Congrats, “pro-life” Democrats, because you may have just handed the party a health care defeat — Republican strategists know it, and they’re practically giddy.
In the meantime, we have liberals commenting on a huge news website who are basically telling the little ladies to simmer down and wait our turn, because this is a battle best saved for another day. Newsflash to Lanny Davis: There was a 100% private funding requirement under the Capps Amendment — taxpayer dollars were segregated out from private monies. No public funding was going to be used to pay for abortions. And no, Bart Stupak and the Catholic Bishops were not satisfied.
But don’t think too hard about it, gals — the big boys understand that “The pro-choicers have just learned a bitter lesson (well, actually, they received a lesson, but I don’t think they learned it).” They argue that progressives sowed these seeds, because we politicize everything by putting abortion into it — funny, because abortion wasn’t added to the health care bill, it was expressly taken out. Why? Because abortion is health care. Please spare me the view that “abortion has to be in everything, because to a good leftist, politics should permeate everything” — I believe it was the Catholic Bishops and the anti-choicers who politicized this one.
Also, pretty cool that Politico managed to get comments from 16 men — excluding the male moderator — and only 5 women. Three times as many men discussing a policy that impacts women ain’t so bad, right? And that they had the ability to secure a statement from the chairman of IMG – who I’m sure is an expert on reproductive rights — but couldn’t get a single statement from the leader of a women’s organization.
And we wonder why this amendment was even up for discussion.
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
Jill,
(Forgive the off-topic first half of this comment, as it is mostly in response to your earlier post on the Stupak Amendment, for which the comments are now closed.)
The problem facing the supporters of reproductive rights–including abortion–and the Democratic Party is that those supporters are expendable. The Pro-Life/Anti-Choice lobby has simply done a far better job in framing the issue and controlling the debate since Roe v. Wade. And honestly, are you going to pack up and find kindred spirits in the Republican Party on this issue?
So yes, outrage is warranted on this issue and yes, perhaps serious challenges and wins by staunch Pro-Choice candidates in the Democratic primaries can help. Sadly, I predict such a strategy would more likely turn into a “DINO hunt” than result in positive incremental outcomes supporters of Choice in a vein similar to the eating of their own currently occurring in the Republican Party.
The reality is, when the question of supporting women’s reproductive rights is framed the way it is currently, I fear there really isn’t overwhelming support in America, or even in the Democratic Party. So while it is undoubtedly an issue of indifference towards women, and an issue probably fuelled, in part by unrecognized misogyny from many, what is the end goal for supporters of reproductive rights? Do you want to win over popular support for your position? Or do you want the immediate pleasure of name calling and demonizing those who voted for the Stupak Amendment?
If the latter, then by all means lash out and call it the way you see it, act rashly and without a long-term strategy with an endgame. You are certainly entitled to do so and have valid reason. If the former, ask yourself if someone called you a bigot of some type (even if all objective evidence pointed to the affirmative), would you be likely to listen to their counterargument? Is the argument (again, disregarding whether or not it is true, because this is politics and you don’t need truth, you need 51%, which is ironic, because that is probably the percentage of the vote women have in the United States) that women deserve control over their bodies one that is winning, as presently constructed? Is there a better way to frame the issue (perhaps with photos of septic abortion fatalities from women–the #1 killer of African American women of child bearing age pre-Roe, e.g.)?
Because the people on the other side are supremely motivated. They stand out in the rain and the cold and hold hands and pray in front of Planned Parenthood on awful weather days with a dedication I lack. I’m sure every supporter of reproductive rights is well aware of this, but the fact is that the opposition has been winning the ground game for a few decades now. Perhaps a change in strategy, a little less blame on “pro-life” Dems and a little more hard work on getting the debate framed on OUR terms is warranted.
2008 showed the Democratic platform, including unwavering protections for reproductive rights (it was part of it), can be a winning formula when everyone shows up. 2009 showed those who bet 2008 was an anomaly might be right.
Nicholas,
Maybe YOU lack the dedication, not being personally and directly affected by this, but plenty of us HAVE been active and dedicated on the Pro-choice side. Many women have worked as clinic escorts and counselors (often to great physical danger to themselves), counter protesters, and lobbied, hard, for reproductive rights.
Do not presume that the rest of the movement feels as indifferent as you do.
