Reminds me not to blog at night, people… this is about my “intra-group debate” post below. I had incorrectly cited Amanda as the author, when really it was her co-blogger at Pandagon, jedmunds. I have made the appropriate corrections.
Figures… Amanda reads my blog and I’m being a dumbass.
Posted in General | No Comments »
I know I’ve said this time and time again, but I think it’s a key point. Abortion, after all, is the wedge issue [although gays are becoming the new wedge issue… a double wedge perhaps?] that the republican right uses to get otherwise moderate or even liberal people to vote for them. However, besides their inherent dishonesty when discussing Roe v. Wade [or the effects of having an abortion: it does not increase your risk of breast cancer!], one point I come back to time and time again is that the pro-life movement is not just about abortion: they are anti-sex and anti-women.
I can hear the pro-life liberals now: “But Steve, I’M not anti-women or anti-sex!” Perhaps not. But the pro-life movement is. They have shown it time and time again, and I’ve documented it before, particularly the anti-sex aspect as this affects me directly [I will actually be writing up a post on how the pro-life movement has become anti-women as well… it’s a critical issue and it needs addressing]. I want to just document this again.
Amanda [she always posts a lot of good stuff], in a post discussing how the War on Terror has turned many liberals into complete converts to the wingnut-variety conservative, on every issue, also makes reference to how this happened to pro-lifers:
Turning a reasonable person into a wingnut takes time. So basically what I’m trying to get at here is the evolution of the pro-war right is resembling the evolution of the anti-choice right from the 80s on–a group of people who initially rallied around a single cause (ban abortion!) grew more and more radical over time, until you now have people using words like “contracepting” and phrases like “the abortion industry” with a straight face. They may start off with a sincere belief that abortion is killing a baby but after awhile they start accepting other tenets of social conservartive wingnuttery; that contraception is wrong, that sex for pleasure damages bonds between couples instead of reinforcing them, that gender roles are god-given, etc.
[snip]
For what it’s worth, I think abortion rights are going to be the bone thrown to the religious wingnut base–while some on the left think that the religious wingnut base will dissipate without abortion to get riled up about, I think it’s clear that the Christofascists only see banning abortion as a first step in a long anti-sex and anti-woman campaign. That said, I think if abortion had been banned in 1991 or so, then it would have been a devastating blow to the religious right’s organization and dedication. But it wasn’t banned and the resentment in the religious right grew and they got more and more radical now they are fully paranoid, and banning abortion is likely to just give them a shot in the arm to push for contraceptive bans and other issues like school prayer and anti-gay legislation.
Abortion, in and of itself, is an important issue, and there are many reasons to support it by itself. But for the people who are uncertain, for the pro-life moderates and liberals, one of the largest reasons for supporting Roe v. Wade is the consequences of it being overturned. This isn’t some crackpot logical-fallacy slippery slope argument: the pro-life movement admits to wanting to ban contraceptives; it admits to being opposed to pre-marital relations; it admits to believing in the gender roles of man and woman [man>woman to them]; it admits to these things and is proud of them.
We cannot allow that.
Posted in General, Political | No Comments »
For those who weren’t aware [and I don’t blame you], the owners of two major liberal/Democratic sites, Markos of DailyKos and Jerome of MyDD, are coming out with a book called Crashing the Gate which will hypothetically deal with how we build a progressive movement and help the Dems regain some element of the government. It’s not out yet, but I do intend to get it, if only because I really respect the work Kos and his front-pagers do [some of the kossacks scare me though]. Anywho, I guess[?] some sort of pre-release was sent to various people, because jedmunds over at Pandagon wrote a sorta-review/screed on it. So… I read DailyKos, and Pandagon. And here they’re going at each other. Eep.
The most glaring problem with the Kos/Armstrong approach to “reforming” the Democratic Party is their ill-considered assault on so called “single issue groups,” ie unions, feminists, blacks and Hispanics. It may in fact be true, as Kos/Armstrong argue, that the sum of these special interests is no greater than the sum of their parts, however their purported solution is breathtakingly naïve. They embrace what they call a broad based, yet completely undefined “progressive” movement, that will remain outside of the Democratic Party, and like their historical conservative counterpart, “take over” the Democratic Party.
