Contrary to the idea that the defense of "reproductive rights" (there's a deceptive euphemism if there ever was one) is a feather in the cap of the Democratic Party, it has gone a long way towards severely damaging the Democrats as a national party. Traditionally, the Democratic Party consisted of the following coalition of constituencies: Italians, Jews, Irish, Roman Catholics, unions, Hispanics, Afro-Americans. Of course, there were others that subscribed to the Democratic Platform, but historically, this is what the coalition has been made up of. Unions still are very much in the Democratic camp, but are clearly on the wane, as the United States makes the transition from an industrial-based to a service-based economy; that leaves civil service unions to pick up the slack where private sector unions once were, and they can't. Afro-Americans will, in all likelihood, never abandon the Democrats, although their unwavering fealty to the party has probably cost them more than it has benefited them. (After all, why make political concessions to a voting bloc when they're going to vote for you anyway?) That leaves Jews, Hispanics, Italians, and Irish. 3/4th of this coalition are....Roman Catholics. Whereas Roman Catholics made up a large portion of the former industrial workforce in this country (and therefore were union-men and women), they're also predominantly and vehemently pro-life. This religiously conservative, flag-waving, beer-drinking, football watching, steel-worker type can't be overly pleased with the staunch defense of abortion on demand by their party. At the same time, their jobs and their industries (steel, automotive, etc.) are either downsizing and/or moving their operations overseas, while nary a word of disapproval from their natural Democratic representatives in Congress. What does make the Democrats go into a frenzy is the mere mention of overturning Roe v. Wade. Who can blame the Rust-Belt voter for voting against them, or at best, being lukewarm about Democratic candidates? Pennslyvania is a good example of this phenomenon. Pennslyvania has a Democratic governor, has two Republican senators (one liberal, one conservative), and barely went for the Democratic presidential candidate in the last election. You don't get a much more blue collar state than Pennslyvania. Michigan is another example. Industrial, unionized, and blue-collar, Michigan turned for Kerry, but just barely. What is hurting the Democrats so much that they have to fight for states they should have to spend little to no money on to score electorally? There are other factors in play, not the least of which is the national Democratic party playing footsie with America-hating subversives like Michael Moore. (Lest we forget Moore occupying a seat of honor in the presidential box on the first night of the DNC next to Jimmy Carter?) The old-school, flag-waving union man, who goes to church every Sunday, works in a steel mill, and believes in the greatness of America and takes umbrage at the mere thought that America is anything remotely approaching what the Chomskyites claim it to be, couldn't be thrilled that the party that he thought represented the working man, the union man, HIM, has been taken over by these same Chomskyite types. But I digress.
So here we are, thirty two years after Justice Blackmun found an unwritten constitutional right to abortion on demand. Where has it gotten the Democratic Party? Well, for one, it has destroyed the probability that any Catholic and/or pro-life Democratic candidate can make a serious run at the Democratic nomination. (Iowa's Tom Vilsack comes to mind.) Secondly, it has alienated its Roman Catholic support, which it has relied on since before the Civil War. And thirdly, it has put the Democrats in the unenviable position of having to defend the indefensible. If you don't believe me, read the following excerpt from a recent interview with Howard Dean on Chris Matthews' Hardball:
MATTHEWS: So the Democrats are the pro-choice party, period?
DEAN: The government…
MATTHEWS: The Democrats, your party, is the pro-choice party.
DEAN: No, my party respects everybody’s views, but my party firmly believes that the government should stay out of people’s personal lives.
MATTHEWS: But you’re a pro-choice party, are you not? You sound like you’re against them for being pro-life. Are you pro-choice?
DEAN: I’m not against people for being pro-life. I actually was the first chairman who met for a long, for a long time, who met with the pro-life Democrats…
MATTHEWS: This is a complicated thing for people. The people believe the Republican party because of its record supports the pro-life position. Does your party support the pro-choice position?
DEAN: The position we support is, a woman has a right to make, and a family has a right to make up their own mind about their health care without government interference.
MATTHEWS: That’s pro-choice.
DEAN: , A woman and a family have a right to make up their own minds about their health care without government interference. That’s our position.
MATTHEWS: Why do you hesitate to use the phrase “pro-choice”?
DEAN: Because I think it’s often misused. If you’re pro-choice it implies you’re not pro-life — that’s not true. There are a lot of pro-life Democrats. We respect them, but we believe the government should…
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in abortion rights?
DEAN: I believe the government should stay out of personal, of the personal lives of families and women. They should stay out of our lives. That’s what I believe.
MATTHEWS: I find it interesting that you have hesitated to say what the party has always stood for, which is the pro-choice position…
DEAN: The party believes the government does not belong in making personal decisions.
MATTHEWS: Okay, I’m learning things here about a hesitancy I didn’t know about before.
In conclusion, if the party chairman of the Democratic National Committee can't articulate his postion on abortion out of fear of being pigeonholed (correctly, might I add), how can you possibly make a moral argument in favor if it? And if you can't, how do you expect people to be convinced in the rightness of your party's position when, in essence, you come off like you're not even convinced in the rightness of it yourself? And beyond that, how can you possibly bring the Roman Catholic vote, of which a large chunk of the Hispanic, Italian, Slavic, Polish, and Irish voters are, to vote for you when one of the central planks of your party is so significantly offensive to their beliefs? Democrats keep scratching their heads as to why blue-collar workers in traditionally unionized states are voting against, by their analysis, their own interests. Their rabid defense of Roe v. Wade goes a long way in explaining why. And one needn't look too much further than that. Far from having a deleterious effect on the Democrats, the best thing that can happen to them is to have Roe v. Wade overturned, the abortion issue revert back to the states, and to cut the radical feminist plank out of their national platform. In the end, it will help them considerably more than hurt them.
No comments:
Post a Comment