Deep Thought

6 Comments

1. 

   no3reed on February 16, 2009 at 12:03 am

   Sorry, but that seems simplistic.

   Part of the motivation for running as an anti-choice Democrat could be — and very likely is — to establish opposition to choice as an acceptable position within the Democratic party. Leading the way for the election of more anti-choice Democrats, and also making it harder for pro-choice Democrats to combat encroachments on the right to choose. In both ways, increasing the potential your “side” has of influencing written law.

   Boo, you know everything I’ve just written above, and so I’m puzzled why you wrote what you did.

   • 

     BooMan on February 16, 2009 at 12:14 am

     Well…I can see what you’re getting at.  But the way I see it, I can understand if you are a Democrat for a whole wide array of reasons but that you nevertheless are anti-choice.  Think of Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who has one the better voting records in the Senate.  I don’t think Bob Casey ran for office because his primary goal was to criminalize abortion.  So, he chose to be a Democrat.  

     And there are Republicans that are environmentalists and who don’t deny the seriousness of global warming.  But the are Republicans, presumably, because there are other issues they care about even more than the environment.

     What seems dumb is to join a party that, as an institution, disagrees with you on the issue(s) you care most about.

     • 

       ishmael on February 16, 2009 at 12:42 am

       The GOP received 27% of the lbgt vote in Novemeber. Just thought that was interesting. McCain improved on GWB’s numbers there.

     • 

       no3reed on February 16, 2009 at 1:04 am

       I think the rationality of this depends on how susceptible the party you join is to being shifted.

       To illustrate, your sentence —

       What seems dumb is to join a party that, as an institution, disagrees with you on the issue(s) you care most about.

       — could stand as an effective indictment of the Log Cabin Republicans. Not so much, I think, of the anti-choice Democrats. What’s the difference? The Log Cabin Republicans had absolutely no chance of influencing their party. The anti-choice Democrats … different story.

       All I can say is that if I were virulently anti-choice — and if that were a position that I held to prevail in importance over all others — I would join the Democratic party and try to weaken the opposition, rather than be a redundant Republican. (“Lump the rest. New Deals have been whacked down before, they can be whacked down again.”) And I think this would be rational. Why? For the simple reason that the Democratic Party has shown itself, over the past few decades, to be — how shall I say it? — more flexible than the GOP.

       • 

         BooMan on February 16, 2009 at 1:17 am

         Again, I see your point, but what I think is that a lot of politicians run for office because they passionately care about of few core issues, and that abortion isn’t one of them.  And they adopt a position on abortion that is essentially the path of least resistance.  

         Al Gore was an anti-choice senator from Tennessee and Dennis Kucinich was an anti-choice rep from Cleveland…until they wanted to be president.

         Poppy Bush was pro-choice until he wanted to be president.  I don’t think they changed their opinions…I think their opinions were poll-tested and what really motivated them were other things.

         • 

           no3reed on February 16, 2009 at 1:35 am

           Thank you for another respectful and thoughtful response! I don’t think there’s any disagreement between us here except, perhaps, in our assessments of the motivations of the politicians in questions. Would it be fair (albeit glib) to sum it up this way?

           (You) When politicians run on “life,”
                 It’s always adventitious.

           (Me) It often is, but still I fear
                Sometimes it’s surreptitious.