Some problems with this idea are readily apparent. First, it is not at all clear that this progressive movement is itself anything more than the sum of these “special interests.” Sure, it’s lovely that this “progressive” movement, which has no apparent purpose other than electing people who happen to be Democrats, will be unencumbered by these single issue litmus tests, such that theoretically, a pro-life, pro-business, anti-immigrant, war-hawk can be elected under the Democratic banner provided he gives rhetorical hell to the Republicans. And that would be considered a great victory for this “progressive” movement. But the reality is, this “progressive” movement is still made up, by and large, of people who are going to be fighting for worker’s rights, women’s rights, and equal rights. If you pour water into a new pitcher and say abracadabra, the fact of the matter is, you’re still stuck with a pitcher full of water.
But even more problematic is the notion that the progressive movement even has to take over the Democratic Party just to get them to even try to win elections. And it is every bit as absurd as that. This purported “progressive” movement would appear to have no ideological goals other than electing Democrats. Seriously. According to Kaus… err Kos and Armstrong, we need to take over the Democratic Party, just to get the Democratic Party interested in winning elections. If you think about that long enough, when you’re done laughing, you’ll probably start crying. Unless you’re like me, in which case you squelch your emotions beneath a hard, calloused layer of seething and bubbling rage.
But in fact Kos and Armstrong insist that this new “progressive” movement is without firm ideology, un-united by any single issue except for perhaps opposition to the Iraq war. Yes, indeed, this progressive movement is united in its opposition to a decision that was made almost three years ago. Hahaha. No really, it’s kind of sad. In fact, I doubt many of us are united by little more than an intense and conditioned opposition to the current occupant. And I wonder if Kos and Armstrong ever considered what will happen to this “progressive” movement, united by nothing more than the desire to bring Democrats kicking and screaming to power, when the current occupant takes the hero’s walk into the sunset. Or maybe more optimistically, when and if the Republicans in general heal their self image which has taken some blows lately. What does this “progressive” movement do then? It’s easy to be anti-Republican and nothing more, when Republicans are at their nadir of popularity.
I don’t want to make this too long so we’ll just leave my snippet at that. It continues, in much the same vein; I do recommend you follow the link and give the whole thing a read [and I hope kos actually reads it, too, so I can give his viewpoint a response]. I think it’s a mostly-fair critique of kos’ approach, though I do think he kind of strawmans his argument slightly. Farther down, he claims that this kind of progressive movement would be “a dash of rabble-rousing and a dash of half-assed wishful thinking for a facile ride that anyone can get on and that’ll never go anywhere”. From what I’ve read by kos, and people who agree with his approach, I think this is a mischaracterization. He then discusses the PA Senate primary. Ah. For those who don’t know, Bob Casey, Jr., was “promised” the nomination by inside Dems. Jedmunds makes the claim that the Kos approach would force us to support this move, which, from readings of kos and philly-based liberals [say, for example, Atrios] is an untruth. If Casey actually wins the nomination, then we’d have a choice between a pro-life Dem who is middle-of-the-road on other social issues [some right, some left] but a good supporter of worker’s rights and other economic issues and a pro-life nutcase Republican who lives in Virginia, and is bad on all the other issues. Who do you choose? Well, there, the answer is obvious. I for one will not be voting for Casey in the primary. I like his Democratic challengers better; they are better representatives of the progressive movement. HOWEVER, that does not mean that I would then go, should Casey win, “damn, I guess I just won’t vote”. That’s a silly approach.
In truth, I don’t know what approach Kos actually takes in his book. I’m looking forward to reading it, if only to compare it with jedmunds’s criticism. But if it’s anything like a post I quoted a few months back… then I’ll probably agree with it.
Let’s suppose I have three candidates to choose from:
# One has a solid pro-choice record, but is dismissive of gay rights.
# One is solid on gay rights, but unnervingly middling on pro-choice statements.
# One is solidly anti-war, and powerfully effective at it. But an unknown, when it comes to privacy and rights issues.
Pick which one I should support. Now.
And God help both you and me if I choose wrong, because I’ve just fucked a hell of a lot of my fellow citizens, much less world travelers. Big time.
Or should I stay home and not vote at all, because no one candidate meets ALL the very specific tests I have?
Or should I make the best judgment I can based on the best possible common good, and fight like hell for the rest of it once I have someone in office that at least shares the best possible common ground for those debates?