Everyone is outraged by the Stupak Amendment. We need to be outraged by this BS the government is trying to pass off as healthcare reform. With or without the Stupak Amendment women (especially poor women) will continue to suffer from our half-ass health system. What are we going to do about that?
Blaming pro-choice organizations (or any other human rights organization) for not doing enough is like saying “you haven’t begged hard enough to them for them to treat you like a decent human being”.
The problem is not with the organizations begging, or the members not working hard enough. The fact is that women’s rights in general time and time again is put in the hands of people who seek to remove them, whether it be put to a popular vote as to who to throw under the bus this time, or whether legislation ensuring rights gets put to a government that is openly hostile to granting them.
Well, apologies to anyone who took my comment as questioning the dedication of the Pro-Choice side. My main argument is that we’re not exactly winning the debate, so maybe we need to get more people motivated.
If it feels better to point out the dedication of the many people committed to this issue along with my lack of biological self-interest (quite correctly, as my uterus doesn’t exist), by all means do so. But, the reproductive rights side didn’t exaclty score a big win on the Stupak Amendment, did we?
Everyone is outraged by the Stupak Amendment.
I disagree. I believe a majority of everyone does not even know what it was, and of those knowledgeable about the Stupak Amendment on both sides, I highly doubt everyone is actually outraged. Worse, I believe polling will likely support my position.
So my liberty loving, Pro-Choicers (and I mean this with full sincerity, the Pro-Choice position is the only position that promotes individual liberty): why should I, biologically incapable of being affected by the Stupak Amendment, care about this issue and support the Pro-Choice cause with enough motivation to inflict negative political consequences on those who vote against our side? (Note: I actually know why I am interested, but I gather many others are smarter than me and have better arguments).
That, I argue, is the primary question we ought to be answering.
Here is why you should care, Nicholas: this is a human rights issue. Human beings should have the right to control their own bodies. With the Stupak Amendment, women are denied some of that control.
not only are we now NOT going to be paying for legitimate, real, useful, medical care, the bill will pay for faith healing. Prayer treatments. Yes… prayer treatments covered under health insurance… abortion not. Maybe I could get someone to pray my pregnancy away?
Nicholas, that’s a silly primary question. Its like asking white people why should they care about racism which directly impacts POC (although we will all feel the effects).
Women are human beings and deserve human rights just like everyone else. That’s why you and all other people who are biologically incapable of being affected by the Stupak Amendment should care and support the pro choice movements.
I think Nicholas’s point was a strategic one rather than an ideological one. Of course women are human beings and deserve human rights and everyone should care and support pro-choice movements; but Nicholas isn’t asking you to convince him personally, he’s asking for how we frame this issue in a way that will reap bigger benefits. Because so far, the anti-choice movement is beating us in that realm. And yes, they’re wrong and they’re misogynist, but at the end of the day that doesn’t matter, so long as our reproductive rights are up to legislative whims. The strategy conversation is an important one to have.
and what’s wrong with the reproductive rights is a human rights issue?
If it feels better to point out the dedication of the many people committed to this issue along with my lack of biological self-interest (quite correctly, as my uterus doesn’t exist), by all means do so.
You were the one making shitty little comments about the lack of dedication of pro-choicers. This isn’t to make me “feel better” but I am quite amused by your patronizing tone. I said that to point out that while *you* may not be that passionate about it, *you* do not represent everyone. There are reasons why pro-choicers are so passionate, and contrary to popular belief, we aren’t outnumbered. We tend to be in the majority–we’re just saddled with so-called liberals who cave at the slightest hint of a fight.
Here’s the thing: You want to start talking about a long-term strategy and an endgame, decry lashing out? Great. Turn this on the fauxgressives and the sellout Dems who have been actively working to undermine the rights we already have, demolish the insurance coverage we already get, and then disingenuously scold us silly plebes for being angry and agitating for the amendment to be dropped.
why should I, biologically incapable of being affected by the Stupak Amendment, care about this issue and support the Pro-Choice cause with enough motivation to inflict negative political consequences on those who vote against our side?
Um, because Dems will lose the support of me, and many women like me, and that WILL be the death knell of the party. Why should I continue to support the Dems when they continue to throw me under the bus? Women, gays, the poor, and people of color are always supposed to suck it up and take one for the team lest Team Lefty take a massive hit–witness welfare deform, DOMA, NAFTA, the attack on reproductive rights. Well, the shoe’s on the other foot.
