A political party is a coalition for people with generally shared, but not identical views. For each of us some issues are of high importance, others less so. There often are some issues with which we disagree with the majority of our party, and we realize the necessity of compromise in order to advance the larger agenda. So if the party puts emphasis on Social Security while our major concern is the Iraq War, we still understand the necessity of the big tent.
There are couples of issues, however, that are different – and intensely personal. This seems difficult for some to understand, so I want to use an example that everyone will claim is over-the-top, but please bear with me for a moment.
As a lifelong KKK member, he opposes equality for blacks, and you are a black voter.
Now, please ask yourself – if you were in this position, how would you react to this choice by your party?
Even more to the point, how would you react to the constant complaints from your fellow “progressives” that you were being an extremist, a selfish “single issue” voter, for failing to put your single-issue aside for the good of the party?
You see, all single-issues are not equal.
Two such issues are the right of a woman to own her body, and the right of a gay person to equality under the law.
YOU may see the issue as a trade off, yourself, but when you insist on party unity to the person that you are proposing to oppress for political gain, it is time that you realize how personally insulting you are being when you tell that person that they are a single issue extremist.
Very well said-
tip, you’ve hit the nail on the head. I really do have to wonder that, if Democrats are willing to write off women’s rights and gay rights as things a candidate must support… How far away from writing off racial rights are they?
when you can tell someone to their face “I’m willing to sacrifice my position on social security – how can you be so selfish as not to be willing to sacrifice your equality aas a human being ?”
I just think the whole “single-issues ‘r bad” attitude is unhealthy, disrespectful, and condescending.
Suppose I am a “spotted owl lover”. Is the right to breathe clean air and drink clean water really something we should trade off for more important things? Really?
It’s not intensely personal in the same way that racism and sexism and homophobia are intensely personal. I have no argument about that! But on the other hand, to a Mom and Dad whose child got Asthma or Leukemia from pollution, it’s kinda important.
I can come up with similar reasons why people take it personally when someone says war and peace is a “single-issue” thing… like if their son or daughter came back from this optional war in Iraq in a coffin with a flag over it.
That’s why I really dislike some of the recent “tradeoff” and “pet issue” discussions. The reason women’s rights, civil rights, labor rights, economic justice, peace, and environmentalism became core issues for many of us on the left is because they’re each so goddamn important. And I, for one, don’t feel like tradeoffs.
important consideration?
It seems to me that whatever the underlying thematic rationale is (e.g., interest in justice, concern about people who have been marginalized, etc.) can cut across lots of the individual (e.g., labor rights versus economic justice versus peace versus environmentalism, etc.) issues that are more of a distraction.
This doesn’t suggest that one is more important than the other, but should reflect the importance of highlighting how an interest in justice helps you to better understand public policies for women (freedom of choice/more control over their reproduction/privacy), African-Americans (disproportionate imprisonment, fewer economic opportunties, higher rates of crime/victimization) etc.
Think about compassionate conservatism! It’s a great line, covers a wide territory, and is bigger than the unborn, saving social security, etc.
They’re all rights, and they’re all important for a healthy civil society and a functioning democracy.
The various “rights issues” are, at root, one issue, which is the principle of equality under the law. The more Machiavellian conservatives must just love identity politics, as it permits them the luxury of a divide and conquer approach to the liberal opposition.
That there are so many organizations focusing on the rights of a single group suggests an obsession with symptoms rather than causes. It’s true that each oppressed group has a unique set of experiences, but they all stem from one thing: the failure of society to treat them as equals.
No minority group alone has sufficient numbers to challenge the status quo by definition. Minorities are, after all, minorities. Only women have the necessary numerical strength, and it is probably no coincidence that conservatives invest so much effort in attacking them. What we really need, IMHO, is for organizations like the NAACP and NOW to become divisions of a unified front organization.
The way we’ve gone about fighting for the rights of oppressed and marginalized groups is entirely backwards. Everyone knows the list of things protected from discrimination: gender, race, age, national origin, handicap, and so on. We can keep adding to this list until the day hell freezes over, and our job will still be incomplete and in constant peril of reversal. What we need to do is legislate what can be a legal basis for discrimination. In the workplace, that’s simple: incompetence. You’re either qualified for the job or you’re not. If you need a loan, you either have an adequate credit record or you don’t. If you want to buy a house, you can either pay cash or get a loan, or you can’t.
The current piecemeal approach is not only not effective enough, it divides us against each other instead of uniting us in the struggle for what we’re really after, which is respect and equal treatment. A proscriptive approach isn’t a cure-all or instant fix, but it takes equality off of the defensive and into the offense.
Not only that, but in trying to convince them that their rights and their issues don’t matter. The fact that some supposed “progressives” have bought into this, and start spewing bile and get really defensive when a woman’s fundamental rights are brought up as an issue that we cannot compromise on, just shows how much effort the right wing has put into this and how successful they’ve been.
I believe in having core issues. The problem, IMO, comes from putting any one of those issues ahead of the others. One person’s number one issue is not bigger then anyone else’s.
