Why Democrats Should Fund Pro-Life Candidates - Explained Through TV Quotes
Okay, and some book and movie quotes
Table of Contents
What is going on?
- An introduction to what is going on. duh.
Why Democrats lose.
- The very abridged version.
Single issue voters and abortion.
- Also see: People who won’t shut up about that one thing.
Ar Democrats retreating?
- Yes. Definitely yes they are. But it’s maaaaaybe a good thing.
Better a pro-life Democrat than a pro-life Republican.
- Lol DAE h8 Republicans?
What the heck is going on?
“I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, God damn it! My life has VALUE!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!'” -Howard Beale, Network
Okay so here’s the scoop. The DCCC chairman announced that the DCCC would be funding pro-life candidates for the 2018 midterm elections in an effort to win some redder districts. This made people angry. The angry people wrote op-eds. Then the other not-yet-angry people got angry at the already angry people and wrote opposing op-eds. Then the confused people wrote confused Facebook posts and made more people confused. But then they were also angry. And on and on.
So here I am adding to the din and probably making situation worse, but that’s never stopped me before.
Yes, the issue at stake here is abortion. It’s probably one of the most ire-drawing, riot-rousing, pandemonium-producing issues on the voter’s plate right now. Because of this, I thought I’d be entirely open with my reader about my position on the topic. My position is complex. I recognize the need for a reduction in abortion for ethical reasons, and I think the government should be involved, but I also see the necessity of personal choice and reproductive rights, so my conclusion is… okay…. You got me. I don’t have a position on abortion. I tried, but it’s too complicated for me. However, I do have a position on what the Democratic party’s position should be on abortion, which is what this article relates to.
In the following scrawl, I’ll justify why the DCCC should fund pro-life candidates even though the Democratic Platform remains stoutly pro-choice. Then I hope you’ll kindly tell me why I’m wrong and deserve a room in Hell where the TV is eternally displaying that one time Mitch McConnell filibustered his own bill (yes, that happened once).
Before I get into the meat of the issue, allow me to take a quick “big picture” detour into why Democrats lose.
Why Democrats Lose: Volume ⅓000
“If Liberals are so %@#!-ing smart, how come they lose so goddamn always?” - Will McAvoy, “The Newsroom”
To start with, Democrats play too fairly. Or a better way of putting it: Republicans play dirty. Very dirty.
Remember that time when the Constitution said they had to give President Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee a hearing, and the Republicans were just like “hmmmmmm, no.” Or how they just adore the filibuster despite contending that Democrats use it more? (see photo below)
 |
| Filibusters counted by looking for “cloture” votes from 1992-2011. (Primary Source, Image Source) |
The truth is, Republican politicians play dirty. This explains why liberal bills fail, but it doesn’t explain necessarily the issue at hand here: Why Democrats lose elections.
According to pre-2016 election data, liberals are the plurality of Americans. Gallup shows that 48% of voters lean Democratic, as opposed to 44% Republican (source). However, currently all three branches of the federal government are mastered by Republicans. All three. Checks and balances be damned.
This strange phenomenon is partly result of liberal voters’ inability to unite.
Of course, this isn’t the only reason. liberals also get screwed over by voter ID laws, low voter turnout, Electoral College injustices, and gerrymandering. But I’ll ignore these factors for now.
If you need proof that Democrats’ constant infighting is detrimental to their electoral success, look no further than the 2016 election. Unable to effectively unite around Hillary Clinton, even under imminent threat of rising spray-tanism, the Democrats abdicated their chance at winning the Executive Branch and their opportunity to set forth their Supreme Court nominee.
The Democratic Party recently schismed into “Progressives” and “Democrats.” Progressives - while agreeing with Democrats on most issues - simply want more. In the 2016 election, many Progressives decided that if they couldn’t have everything (see: Bernie Sanders) they didn’t want anything (see: Hillary Clinton). Granted, there were some other sketchy details about the Clinton campaign that Progressives couldn’t stomach, but stubbornness undeniably played a part.
Meanwhile, conservative voters are the masters of uniting. It’s counterintuitive, but they are.
It is often said that the Republican Party is actually a mishmash of 20 different parties, each with different and sometimes conflicting goals.
Republicans encompass libertarians, small businesses, big businesses, fascists, neocons, fiscal conservatives, neoliberals, alt-righters, about 9000 different types of evangelicals, and the list goes on.
Because of this, Republican candidates often feel as if they are in a minefield when they are speaking to a crowd of supporters. They are forced to dance around any issue that - while it might endear them to one of these groups - could antagonize another. Want proof? Ask yourself how often you see Republicans on the campaign trail activating for very specific policy positions. If you need a refresher, go back and check on the substanceless primary debates the Republicans held in 2016. Even better, remember who won that primary? The guy who didn’t tell us his plans about ISIS because they were secret. Well, turns out that “keeping them secret” actually meant that they didn’t exist, but it’s okay. Wartime foreign policy isn’t exactly life or death, right?