This amendment, co-authored by a Democrat, and supported by Democrats, was ridiculously divisive, not to mention unnecessary. The conservatives who were against the bill still voted against the bill while supporting the amendment. (Hell, so did some of the Democrats who loved them some Stupak-Pitts). Yet it’s women and pro-choicers who are being blamed for divisiveness and torpedoing health care reform. Where’s the scrutiny against the people who voted for the amendment and against the bill? Where’s the outrage against them? If it makes fauxgressives feel better to scapegoat women who value their reproductive rights and access to healthcare, have at it, but know that you’re missing the bigger issue. Again–many of the very people who voted for the amendment still voted against the bill. Including all but one Republican. So what was the point of this little exercise, exactly? What did Stupak et. al. accomplish besides fucking up the prospect of healthcare reform and alienating the base? These are the primary questions the Dems need to be asking themselves.
Nothing. But that isn’t how it’s been framed to most Americans, not outside of feminist circles.
The problem is that abortion is complicated; human rights is a complex concept. The antis rely on other people not thinking too hard about it — they throw out “baby-killer!” and call it a day. Our argument is more nuanced, which doesn’t make us less right, but it makes it harder to sell. Not disagreeing with your points, just thinking out loud.
There seems to be a lot of faith in a “reproductive rights are human rights” argument here. Marriage is a constitutionally protected right held by humans under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Yet homosexuals are being denied this Constitutionally guaranteed right in an overwhelming majority of this country, losing more often than winning on the “marriage is a human right” argument. “Human rights” are an abstraction with a spotty track record of winning over a majority (it seems to take dogs-and-firehoses-turned-against-citizens to tip the public opinion with this argument). And I do think we absolutely want to incorporate the human rights argument as part of an overarching, broader strategy in winning the debate on this one, presicely because it IS the right argument.
However, as debate is currently framed (by the opposition), we can either sit idly by and hope the Supreme Court continues upholding reproductive rights, or we can pick a strategy that re-frames the debate by asking our questions. I know everyone feels passionately they are on the winning side of the debate on the reproductive rights issue, but we have to be able to make a more persuasive argument than it’s a “human right,” because the other side has quite a convincing emotional appeal with the “innocence of the unborn potentiality of human life” argument.
Additionally, Nate Silver weighed in on the Stupak Amendment with an electoral breakdown here:
Relevant quote:
“And it may also be revealing of how [Democratic Representatives] perceive their own base: whereas health care is a sine qua non for most Democratic base voters, they seem to be betting that the pro-choice position might no longer be.” (Emphasis added).
They’re betting against our current strategy. Ask yourselves, why are they taking that chance? It’s certainly not because we’ve persuaded them of the ramifications of going against our position in a majority wins election.
/link embed fail.
My apologies for the poor link embedding. I suck at that.
Jill, public opinion on abortion is divided pretty evenly; I don’t think that “most Americans” are pro-forced birth. I think most of them don’t believe it will happen to them, so therefore, it’s not a big deal.
You know what helps frame the issue? When pro-forced-birthers call late-term abortions “partial birth abortions” and insist that everyone can get an abortion up until the day of delivery and Dems/liberals follow suit. When our supposed allies act like it’s a horrible tragedy that should inspire compassion as long as it’s not some slut getting an abortion. When our supposed liberal leaders are too damn spineless to unapologetically support reproductive rights and counter the lies and spin of the radical right.
And not for nothing, but this also has a lot to do with the Dems caving on this issue for so long. It’s always been quite the bargaining chip, because hey! We’re just bitches after all. Their willingness to concede on reproductive rights (the Hyde Amendment, refusal clauses, denying BC and EC coverage and access, etc.) has weakened reproductive rights–why wouldn’t the radical, misogynist right feel confident in working to further undermine our civil and human rights?
I totally agree, Sheelzebub. But what I find interesting is that while most Americans think abortion should be legal, a whole lot of them identify as “pro-life” — even when, after you scratch the surface, you realize their position is totally consistent with the pro-choice view. That’s a problem that needs to be countered.
And yes, our supposed allies have failed us again and again and again. It’s really fucking frustrating. Agred that it goes beyond framing and into the weakness of the Democratic party generally, and their lack of commitment to women.
But what I find interesting is that while most Americans think abortion should be legal, a whole lot of them identify as “pro-life” — even when, after you scratch the surface, you realize their position is totally consistent with the pro-choice view. That’s a problem that needs to be countered.