I’m also very uncomfortable with the idea of having one issue litmus tests for Democratic candidates. Not everone is going to agree on every issue, and I don’t want to see good candidates get left out in the cold because they didn’t check the right boxes.
One person’s number one issue is not bigger then anyone else’s.
Between asking someone to sacrifice their interest in social security for the good of the party, and telling a woman that she should support an anti-choice candidate for the good of the party ?
Between asking me to chose between a women’s right to chose the fate of the whole planet to appease people like you?
Or since you brought up social security, ask me to chose between a women’s right to chose, and my parents retirement (much less mine)? Do you see how this works?
They’re all important issues, and they’re all critical to us. One does not supersede the other, and I refuse to accept that one does just to appease people with tunnel vision.
Civil rights come before social security.
OK – I can see that you are not going to see my point, but let me clarify anyway for anyone else.
One does not supersede the other, and I refuse to accept that one does just to appease people with tunnel vision.
One may agree or not agree that an issue like gay rights or choice is “more important” than other issues.
The way that they differ, and the reason that so much more heat is generated over these issues than other issues, is the intensly personal nature of the issues, and the emotional response that someone is liable to have when told that they are being “extremist single issue” voters for standing up for their human rights.
How can one respond to a hypothetical that is inherently contradictory? If he’s an avowed-KKK member, he (likely) wouldn’t be the candidate for ANY of the 2 major party’s national office. SO, as an African-American person, the choice is not even a consideration.
By the way, all single issues ARE single issues (in the grand scheme of things).
I just needed to use as an example a prejudice that was not common any more to illustrate my point – as opposed to prejudices which are still common such as anti-gay or sexist ideas.
While a KKK member might not be a party candidate today, anti-gay and sexist candidates are.
I think that most people can understand the analogy – and that it DOES show how all “single-issues” are NOT equal.
Few people who espouse outright sexist beliefs are ever candidates, unless it’s for the school board in a small town deep in the heart of Kansas. And you know how worried about that most “intelligent” people are.
I’ll grant you the comment about anti-gay candidates. One needs only look at Tom Delay and others of his ilk to see that. I’m not sure how most progressive candidates can support people like this, personally (and, I’m sure that s/he exists, but only republican candidates come to mind a la Rick Santorum). I think to describe it in anti-gay terms is generally too limiting. These are people who want to restrict the liberties of anyone who disagrees with their views. For instance, Mr. Santorum is not only anti-gay, he’s also anti-choice, pro big business, anti-elderly, etc. Those are single-issues. That reflects a larger thematic view about the roles of government and religion in the public sphere (which encompasses multiple issues).
So, I respectfully disagree.
I think you’ve hit on something that is a key issue here. That is does being anti-choice make you sexist? I don’t have an answer, although I doubt there would be consensus in the room on it.
My answer would be “not in and of it’s self.” Some people honestly, truly believe a fetus in the first trimester is a human being. How the hell do you tell someone who thinks this that the rights of the mother are more important?
I don’t believe a fetus is a human being. It’s a collection of cells. But if I did believe it was, I would find it extremely hard maintaining my pro-choice stance. This is also why I’m very, very uncomfortable making a direct analogy between abortion, and minority civil rights -there’s a whole extra level of ethics and morality that’s absent from other civil rights issues. Framing abortion as being that simple an issue may be a good way to go at anti-choice Republicans, but it’s ham-fisted and imprecise polemic.
Yes, there are people who are anti-choice out of blatant, unadulterated sexism. But to automatically assume such motivates every anti-choice person would be a gross over-generalization.
However, to carry on with the analogy, at an earlier time in history, wasn’t the dominant position the belief that non-whites were biologically and morally inferior races and therefore that their racist positions were justified? Indeed, as far as I can recall, such positions were, for a time rationally supported by what was then considered “scientific” discourse.
Jumping to my conclusion a bit here, but my point really is that individual belief might not really be relevant here at least relative to the broader structure of society. Just as the 19th century racist believed that his position was morally justified yet nevertheless contributed to a social structure that had the effect of stripping non-whites of their rights, the anti-choice person, even if they believe their position is not sexist, supports a social structure that has anti-women effects, namely the restrictions on their bodily autonomy.
(This comment is also too verbose and probably doesn’t make sense too)
we may disagree, but I assure you I am not purposely telling falsehoods in order to deceive you.
Few people who espouse outright sexist beliefs are ever candidates, unless it’s for the school board in a small town deep in the heart of Kansas.
I didn’t say “espouse outright sexist beliefs” – that doesn’t mean that there are a lot of candidates who DO espouse beliefs, and vote for legislation, intended to deprive gays and women of their human rights.
I could care less about their motives.
Totally uncalled-for, inflammatory accusation. Please don’t go the ad hominem attack route. We all saw where that leads in the recent pie wars.
The reply to your post was totally respectful and well-intentioned, as far as I can tell. You should keep yours in kind.