So here’s my thesis for this section: Democrats can’t unite, but Republicans can and do.
For Single Issue Voters, Abortion Is the Single Issue.
“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” - Ronald Reagan (okay, it’s not a TV show quote, but he was an actor, so it sorta counts)
A single issue voter is a voter who only votes based on a single issue. For example, if the only issue you care about is gay marriage and you don’t even look at candidates’ opinions on other issues, then you’d be a single issue voter. As it turns out, for conservatives, abortion is often the single issue.
 |
| Source: Pro-lifers consider a candidates’ viewpoint on abortion to be more important than pro-choicers do. 21% of people only vote for a candidate if they have the same viewpoint as themselves. |
The importance of abortion to conservatives is so great that it’s virtually impossible for a Republican to win an election without being pro-life. Incredibly, the strength of this phenomenon reaches all the way into the glorious heavens above. Republican candidates who were previously pro-choice will commonly experience spiritual reawakenings right as they are about to announce their campaigns, and they will become stoutly pro-life. (video of a pro-choice Donald Trump in 1999)
Logic would suggest that if a pro-choice Republican can’t win an election in a conservative area, then the chances of a pro-choice Democrat accomplishing the same are nonexistent. Therefore, if Democrats aim to recapture any of the purplish-reddish districts, they’ll have to field at least a few pro-lifers. Well, maybe. It depends how they answer the next question.
Is Being Pro-Choice a Litmus Test for Democrats?
“USA Today asks you why you don't spend more time campaigning in Texas and you say it's because you don't look good in funny hats.” - C.J. Cregg, The West Wing
In truth, the answer to this question is up to primary voters. The Democratic Party is (or should be) nothing more than what its voters ask it to be, so it would be absurd for me to argue conclusively either way on this issue,
However, there are certain general concepts that Democrats usually accept and at least pretend to stand by. For instance, Democrats should believe in the empowerment of the lower class and of minorities. Pro-life stances are generally at odds with this, but they don’t have to be.
If pro-life liberals adopted a gung-ho stance on subsidizing adoptions, assisting with pre and postnatal care, encouraging paid maternity leave, legislating improved accessibility to birth control and enhancing sex education to increase the use of protection, their pro-life stances - while still anti-abortion - don’t necessarily violate any core values of liberalism.
So is being pro-choice a litmus test for being liberal? It certainly doesn’t have to be.
Sub-point: Are Democrats retreating?
“It is possible to make no mistakes and still lose. That is not weakness, that is life.” - Captain Picard, Star Trek
Let’s just admit it, Democrats lost biiiig in 2016. They expected the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and even the Senate. They got zilch.
Immediately after the results came in, strategists began asking what went wrong. For this reason, many see the DCCC’s willingness to fund pro-lifers as a retreat. So is it?
Well, yes. The funding of pro-life candidates is indeed an acknowledgement by the DCCC that fielding bleeding heart liberals in every district is not a path to victory. Some concessions must be made in some places. As Senator Sanders put it…
“We have got to appreciate where people come from and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda, but I think you just can’t exclude people who disagree with us on one issue.”
Essentially, the DCCC is acknowledging that giving ground on this issue might work out for Democrats in the long run. And there is anecdotal evidence that this works. In 2015, the Democratic Governors Association pushed pro-life Democrat John Bel Edwards to victory in the Louisiana gubernatorial race for a major upset.
So yes, while it is a step back, it is taken with the hesitant hope of two steps forward in 2018.
Better a Pro-Life Democrat Than a Pro-Life Republican
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.” - Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Even if you’re a staunch liberal and supporter of a “woman’s right to choose,” you should still vote for a pro-life Democrat over a pro-life Republican because of the manner in which they address the issue. As I argued previously, a Democrat will recognize that being pro-life is a regressive stance, so they will amend their policies to make them less so.
If you do believe that being pro-choice is a litmus test for Democrats, then by all means vote as such in the primaries. But if you are forced to make the choice between a pro-life Democrat and a pro-life Republican, then it is still more in line with your pro-choice philosophy to plug your nose and vote for the lesser evil.
No, it’s not optimal. It’s politics.
The fact is, Democrats lost, and they lost big. They couldn’t unite their party, and they suffered because of it. There’s a lesson to learn there.
Yes, this is a step backward. Yes, it’s a retreat. However, reaching out to those single-issue on-the-fence voters has potential to completely revitalize the Democratic party.
It’s not ideal. No one is saying it is. But it is necessary. It’s time for the Democratic base to acknowledge this, and to recognize that if they stay home during the 2018 midterms, then this step backwards will be in vain.
Comments
Post a Comment