You can be personally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice. I know a lot of people like that–they’d have the baby in a heartbeat if they learned they were pregnant, but they are very much opposed to any moves to restrict access to abortion or birth control. If they believe we should be able to get abortions, then I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily a problem that needs to be countered.
Our allies failing us is a BIG reason why we are in this muddle now. It has fuck all to do with convincing people that we really are human beings and deserve rights or making up a great soundbite. Pro-forced birth assholes have alienated everyday people with their terrorism and the murders of doctors. But in the political arena, our allies are giving way too much ground to pro-forced birthers. That’s where a big chunk of the problem is.
I mean, not for nothing, but there’s a huge perception out there that a lot of C-level executives are overpaid and corrupt. Have you seen any effective moves to limit their pay, stock options, or other entitlements? Me either. Perception doesn’t get jack squat done. The people in power do. And the supposed allies we have in power have failed us miserably, and repeatedly.
I would like to point out that women have the votes generally (and overwhelmingly within the Democratic Party) to dictate whatever policies they wish to in a majority wins election, if they voted in biological lockstep.
So why are votes on women’s reproductive rights issues so easy to sacrifice?
The only conclusion one can draw is that the current strategy for promoting the cause of reproductive rights is not a winner. We can bleat about failed leadership, but the reality is, they aren’t failing because they don’t fear retribution. We haven’t shown we have enough votes to punish a deviation from our position, therefore they don’t have the incentive to care.
*are failing
it’s because all those women who are pro-choice but “would have the baby” aren’t worried quite so much about it because they are *so sure* they will never need to take advantage of it. It’s how so many people are satisfied with their current insurance coverage not realizing whether or not they could be lost due to some paperwork nicety if they ever actually got sick. Then those women do get pregnant, realize that… oops, I actually was wrong about what I would want to do. And/or the fetus has anomalies incompatible with life or her health is endangered and she has to jump through all the hoops.
Or that we’ve been told that the Dems are the only good option, because where else do we have to go–the GOP?
Remember 2000? If it happens again, the Dems will have no one but themselves to blame. They already had a taste of retribution (muted, as many folks were genuinely scared of GWB). According to the Dems, who demonized Nader voters, that small percentage WAS just enough to punish them for their crappy treatment of the base. It didn’t deter them then, either. Did they listen to the base then? Nope.
Oddly enough, when we make noise about voting in our interests, there’s an awful lot of bleating about how divisive and horrible we are, and how–how did you put it, Nicholas? Oh, yes: And honestly, are you going to pack up and find kindred spirits in the Republican Party on this issue?
So, which is it? Lump it or leave it? Or fuck the Dems? I’m just struck by how on one hand, we’re foolish and divisive if we vote our interests, and on the other, we’re asking for it if we don’t.
I’m not about to vote GOP ever (unless they change every last part of their platform to progressive) but the Greens are looking better and better. I’ve voted Independent and/or Green before. I doubt I’ll be the only one who does it from here on out.
Sheelzebub,
The alternative is to plan a long-term strategy to make it known that deviation from pro-choice voting = primary loss.
And now that I think about it, picking off anti-choice Democrats in the primary, at the risk of losing to a Republican in the general election, is probably the best long-term strategy for voters whose overarching concern is reproductive rights (I came full-circle there, Jill). Of course, the short-term consequence is, potentially, Republican control of Congress.
While a Green or Independent vote will please the conscience, I am of the opinion that most likely wasted (my personal belief) based on the historical strength of the two-party American system, the self-interest of both parties to perpetuate the system, and the general preference of the American electorate for incrementalism throughout our history.
Them’s the rub of the rules to the election game in our Republic.
The alternative is to plan a long-term strategy to make it known that deviation from pro-choice voting = primary loss.
And that’s what a lot of people have been talking about doing. But then, we’ve been accused of being divisive, unfair, and irrational, and not planning a long-term strategy. Which is bullshit.
Those of us who remember the bad old days, when abortion was illegal, need to make our voices heard and remind people how many women died during those times.
Not so long before Roe v. Wade, full-page ads in major newspapers across the country were signed by many well-known professional women and celebrities declaring that they had undergone illegal abortions and urging the congress and the country to change the law and save women’s lives. Maybe more women today need to speak up about their abortions–and dispell the notion promoted by the right that abortions are a means of birth control for the irresponsible or the selfish–and make it known that women choose not to continue a pregnancy for a variety of reasons that are neither frivolous nor impetutous.