Get a sense of humor boys n girls (and I mean that VERY respectfully)
Instead of going to the extreme of the candidate being a KKK member, what if he/she was opposed to affirmative action, especially in education?
I think this might be a better example — just because a person is anti-affirmative action (or anti-choice) doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll always side with the opposition, but do we really want to take that chance?
“just because a person is anti-affirmative action (or anti-choice) doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll always side with the opposition, but do we really want to take that chance?”
You’ve just nailed why I don’t consider Janice Rogers Brown among the worst 5% of the Bush judges. Her record on criminal justice issues, especially as regards racial bias therein, as well as search and siezure, is better than the average Democratic Judge.
I don’t think the example is inherently contradictory but rather a purposeful exaggeration to make a point more obvious and avoid discussions of whether or not expressed opinions or actions by said person are racist.
In other words, by using the exaggerated hypothesis as a starting point for discussion we can thus avoid the discussion of what is or is not the criteria for deciding if someone is a racist and move onto the discussion at hand which is whether knowing that someone is a racist is it acceptable to ask someone of said race to vote for them due to other issues. And how does that apply to other single issue voters and who draws the line as to what is worth sacrificing and what isn’t, and whether any single issue is worth sacrificing for a suggested greater good.
Hope that clears it up for you.
As I mentioned up thread, treating black civil rights and abortion as analogous issues is troubling. The spiritual and ethical implications of abortion make such an analogy grossly inexact. Further, the way the analogy was presented here makes the assumption that anyone who is anti-choice is a misogynist.
This may be a safe assumption to make when talking about the religious right (especially since their misogyny manifests it’s self in a number of separate but related ways), but it is insupportable and unfair as a generalization about every person who takes an anti-choice position (at least with out some other separate evidence of misogynistic tendencies).
For this reason, I think the analogy in this diary is both inexact and invalid.
Further, the way the analogy was presented here makes the assumption that anyone who is anti-choice is a misogynist.
No – whether they are misogynist or not is rellivant – from the point of view ot the woman someone is attempting to oppress her and violate her rights.
Therefore she is likely to take as a personal affront people telling her to stop being an extremist single issue voter.
Which is my point.
I know tiponeill responded but I wish to respond as well.
They are not saying that abortion rights = civil rights = saving the spotted owl. They are saying that these are each single issues that someone may believe is worthy of being THE issue that persuades them on who they will vote for. They even state their opinion that not all issues are equal. Analogous does not mean equal it simply means they are similar in one sense, which in this example is that they are both SINGLE ISSUES that some people could use as a litmus test for their vote.
Civil rights (or voting for someone who thinks you are less than they are based on your racial identity) is a SINGLE issue. It is a good idea to look at this VERY important single issue as an extreme example before passing a wholesale decision on the worth of EVERY single issue or the worth of single issues in general. In the same way that it’s a good idea to look at a single issue that may be judged not important by most people when looking at single issue voting.
He has not made a judgment or comparison of the values of these issues only trying to get people to see one clear example in order to discuss other less clear examples.
The thought process they may be trying to achieve is something like:
Thought: All single issues are not as important as the overall goal and should be sacrificed for the greater good.
Counter Thought: What about asking an African-American to vote for a racist for the greater good.
Revised Thought: All single issues are important and should be our only focus.
Etc, etc etc where more thoughts or examples are added and the thoughts continue to revise and grow or become more cemented.
(quick disclaimer that I’m not saying those thoughts are correct or even rational just an example)
You have to fully examine an issue from both sides and the extreme examples of it in order to fully decide your opinion. Ok you don’t HAVE to, but it’s often a good idea.
Human rights is the encompassing tenet here folks. How many of you know that Native Americans do not have the right to do many of things you take for granted in our society. They technically own their lands, but the government, BIA in the Interior Department, authorizes any lease agreements, sales or liens placed against that property. All income from said agreements must go through the BIA, where so much is stolen, lost or misappropiated, before the proper owner is given their income. If I can help facilitate the rights of gays, women, all people of color, then maybe those same people will hook on to what I deem is important. Make the federal government get out of running the Native Americans lives and let us become a part of American society, with the same rights and privileges as other Americans.
Yes, let’s not forget that the 14th Amendment (you know, the ‘civil war’ one) didn’t include Native Americans….
So, it’s been a long road and will continue to be. I’m a part Choctaw, albeit small. I really enjoy your diaries Ghostdancer’s Way.
One of my true heroes, Mary Dann passed away recently. It was infuriating watching the BLM chip away at these women for many years, finally selling all their horses to be made ultimately into dog food. I could rail on and on. Maybe I’ll diary it sometime.
http://www.wsdp.org/elders.htm#mary_dann
Just another chapter in “How the West was lost.”
It will help bring the human rights abuses that currently are happening in the native american realm. I am sorry that Mary has passed, yet I know that passing is to a far greater and more wonderous place for her. The Ancestors will greet her with great joy and exclaim loudly that another warrior of the Nations has joined them.
well when the cows come home it is a dairy, when you write about a subject it is a diary, guess I am having a dyslexic moment today.