That’s all this single-issue, not-single-issue argument is about. That choice, right there, and how to make it. It’s not about “disrespecting” people, or “abandoning” people, or “not understanding the severity” of the issue. It’s about the fundamental problem with representative democracy: if you’re not your own representative, you’re by definition going to have to figure out who should be. And it’s a brutally imperfect process.
These purity debates are all fine from an intellectual level, but when it comes to real-world situations I am, at some point during every single election, going to have to sit myself down on my own decidedly imperfect ass and decide on ACTUAL human candidates who will never — and I mean, absolutely never — match up with my own personal fifty-point litmus test of Deadly Critical Issues That I Cannot Compromise On. This isn’t a damn political fantasy football game. Do we honestly think that these miraculous candidates are actually out there, that agree with you, me, him, her, grandma, grandpa, and the dog all at the same time? On economic issues? Gun control? Gay rights? Affirmative action? Women’s rights? Religious freedoms and separations? Educational opportunities for my children?
Critical public health issues?
War?
This is the problem with single-issue groups. Bless them, they need to do what they are doing, but there are plenty of circumstances in which the stance taken by one single-issue group is dismissive or downright destructive to the issues of other fellow citizens. Not intentionally, or cruelly, but accidentally, and by the very nature of single-issue advocacy. Does that mean they’re wrong? Of course not.
But to reduce all possible campaigns, strategies, candidates, and elections to subserviency to the particular internal strategies of one particular team of advocates is to doom the entire progressive movement to division into one Party per possible stance per possible issue. It’s the advocacy groups’ task to advocate. It’s then up to the rest of us — you and me — to weigh them all together and come up with some possible amalgamation that, if possible, screws noone overtly, and leaves noone behind.
Single-issue groups don’t have to worry about that last part.
Now, I know for a nigh-on-fact that a great many people on this blog and elsewhere would sell out gay Americans in a heartbeat if it meant Roe v. Wade was momentarily strengthened, and vice versa. And immigrants? Affirmative action? Please — don’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining. Don’t get all high-and-mighty with me about how you are for broad coalitions, as long as everyone agrees that you get to call the strategy shots and the rest of your party doesn’t.It is possible to support women’s rights, and still disagree with occasional narrow strategy options that a particular organization like NARAL chooses to pursue. (I have to say, while I think this is a good debate to have, I find it absolutely ridiculous to conflate “criticizes NARAL” with “abandoning women’s issues”.) It is even — shockingly enough — possible to support single issue causes and still recognize the damage it can cause when a particular group of advocates screws up. And it is indeed possible to have a debate over critically important issue-based strategies without being “naive” or “a sellout”.
So if you want to criticize my approach to the issues, or Kos’ approach, or Dean’s approach, or Kerry’s approach, or NARAL’s approach, or GLAAD’s approach, or the DLC’s approach, or whoever — knock yourself out. Have a ball. That’s the whole point — having those debates is the only way we’re going to get anything approaching a workable long-term Democratic infrastructure.
But don’t presume that anyone who has a different strategy than you isn’t “serious” enough, or “liberal” enough, or whatever-the-hell-else suddenly rises in your throat because a certain partisan dared throw a critical paragraph or two towards your life-defining issue, as opposed to all the other life-defining issues and strategies that you were just fine in criticizing every other day of the week. A meaningful debate can’t work that way.
There are large parts of the Democratic infrastructure that are a mess, and there are significant forces that have great personal advantage in keeping it that way. This is going to get messier before it gets better. We can fight as we must, in this interim period, but at the end of the day it’s time to get off the damn horse, and help pull the wagon. You, me, Kos — all of us. You pull my issue, and I’ll pull yours. That’s the only way out of this godforsaken place.
Have I mentioned that I love Hunter and want to have his children?
So, yeah. Give a good review of Crashing the Gate come its launch.
And I might end up completely agreeing with jedmunds. This response was mostly because she referenced this previous debate and it reminded me of Hunter’s post.
Addendum: I also wanted to say it’s a good thing “we” are having this discussion. It’s what separates us from conservatives, I think: we actually disagree with each other and are [mostly…] civil about it.
Second Addendum: Why I shouldn’t blog late at night: I’m a dumbass. So I swear I checked this last night when I posted, but like I said: I shouldn’t blog at night. As Amanda noted in comments [holy crap, Amanda commented my blog], jedmunds, one of the other bloggers at Pandagon [and also an excellent blogger] was the author of that piece.
I am so, so sorry. Making corrections.
Posted in General, Political | No Comments »
Loading ...