I am pro-choice, but I am one of those women who identify more as “pro-life” probably because of how the abortion debate has been framed. Pro-choice and Anti-abortion ask two entirely different questions, both avoiding the other’s moral dilemma:
Pro-choice asks: “Do you think women have a right to make their own reproductive decisions?” (the decision solely hinges on women, and the rights of women). Anti-abortion asks: “Do you think life begins at conception?” (the decision solely hinges on your belief of life, whether based on religion or personal notions). My first answer to that question is yes, but my second answer is less decisive, but probably yes. So that puts me in a very difficult spot. The argument of personal rights pales in comparison to the argument that something is murder. That’s the deciding factor for a lot of people.
The reason I am pro-choice is that I believe that banning abortion would be sanctioning the preventable death of women, and I do believe that aspect should be emphasized. Stories of the days when abortion was illegal, as oldlady mentioned, would make a difference. Younger generations don’t hear these stories at all, and it’s a very big blank spot in our conscious decisions about abortion.
I’m not optimistic about the future of reproductive rights in America: I’m one of the only remotely pro-choice people out of my friends, most of whom are women. Please feel free to disagree with me totally or use my opinions for a springboard; I would love to hear any other personal reasons for being pro-choice.
For those curious, I just posted the entire text of the Stupak Amendment up at my blog and analyzed it.
I really wish I hadn’t looked up the exact wording. It’s way way way way worse than I thought.
Included in it, by the way, are provisions that make it so that insurance companies that choose to offer abortion coverage (and they don’t have to) are forced to make up the overhead costs entirely off the backs of women buying the plans. They can’t get any funds from the federal government whatsoever for those plans. This, of course, means that women who choose to go the private route and get coverage for abortions will have to pay extremely high premiums and basically agree to never use federal funds for anything.
Fucking awesome
@Nicholas: It isn’t just women that are furious about this. I’m not a woman, but I’ve been a clinic escort and to many pro-life rallies – and I’m angry enough to chew steel and spit nails.
So ask yourself this about the bill: Will throwing away the rights of women have been worth it when most of the liberals and a lot of the moderate women are utterly unmotivated to vote for a Democrat and they face catastrophic losses next election cycle? Especially when the bill hasn’t even begun yet and is gutted by the Republicans? Voting for the lesser of two evils is no longer good enough for some of us.
le-sigh Wish I could edit my comment. I meant pro-*choice* rallies. Apparently I’m also mad enough to chew grammar and spit out the exact opposite of what I meant.
Simple, Nicholas. The reason Stupak is a big deal for people who aren’t going to get abortions (aside from pesky little things like human rights) is what it means and represents. Women, like all oppressed groups, are the canaries in the mines. What does the Stupak Amendment do on a basic level? It politicizes certain kinds of health care and uses the existence of a government funded/dominated system as an excuse to control individual behavior. Right now that gun is aimed at women, but anyone who believes that busybodies and assholes will stop there is a fool.
What Stupak does, before health care reform is even passed, is make the details of someone’s health care needs a matter open for public debate and manipulation. Today its abortion, tomorrow it’s eating choices (diabetes is expensive and we need to cut costs by making fatties control themselves), sexuality (how long do you think its going to be until the next Jesse Helms goes after AIDS care in the name of making life harder for gays), really anything some local congressman can work out a way to try to influence by holding health care hostage.
So the reason you, biologically incapable of being affected directly by the Stupak amendment, should care is because you are affected by it. You’re affected by the precedent it sets. You’re affected because the oppression faced by one group hurts us all. You’re affected because at some point you’ll be the target if this kind of power is tolerated. You’re affected because once they’ve finished beating down the women and the poor people and the fat people and the gays eventually they’ll need a new target and your time will come.
And once you’re done with that, you ought to care because you’re an American and seeing others oppressed ought to make you angry. We’re a country thats ostensibly based on the idea that liberty isn’t just worth dying for, its worth killing for; a country where the ideal (however poor our track record of living up to it is) is that people ought to be free and the urge to control others is repulsive. Its time to start acting like liberty actually means something to us rather than treating it as something we have to be vaguely ashamed of (abortion, gay marriage, medical marijuana) because the closet fascists might take offense. You want to know how we should make people care? We could start by not wringing our hands and trying to appease petty tyrants and instead saying what everyone knows to be true and shaming the people who have somehow managed to convince us that its against the rules to call them monsters to their faces.