I’m leery of the ramifications of what you seem to be proposing. Divvying up tribal lands so that individuals have the right to sell them off to Anglos is a terrible idea, and one that right wingers have been salivating over for a long time (since before my Omaha grandmother got sent off to an Indian boarding school where they whipped kids who were caught speaking their native tongues).
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Well done Tip. Very thought provoking.
I do – for the sake of the discussion and though on this – want to expand on your example.
If your scenario is a primary – by all means your hypothetical voter should back an alternative. (as I have backed, from afar, Miles in CO, Chuck P in PA, even – at one time – Obama in IL – he wasn’t always a shoe in)
but what if – in the general – your hypothetical person – who despite being in the KKK is somehow the Dem candidate – and he’s up against a person who TALKS a good game of civil rights for African Americans – but will vote for David Duke for Majority leader – or a seat on the federal bench.
the Dem candidate – despite his disagreement with the party on civil rights – has made it know he will vote for the Dem minority leader and wouild vote AGAINST Duke for that spot on the bench (for some other set of reasons outside race) – AND it’s possible that winning this seat will give the Dem’s a majority, or enough to block that nomination…
there’s not a clear answer. Your example should not shut up, be quiet, etc – but it might (MIGHT) be best for their interest to vote for that candidate anyway – despite a deep disagreement on a core issue.
It is NOT clear cut certainly. I would – as a white male who believes in equal human rights – have a very difficult time voting for such a candidate as your hypothetical KKK member.
AND I agree that a commitment to safe,legal and rare abortion and equal rights for GLBT persons SHOULD be as common as the assumption that African Americans have civil rights.
but at one time – that assumption wasn’t the norm – and those who supported abolition, then civil rights, then the voting rights act had to make choices of deeply flawed candidates. They had to put constant pressure to have their voices heard and gain a seat at the table.
I’d also like to point out that abortion does and should not equal “women’s issues” – there are a host of other issues that affect the rights and health of women.
I would even argue that Dems should be able to welcome “pro-life” members and candidates WITH THE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING that they will not undermine Roe v. Wade – but instead – as Reid is currently doing – will address the issue in ways we can agree on – for example – The Prevention First Act.
The other thing to factor in is that we – the “pro-choice” side – HAVE A MAJORITY of public opinion on the issue – and still manage to lose votes on it. Clearly what we’ve been doing isn’t working – we need to re-evaluate the approach.
Re-evaluate DOES NOT MEAN give in on abortion. It does mean we rethink how we’ve been fighting the battles and seeing if (IF) we can find common ground with folks who disagree on labels but share our practical goals.
the underlying point that I was trying to make was
can we identify core principles that go beyond what are now erroneously called single issues – and advocate them
so instead of fighting over and dividing on abortion, GLBT issues, etc – we can advocate a core principle of Personal Privacy
because we ALL need control over our bodies – it’s not JUST about abortion – it’s also about feeding tubes, vasectomies, and the right to act “in our bedroom” and legally arrange our lives as consenting adults
we’ve been fighting on a hundred fronts (and losing) – can we – even as we still disagree on some of those issues – find common ground to fight together?
it’s not about if I think having an abortion or a vasectomy or anal sex is a good idea – it’s about our freedom to make those kinds of choices free from the control of government.
Never heard it more clearly stated!
And why isn’t it being addressed this way? That is what I have never been able to grasp. When we splinter it off into all its sub-sections, we make it too difficult for the ordinary person to hang onto, and they drop pieces of it. They may be anti-choice on abortion, so discard that, but they also may be for gay marriage.
Just keep the simple all encompasing state ment of personal privacy as you stated it above and stop letting the opposing party direct the debate by breaking it down into splinters. Keep the over-arching idea that holds together all the “other” issues.
Great post! I would give you a 12 on my 1 to 10 scale!
My attempt (others feel free to jump in):
Freedom and Justice:
Freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life free of invasion of your privacy, in a world with equal opportunity to a good education, health care, a safe workplace, justice under law, and a sustainable planet.
What did I leave out?
How can we make that more poetic?
I have always been uncomfortable with privacy as the basis of Roe. A clear definition of bodily sovereignty, the right to own oneself is, I believe, at the heart of any definition of freedom. Forced pregnancy, the draft, and refusing the right to die are unconscionable violations of personhood which the government exercises in a dizzying variety of ways which change with the season.
Me too. Bodily sovereignty (sounds kind of akin to habeas corpus to me) strikes me as a much stronger foundation.
Ghostdancer did it better than I’ve ever seen it done.
Maybe it will give you some directions or ideas.
The funny thing is, that ‘kos’ was trying to ask that same question, but he did so much less skillfully than you –
Unfortunately, he prefaced that part with a rant –
I see upthread that ‘tiggers thotful spot’ is still a little bitter about ‘kos’ using a cartoonish right-wing strawman like “spotted owl”. And so am I – because in this case it was my ox getting gored. I commented in that post that the point ‘kos’ was trying to get to was likely to be obscured by his “foolish, ignorant rant”. Well, as I said, I was a bit angry.
