB versus Al Gore for president, many more of them would have showed up at the polls and in all likelihood Al Gore would not have carried the popular vote majority that he did. This fundamental point is conveniently ignored by those who proclaimed that Al Gore actually 'won the election' in 2000, of course.
~