Nietzsche said that “It is not their love of humanity but the impotence of their love of humanity that prevents today’s Christians—from burning us.” We need to call Stupak and his ilk for what they are. They are petty, vile, arrogant, little men who seek to limit the constitutional rights of others for purely religious reasons. The only difference between him and any other religiously motivated terrorist is the tools he uses to oppress and the relative impotence of his movement.
I’d also like to point out to folks that when it comes to reframing the debate, it’s quite difficult when no one is interested in what actual women have to say about this. Besides Rachel Maddow and Laura Flanders, there has been very little focus on what the pro-choice side thinks or how this will actually hurt women. We have gotten a lot of (overwhelmingly White), male talking heads nodding towards the amendment but shrugging it off.
If they don’t think you’re worth listening to, they aren’t going to be convinced. So I don’t think we should be playing nice with these misogynist dirtbags. They need to pay, very dearly in the upcoming elections, for fucking us over yet again. And when they whinge about “narrow focus” and “pet issues” we need to tell them to suck it up and deal–they’re happy enough to pander to the right, they should bloody well pander to their base. Don’t want to? Then your turncoat ass gets thrown out of office and we throw our support behind people who WILL regard us as human beings and act accordingly.
They need to pay, very dearly in the upcoming elections, for fucking us over yet again. And when they whinge about “narrow focus” and “pet issues” we need to tell them to suck it up and deal–they’re happy enough to pander to the right, they should bloody well pander to their base.
I cosign to everything that Sheelzebub said on this thread, but most especially this. I am so, so, damn sick and tired of the incessant Democratic pandering to the “angry white males”, the “suburban soccer (or security) moms”, the evangelicals and others who seldom show any tendency to vote Democratic, while gleefully abandoning what used to be their core base—the schmucks like me who would still go out and walk precincts, phone bank, fundraise, vote in primary as well as main elections….you know what? My ass is up for kissing this year.
The Stupak Amendment is shit. It’s a slap in the face. And so is the Senate bill’s $10,000-per-family out of pocket ceiling. The whole health care bill from top to bottom has become nothing but a sop for the same insurance companies that have been fucking over the U.S. public for decades.
Yeah, the Greens are seriously looking pretty damn good.
Nina
No one cares about human rights. History shows this.
Furthermore, in this case it has no clear relevance to people who don’t already believe women are human. And there are fewer such people than you might think, or at least fewer than I think.
Sheelzebub:
They do believe that, but they also consider that the “pro-life” position, which skews politicians’ and the public’s perception of the balance of opinion. When anti-choicers say “X% of Americans idntify themselves as ‘pro-life’,” how many of those X% are really pro-choice? How much stronger would we look if they were identified as such? The Republican won at least four of the last five mayoral elections in New York, but three of those five were Mike Bloomberg, who’d fit right (no pun intended) in at the DNC (and indeed was a Democrat ten years ago). But you can see an ill-informed Republican bragging about how even lefty New York City is going GOP.
Now, bear in mind that Jill’s a lawyer and I’m a flack and, as such, I’m looking and I believe she’s looking at how to present the argument to people who aren’t already on the side of human rights, not at the merits of the argument itself.
Well, yes and no. Is there no visible progress on corporate pay? There will be, or at least might be, if people stay angry about it long enough. But not if people become convinced that the pay is fair. If perception weren’t important, the term “partial-birth abortion” would never have been promulgated.
I am as opposed to Stupak as I could possibly be. I am a choice absolutist. My representative and both my senators are clearly opposed to Stupak, even the DINO, but otherwise I would definitely have sent letters. And yet I don’t think “how can we get the public, and by extention elected officials, to support reproductive freedom?” is a traitorous question to ask; I don’t think one has to be anti-choice to ask it.
How can you possibly be surprised? A bunch of politicians who are paid the kind of money and receive the kind of benefits you and I will never see pandered to the kinds of people who can keep them on the gravy training rather than working schmucks like us? The same people who have been fucking us over and breaking promises since before either of us were born fucked us over and broke a promise? A fast talking politician from the dirtiest political machine in the country let us down? The populist conservative assholes with the donkey mascot weren’t radically different from the populist conservatives with a elephant mascot? This bill helps primarily big businesses just like the last few hundred thousand have?