My feeling is that dkos’s problems stem as much from a lack of skill in communicating as anything else. The post I cite is a prime example. It’s so fun to rant, and so easy to grab a convenient Limbaugh phrase when your target is the same as one of Rush’s, but ultimately so futile.
Less ranting, more talking.
Back to your point, ‘isIyitc’, I was wondering if “privacy” might not be a strong enough term, and maybe the fundamental issue should be medical. Compare these two –
“Everyone has a fundamental right to personal privacy”
and
“Everyone has a fundamental right to make their own medical decisions”
My instinct is that the second would resonate more with the public, because medical decisions have a strong emotional impact. It ties into Schiavo, as well.
I think I understand and agree with you and tigger’s reaction – I’ve shared it on occasion to posts like that.
I will say that much of what I’ve said here developed out of thinking about and struggling with the issue that came from Kos’ NARAL and “single issue” posts.
maybe it’s wishful thinking – but I think he’s going the same place I am with this – just said it incredibly badly. Rants are one thing – discussion another – mixing the two makes people forget the discussion side.
—-shifting gears—–
I like the medical framing – but went with privacy as my example included GLBT issues – which isn’t medical
so all in all I’d say privacy is the highest value – medical decisions and relationship decisions both stem from that
I think your “medical decisions” frame is very powerful and is certainly useful in debates (and should be front and center on medical issues – but the core value, to me, is deeper still”
I see your point, but still feel that “privacy” by itself might not cover it. Although a right to make your own medical decisions could be a corollary to a right to privacy as in Roe v. Wade, my guess is that if you asked people why it was important for them to be able to make their own decisions, privacy would not be the most common answer.
I liked what you said here –
and that makes me think the answer could be overlapping, mutually reinforcing fundamental rights – “Everyone has a right to privacy” and “Everyone has a right to control their own bodies”. A well-chosen set might cover all traditional issues.
I’m just thinking out loud –
I see your point as well – perhaps we’ll have a brainstorm 🙂
Well, the teacher was there….
Bear in mind that this reverses one of the pillars of the “New Deal,” the Pure Food and Drug Act. Mind you, I consider it a pillar that’s due for a toppling, but I’m more a libertarian than most here.
Consider too, how this would impact all publicly funded health care schemes. Would I have a right to insist on equal access to public funding of laetrille to treat a cancer? (I’m not a laetrille believer, but that’s not the point.)
is they have allowed the Right to direct the framing. They’ve let the Right depict us as the party of abortion, gun control, spotted owls, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
We’ve got to take back the framing. We have to frame the Right as the party of control (think Schiavo here), the party of corporatism, the party of dirty air and scummy water, the party of war, the party of fear, the party of hate.
Only when the Democrats take back the offensive (and Dean is doing a good job, but needs to be more specific), then the American people will see the clear difference between the parties.
Yes. I refuse to talk about “abortion” any more. I will discuss “forced pregnancy” until I’m blue.
however you view the issues involved, is that it is incredibly insensitive, and a personal insult, to dismissively call a person an extermeist single-issue voter as you try to force down their throat candidates dedicated to oppressing them.
Which is why these issues generate far more heat than other single issues, such as military funding, however worthy that issue may be.
Reproductive Rights for women.
Healthcare for all
Adequate, affordable and safe child care
Living Wage
Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity
Affordable Housing
Honest Public Discourse
Honest Elections.
Freedom of Speech
And a continuation of the separation of Church and State (the trend towards a theocracy in this country is scary)
Are these women’s issues or are they human issues…I think the latter.
(Sorry, am not trying to hijack this interesting thread, but this question has been bugging me).
and
What is the difference between these two groups? Why is one, who may not approve of abortion but will not work to have it outlawed or try to get rid of Roe v Wade considered “pro-life”… and the other, who may not approve of abortion but will not work to have it outlawed or try to get rid of Roe v Wade considered “pro-choice”? Is there another factor involved?
that’s kind of my point. It’s confusing and there’s really not a practical end result difference – so why fight over the label instead of the outcome?
we have more in common than we think sometimes. For a tremendously complex set of reasons we each have picked a label – – and the label we’ve personally picked has baggage.
too often we wind up fighting over the label instead of working for what we have in common. I’ve been both in my life. I still think abortion’s a lousy choice that should be avoided – but I learned the world isn’t black and white and every situation is different. Personally I made the switch to calling myself “pro-choice” and joining groups like NARAL when I figured out that my former allies were really about controlling women and didn’t give a hoot once the kid was born… I decided health care and child care and wage equality, etc etc were “more important” and “necessary” to do first – THEN we could talk about abortion itself – even if we (as I then did but no longer do) object to the option itself.
personally – I think both of my examples should call themselves “pro-choice” but for a variety of reasons some don’t want to. I think there may well be a statistically significant block of voters who fall into that “some” camp.
So – if they can make the statement “I’m pro-life but I support upholding R v W” – then I’m fine with it – and if that got us a percent or two at the polls – and defused this particular wedge issue?
I think it’s more than worth it.
(granted militant “operation rescue” types won’t come over and they would dispute that anyone who doesn’t seek the immediate overthrow of R v W (or for that matter Griswold) is really “pro-life” Fine – that’s their fight to have among themselves. I would argue anyone advocating hate and murder as Randall Terry has isn’t “really” pro-life either….
what happens if we claim the frame?
as an example – the GOP did it with environmentalism. After years of that being a winner for Dems – they figured out if they just said “I’m an evironmentalist, but I’m against Govt regulation of industry” – bingo – they started winning – defused the issue even without any real change in policy.
it’s about defusing language and flipping wedges. We’re human – it won’t always be nice and clean, nor make sense to all of us.
Democrats ARE “pro-life” – that’s why we support a truly clean environment, health care for all, are against unnecessary war, most of us are anti-death penalty, etc. (interestingly – all things the Roman Catholic Church supports – but we’re starting to lose that formerly solid Dem voting block because of framing on abortion.)
I think we could turn this around.
so do some others (I’ve only skimmed this but looks interesting)
http://forum.rockridgeinstitute.org/?q=node/4644
there was – over on dKos recently – a diary on how the word “choice” had failed in the frame wars – it was very good but I can’t find it again.
Thank you for explaining. If you do a diary on this topic, I’ll look forward to participating.
ALL SINGLE ISSUES TO THE BACK OF THE BUS!!!
We will le you ride in the front (maybe) when we (white men) get back the majority.
</snark>
As a Drugwar guy, I’ve long gotten used to hearing that “your right to get high is not as important as…”
But to somebody sitting through a 20 year sentence, it feels as personal as the right to an abortion to an individual who’s wrestling with the dillema of an unwanted pregnancy. A family member of that prisoner may find it as hard to swallow a Candidate who supports the war on some drugs, as the parent of a teen sworried that her daughter would lose the choice to a future Supreme Court.
I wish we could lose the whole “more important,” or even “as important” metric, and accept that what’s important is whatever motivates us from the gut.
But to somebody sitting through a 20 year sentence, it feels as personal as the right to an abortion to an individual who’s wrestling with the dillema of an unwanted pregnancy. A family member of that prisoner may find it as hard to swallow a Candidate who supports the war on some drugs, as the parent of a teen sworried that her daughter would lose the choice to a future Supreme Court.
And if I were to dismiss someone sitting thru a 20 year sentence by telling him/her that they were being selfish,extremeist single-issue voters I would certanily be a clueless insensitive idiot.
Which is my point.
You are making an analogy between people who are, by declaration, anti-black, with people who believe that there should be no right to abortion. That analogy is both wrong and potentially offensive itself.
Although many people, including some feminists (maybe most, I don’t know) do believe that being against abortion is the same thing as hating women, that is an extreme opinion regarding the motivations of people who are against abortion, not a demonstrable fact.
While belief in the inferiority of blacks is part of the KKK mission statement, no such belief regarding women is a part of any pro-life organization that I am aware of — quite the opposite in fact.
Therefore, it is totally unjustifiable for anyone to presume that someone who voices anti-abortion statements is, by association, against equality for women. Pointing out that lack of justification is also not anti-woman in any way, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees.
The analogy I am attempting to make is one in which a politician is committed to destroying an individual’s human rights.
I would consider a politician who wanted to deprive a woman of her right to decide for herself whether to carry a pregnancy to term, or a gay persons’s equal rights under the law as such a politician.
And I would expect them to be equally offended by someone who told them “don’t be such an extremeist single issue voter” as the black person being told that they should support the politician who wanted to keep them in the back of the bus.
about the single issue stuff. I’ve never bought into those who are overly critical of single issue activists. (But such activists should try to be somewhat strategic, like Saul Alinsky, when they deal with others in a coalition.) Although I am pro-life, I am not offended when people, for me particularly women who have had abortions themselves, oppose my positions, and sometimes even my person, with, let’s say, a lot of enthusiasm. People should be in politics because of the issues that are most important to them, and I always encourage that, even where I can’t agree.
But you are mistaken in your analogy because you fail to recognize that you can have honest differences in opinion regarding whether abortion is a human right or whether it is something that instead endangers the very notion of human rights. The same can’t be said of civil rights for blacks. You cannot have an honest difference of opinion today with someone who believes blacks are inferior, and you cannot have an honest difference of opinion with someone who believes women are inferior. But being pro- or contra- abortion rights is something we can disagree on while also agreeing that woman and men are equal and should enjoy the same rights and access to privileges.
But being pro- or contra- abortion rights is something we can disagree on while also agreeing that woman and men are equal and should enjoy the same rights and access to privileges.
Not really.
I understand that there are anti-choice people who have honest motives and sincerely BELIEVE that they are not oppressing a woman by forcing her to bear her rapist’s child against her will, for instance.