“Hope,” like “patriot,” is just another word for “fucked.”
Oh William, I am not surprised. Except for one thing….the level of political stupidity that is being displayed by the Democratic Party at the national level. Because although the Chicago Machine can be accused of many things, political stupidity ain’t one of ‘em. They did and do take care of their own, and that’s one of the reasons they have been in power for so many years.
The Dems are strongly alienating their (remaining) core constituency, in a futile attempt to attract the support of folks and institutions highly opposed to them. Pissing off large swathes of women and organized labor is not gonna bode well for the next round of elections. Like Sheelz said—it’s not like we’re gonna for Tweedledum, but we will be missed when we’re gone. And yes, that will be too late.
Hershele, remember the bankruptcy bill? It was one of those rare times that the right and left wing of the population worked together–so many of us called our representatives that the lines shut down. We emailed and called and put the pressure on for our elected representatives to vote against it.
They knew very well that popular opinion was not in favor of them voting for it. And the bill passed anyway.
And yet I don’t think “how can we get the public, and by extention elected officials, to support reproductive freedom?” is a traitorous question to ask;
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that asking the question was traitorous–I said that it was moot as public opinion was consistently divided on the issue. I disagreed that more and more people are anti-choice. I pointed out that most of these politicians don’t give a flying fuck what women think–again, witness the lack of women being interviewed on a measure that directly impacts them. Witness the entitlement and whining from politicians now that they’re feeling the blowback from this–they are making it obvious that they don’t give a fuck.
The people I called turncoats were Stupak and the fauxgressives who voted for his regressive, misogynist amendment. I stand by that. When you consistently tell your base that your party is pro-choice and therefore deserves the votes of women, it’s shitty to not only support anti-choice legislation, but to co-author it. When reproductive rights are part of your party’s platform, it’s ridiculous that you co-sponsor an amendment that contradicts that and/or support such an amendment.
Is there no visible progress on corporate pay? There will be, or at least might be, if people stay angry about it long enough. But not if people become convinced that the pay is fair. If perception weren’t important, the term “partial-birth abortion” would never have been promulgated.
People have been pissed off about executive pay and perks for years–this isn’t something that just came on the scene in 2007, FFS. And partial birth abortion was promulgated thanks, in part, to the Dems who knew goddamn well that the proper term was “late term abortion.” Choice activists and just everyday folks who knew this trumpeted this from every street corner and every spire, countless articles and news outlets (which promptly got buried under a sea of right-wing misinformation in the interests of being fair at expense of being accurate). However, if the opposition refuses to listen, and fair-weather allies refuse to amplify and consistently counter the narrative the opposition is pushing, no one will hear.
You’ll just have to forgive me if I’d rather use my energy in supporting people who WILL amplify the message and who WILL fight for me, rather than convince people who call me a baby-killer and a whore that BC, gynocological exams, pre- and post-natal care, EC, and abortion are good things.
I’m not sure it is political stupidity. If theres one thing the Democratic party has learned, its that you can treat your base as poorly as you want because they’ll always know that the other side will be worse. A few individual women might opt not to vote for the dems next time around, but ultimately most who care about abortion will end up voting for the Democrats because the GOP would be worse. Same goes for minorities, same goes for the GLBTQI community, same goes for labor. Vote for the greens and you hand the election to the GOP and get another Bush. Thats the Democrats strategy right now: “Hey, we might be bad, but look at the alternative.”
I think the Democratic establishment is betting that, come November, women and labor concerns will look at Palin (or Huckabee, or Gingrich, or whatever fresh horrors the GOP has to offer) and flinch. The thing that has me so despondent is that, right now, I’m pretty sure they’re right, what other choice do we have?
I’m not sure it is political stupidity. If theres one thing the Democratic party has learned, its that you can treat your base as poorly as you want because they’ll always know that the other side will be worse. A few individual women might opt not to vote for the dems next time around, but ultimately most who care about abortion will end up voting for the Democrats because the GOP would be worse. Same goes for minorities, same goes for the GLBTQI community, same goes for labor. Vote for the greens and you hand the election to the GOP and get another Bush. Thats the Democrats strategy right now: “Hey, we might be bad, but look at the alternative.”
I think the Democratic establishment is betting that, come November, women and labor concerns will look at Palin (or Huckabee, or Gingrich, or whatever fresh horrors the GOP has to offer) and flinch. The thing that has me so despondent is that, right now, I’m pretty sure they’re right, what other choice do we have?