But from my point of view they certainly ARE violating their human rights, whatever motives they may have for doing so, and expect them not to take it personally is, at best patronizing.
to distinguish the difference between a racist and pro-life Democrat, you can continue to expect righteous fights from people like me. Remember, the party that wins is the party that gets more people who fundamentally disagree with each other to vote for the same person.
As Obiwan Kenobi said, “Only the Sith deal in absolutes.”
Until you get over your inability
to distinguish the difference between a racist and pro-life Democrat, you can continue to expect righteous fights from people like me.
and I certainly expect such fights.
I remember clearly ( and some still exist ) people who were kind, good hearted and well intentioned by their lights who simply felt that God never intended for the races to mix and it was in the best interests of both races for the state to maintain that seperation.
But you can’t expect a black to just say “OK I’ll stop being such an extremist” just because the person oppressing them actually believes in the oppression.
But I really question where you would have been 150 years ago, when a group of humorless, self-righteous religious extremists pushed the radical idea to a head that blacks were indeed human beings, with inalienable rights, even though the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case determined that a black person could be considered not human, but property, if his owner so chose, and that it was not up to the government to determine a black person’s humanity but individual farmers who owned slaves. If a farmer didn’t believe in slavery, then he could free his own slaves.
Although you will deny it, I just get the impression that your views on what constitutes a human right would have had to place you on the side of the farmers, and not allow the government to decide for them if a black person is fully human.
to distinguish the difference between a racist and pro-life Democrat, you can continue to expect righteous fights from people like me. Remember, the party that wins is the party that gets more people who fundamentally disagree with each other to vote for the same person.
As Obiwan Kenobi said, “Only the Sith deal in absolutes.”
If anyone tells me that I have to be pregnant when I don’t want to be, that I must be a human incubator against my will, that they have the right to commandeer my body for their own purposes, I cannot believe that such a person supports my civil right to equality under the law.
commandeer your body.
But neither do you have a right to kill. The right to privacy provided to you by Roe v. Wade (and I support the right to privacy) allows you, or anyone who helps you, to avoid ever having to admit to killing by allowing you the privacy of determining for yourself if what you do in an abortion is killing or not.
I could never believe that anyone who felt she had a right to abort a human fetus ever could be trusted to defend human rights, a concept which is obviously arbitrary to her based on her belief that a human organism is a person only if a pregnancy is wanted. But I can still respect such a person, try to understand her better, and support her and vote for her if her other interests also advance my own.
I would hope you could be willing to do the same. If not, then this party ain’t big enough for the two of us.
I do not, in fact believe that a fetus has value only if I want to carry it. What it doesn’t have is the ability to sustain itself without using my body to do so. No one demands that you donate a kidney because someone else will die if you don’t.
I’d be in favour of fetal transplantation, which would satisfy both of us. That way I am not subjected to forced pregnancy, and you can preserve a life that cannot be sustained without your help. I would donate to medical research to this end and opt for a more invasive medical procedure to accomplish it. Women who abort are not seeking the death of a child, but end of an unwanted pregnancy. Let’s work together for a good outcome for everyone concerned.
if someone hates me, or considers me “inferior” because I’m longhaired, Jewish, or a pothead. I don’t even get all that worked up if they want to express that opinion on the ‘Net or in a Public Park. Now if they take that view to give them a license to assault me, they can expect to face serious health care issues, and if I perceive they’re a live threat to use State Power to deprive me of my Rights on that basis, they can expect I’ll use all my skills to crush them politically, and it the caselaw merits it, financially.
As I’ve already said, pretending the abortion issue is as simple as other civil rights issues is a good technique to shut down anti-choice Republicans, it doesn’t hold up to critical scrutiny if you strip away the hyperbole.
Some people honestly believe abortion is murder. We may disagree with them, but we can’t their objective is to deny anyone their rights. I don’t agree with them, and I’ll oppose them on this issue every step of the way, but it’s unfair and intellectual dishonest to claim they are motivated by a desire to deprive anyone of their rights (note that I’m talking about moderate anti-choice people from both party here; the theocons are most definitely trying to deprive people of their rights).
If you’re going to for ham-fisted hyperbole, then reducing the abortion issue to the terms you are describing it in might be excusable. But for any serious, in depth discussion, it is a gross and dangerous over-simplification.
tiponeill and I were discussing this at dKos. I pointed out that it is an invalid comparison. tiponeill disagreed with his/her “blacks and the KKK’ example, and I replied with the following message:
I don’t believe I’ve used the term “single issues” in my comments, so perhaps you’re thinking of someone else.
Now – why do I think your comparison of blacks and the KKK false? Several reasons:
The KKK exists fundamentally to “preserve” white christian America by intimidating, terrorizing, and murdering non-Christian and non-Caucasian Americans.
A person who has made the (in my opinion) ill-informed decision to oppose abortion rights does so for one (or more) of several reasons. Religious reasons. Ethical reasons. Personal experience. A desire to control women and keep them at home with children. Who knows?
There may be other reasons. But I look to you to provide a convincing explanation for why an organization that seeks to murder people is the same as supporting a party that contain some people who are opposed to abortion rights. That is an inequality. An exaggeration.
Look at it another way – what proportion of African-Americans support the KKK? One percent? Three percent? I think any reasonable person would find even one percent hard to believe.
What proportion of women oppose abortion rights? 24 percent, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll taken on the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.
Do you think 24 percent of African-Americans support the aims of the KKK?
Do you still think your comparison is equivalent?
I don’t.
I think we’re using different tactics to reach the same goal – in this case to preserve choice. Sometimes, perhaps, we argue too much about how we do it.
That may not be clear.
The second sentence should read:
“tiponeill disagreed and mentioned his/her “blacks and the KKK” example, and I replied with the following message:”
Thanks
“Some people honestly believe abortion is murder. We may disagree with them, but we can’t their objective is to deny anyone their rights.”
There’s one Republican in our Assembly who fits that. I came to belatedly respect her when she suffered a demotion from a leadership position rather than bend in her opposition to the Death Penalty.
That bear baron, Coores who ran for the Senate in Colorado last year was anti-choice, anti-death penalty, as well. However, my comments were more in reference to anti-choice Democrats, who are far less likely to be anti-choice for the kinds of reasons the author of this diary sites and implicit in an anti-choice stand.
As I’ve already said, pretending the abortion issue is as simple as other civil rights issues is a good technique to shut down anti-choice Republicans, it doesn’t hold up to critical scrutiny if you strip away the hyperbole.
It isn’t pretending – it is clearly a civil rights issue.
Some people honestly believe abortion is murder. We may disagree with them, but we can’t their objective is to deny anyone their rights.
Actually, the great majority of those who oppose it are hinest enough to admit that they are infinging on the womans’ rights – they simply claim that they are ‘balancing” those rights against the “rights” of the fetus.
At bottom they may “believe” what they believe sincerly, but that doesn’t make it true.
If something is living in my body I have control over it. Until that fetus takes it’s first breath at birth it is not equal to me and my control over my body.
Trying to complicate the issue is what is causing the democratic party to trip all over itself to lose elections.
The Democratic party is not consistent. Right here in this thread there is a proposal that the Democratic party should embrace “Healthcare for all” (among other things).
But “all” really means “all Americans.” That is, we’re perfectly happy to have a few billion other people lack health care as long as we get it for ourselves.
How can a party claim to be progressive if it
We are very one-sided in our view of what is “right.” So in your scenario, I would not vote for the Democrat, I would vote for the progressive candidate, probably a Green or a Socialist.
Just to spark conversation let me ask
What if there isn’t a Green or Socialist running? Do you vote for the lesser of 2 evils? And what if there is a Green candidate but you know that your vote could determine the outcome of which of the lesser of 2 evils gets into office?
Here’s why I ask, my US Rep is a corrupt Democrat (sadly they do exist). I always vote against her, but she’s always easily elected which makes my decision to vote against her easy. Yet I wonder what would I do if it ever were a close race between her and an honest Republican. And what if control of the US House were at stake? Would I sell my morals for the greater good?
I suppose that I will never truly know unless it happens but I like to know what others think.
Let me run and hide without facing that sad prospect.
I WANT AUTOMATIC RUNOFF ELECTIONS as some European countries do.
Your votes are ranked, 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc.
That way, I could vote:
When the Socialists come in dead last, all of their votes default to choice #2, and we add ’em up again. The process continues until only two parties are left, and the majority of votes wins. This is a great way to build third parties, so we won’t do it here.
What a coincidence. I was reading yesterday some random internet person’s plan for fixing elections and that was their plan. I had never heard of it prior to that. I have to say my first impressions of the automatic runoff are really great. But you’re right that so good that we’ll probably never use it.
They also had a plan that representatives would not come from specific districts so that they could then be elected to represent specific issues. Have you ever heard of that?
in the last few weeks. If you type Dean and run off voting, you can probably find an article where he talks about IRV.
I would vote for the candidate who has positions (and a record, hopefully) that is most closely aligned with my beliefs. I think that “strategic voting,” where we don’t vote for, say, the Green candidate because we think that it will help, say, the Republican candidate get elected, is a big problem. That strategy did not help Gore or Kerry, and it did weaken the progressive movement as far as political power is concerned.
Voting for third party candidates, even in our system, has value because it keeps the principal parties aware of the issues. Why does the Democratic party ignore blacks and gays and anti-war activists and pro-choicers? Because they know that those blacks and gays and anti-war activists and pro-choicers will vote for them anyway “because there’s nowhere else to go.” But there is.
If there were no Green or Socialist running in my district I would wonder why my name wasn’t on the ballot.
This articulation has made me feel better than anything written so far. Thank you kindly tiponeil.
It’s long been shocking to me how the left embraces that guy, despite his extremely troubling record vis-a-vis civil rights.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
The left embraces him because he stands up for the only protection we have against tyranny, the Constitution and the proper function of the Senate.