William, I don’t think people are going to flinch this time. It’s been too bad for too long (remember, I’m writing this from the Rust Belt!), and the overarching feeling of betrayal has reached a critical mass. This next round of elections is going to see a critical mass of severely pissed off individuals wanting to share their pain with the folks who’ve abandoned them—and the only way they can do that is by turning their backs. Hard.
Don’t underestimate the isolation of the Beltway. They are counting on the dynamic you’ve described—but from what I see and hear on an everyday basis, they’re going to be sorely mistaken.
William, while I agree with you that the Dems rely far too much on the “look at the alternative, we’re better than them at least” strategy, I also agree with La Lubu that this is political stupidity on their part.
Here’s the thing: the progressive wing of the party was pissed off enough in 2000 after eight years of Clinton era NAFTA, DOMA, don’t-ask-don’t-tell, welfare deform, and anti-choice moves that many people voted Green. Not as many as could have–people were genuinely afraid of GWB. But enough did that Gore didn’t win the election. And what happened? Progressives were told that we owed the Dems our votes, that we were being divisive, that everything that happened during the Bush regime was our fault. Not one Democrat stopped to think that, gee, maybe it would have been a good idea to listen to our base–this probably wouldn’t have happened if we did. They were so muddled by their entitlement that it never occurred to them that they should, you know, take this as a lesson.
This is an excellent post. Thank you for sharing and all the comment have been enlightening.
I admit, I was one of those Democrats who screamed at people for voting for Nader. I didn’t understand voting for a third party with no chance of winning. For me, voting was the between the lesser of two evils. I didn’t understand that you really aren’t better off choosing the lesser of two evils. You celebrate a victory without examining who you brought home.
In the long term, allowing the lesser evil character to fail is better for us. As much as I hate to think of McCain or Palin in office, with all the damage they can do. But think of what the lesser evil candidate does — he or she doesn’t further health care coverage, doesn’t invest in our educational system, doesn’t rebuild roads and infrastructure, doesn’t expand opportunities for the poor, doesn’t fight for our reproductive rights, doesn’t end wars, doesn’t end unfair policies set in place by predecessors. No, the only “accomplishment” is maintaining the status quo.
I now think it’s better to vote you’re conscience. Build on what you believe in. If we do, in time we could have a viable third party build that is a contender in regional and nation elections. But it will never happen the longer we keep thinking short time. This election cycle. The next presidential race. To be successful we have to think bigger, a generational movement.
Seeing it through this lens, the “evil” candidate is actually a strength for us. He or she serves as the biggest reminder that things aren’t the way they should be and motivates us to fight for a reality more in line with progressive values. Remember how riled up the progressive base was at the end of Bush’s last term? In the short term, it’s a bitter pill to swallow but on the other side is hope. The things we tolerate will not change. We have to stop tolerating the status quo and that start with withdrawing our support from democrats who do not support out values.
I hope you’re right, I really do. I’ve just never seen betting against the stupidity, pettiness, ignorance, and fear of human beings pay off. I’d dearly love to eat my words, but I’m fresh out of hope.
regarding the link with that dude mansplaining how pro-choicers (and other supporters of health care reform) need to learn that the problem with nationalized health care is that you don’t get to decide what gets covered: um, I don’t get to decide what is covered now. it’s not like my current options give me a lot of choice. with nationalized health care, however, I get a VOTE (via my reps) and I fucking plan on using it.
“This next round of elections is going to see a critical mass of severely pissed off individuals wanting to share their pain with the folks who’ve abandoned them—and the only way they can do that is by turning their backs. Hard. ”
Not to mention the fact that a huge percentage of the moderate voters that got Obama elected are independents/republicans like my sister. The existence of a viable female presidential candidate (even if she was the final candidate) and NOT wanting to vote for some ass who speaks of women’s health in air quotes is a big part of why Obama got her vote. The Democrats could have made her that much more likely to keep voting for them if they had stood up for her (and her daughter’s and her sister’s and her mother’s etc.) rights instead of living down to her expectations. As it is, I’m pretty sure she’s back to not trusting a single one of them.
The Dems had a opportunity to shake up the Republican support even further. And they fucking blew it. Simply because they are so short-sided they can’t put themselves into the shoes of people that are not like them.