Political parties in the United States

The Democrats have decided to embrace right-wing values in a cynical effort to pander for votes.

Brad Ellsworth likes to hunt, opposes abortion and says he'll put his "family values up against anybody." He may be the Democrats' new dream candidate.

The 47-year-old Ellsworth, a county sheriff in Indiana, is one of a number of Democrats running for the U.S. Congress next year whose positions on social issues deviate from the national party's. His candidacy follows a presidential election the Democrats lost in part because they failed to win over "values voters," according to polls and party strategists.

The recruitment of Ellsworth and candidates with similar views is "the party making a decision to be more inclusive," said Elaine Kamarck, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton and to Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. "It is the lesson of 2004."

Translation: pro-reproductive rights candidates need not apply. Sorry, women, your Constitutional rights are too politically inconvenient.

"There are some in the national Democratic leadership who think perhaps choice has become too much of a litmus test in the party, and it hurts them," [congressional analyst Jennifer] Duffy said.

So what's the answer? A new litmus test: rather than appeal to the Democratic base, you pander to the acidic views of the radical right. In other words: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Other Democratic recruits for Congress who sound more like traditional Republicans on social issues include former Minnesota Transportation Commissioner Elwyn Tinklenberg, who is anti-abortion, and former college and professional football player Heath Shuler, an avid hunter from North Carolina who opposes abortion and gun controls.

In Pennsylvania, U.S. Senate candidate and state Treasurer Bob Casey, who opposes abortion rights, led abortion foe Senator Rick Santorum, a Republican, by 12 percentage points in a Quinnipiac poll of 1,447 voters last month.

One can only hope that primaries defeat these faux-Democrats.

"This is a much larger field than it's been in the past." Bill Burton, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said of the anti-abortion and pro-gun candidates. "We have folks in that group who aren't necessarily with the national party on every single issue but do reflect the makeup of the congressional district."

Apparently women's constitutional rights aren't important to the Democratic Party any more.

Recruiting anti-abortion and pro-gun candidates is part of a broader Democratic effort to recast the party's image on social issues. Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, said she used to have a hard time getting the Democratic National Committee to return phone calls.

Then in April, the group was allowed to use the committee's headquarters to unveil a plan to reduce the U.S. abortion rate. "It's a big step," Day said.

The only problem with this is that people against women's reproductive rights are ill-equipped to actually reduce the number of aborted pregnancies. Criminalizing it just drives it underground.

But don't confuse them with facts -- their minds are made up. We need to put doctors and women in prison. Now there's some enlightened social policy!

Perhaps the most bizarre example of tortured logic comes from the DCCC itself:

"It's Democrats being more on the offensive rather than the defensive when it comes to values issues," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council.

This isn't Democrats being "on the offensive" -- it's Democrats forfeiting the battle entirely.

Former President Clinton held that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," an appeal to voters uncomfortable with abortion that didn't compromise his support for Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that established a woman's right to abortion.

Democrats have strayed from that formula and it has hurt them, Wittmann said. In the 2004 presidential election, more voters -- 22 percent -- said "moral values" were the most important issue than said the economy and terrorism, according to CNN exit polls.

Traditional Democratic values are moral values. The people who voted for Kerry were voting about morality.

This just shows how little conviction of any values at all is held by the Democratic Party. Selling out women to the government as breeder property of the State is not morality, it's not "on the offensive" -- it's pandering.

The problem was further documented in an August memo by Democracy Corps, a Democratic research organization. Focus groups found that most voters considered Democrats to be "liberal" on issues of morality, according to the memo. Some voters even used the words "immoral" or "morally bankrupt" to describe Democrats.

Those are the words I use to describe the radical right and the so-called "pro-life" movement. Apparently they have louder voices, though, so now they've succeeded in defining morality, and the Democratic Party thinks it can simply pander to unprogressive views and score wins.

Particularly among non-college voters, "cultural issues not only superseded other priorities" such as Iraq and the economy, "they served as a proxy for many voters" on those issues, the memo said.

"It's almost as if Democrats forgot how to be successful on these issues and are trying to relearn some of the approaches Bill Clinton took in 1992 that were so successful," Wittmann said.

No, what they're trying to do is be more Republican, rather than work to define their own values.

No wonder the Democratic Party has not come up with its own Contract With America. Maybe they're afraid it will look too much like the Republicans' and people will notice.

What this proves is that the Democrats either take their traditional constituents for granted, or would rather have right-wing constituents and to hell with progressives. The Democratic Party is no longer the party that defends women's rights, but rather defends a vision of Handmaid America.

I find that cynical, foolish and immoral.

Does American love a man (or woman) in uniform? I wonder.

An interesting debate has broken out over the so-called "Fighting Democrats" -- new Democratic political candidates who happen to have military experience -- starting in a Daily Kos diary a couple of days ago. Dadahead picked up on the question yesterday:

Witness the fascination, especially among bloggers, with Democratic candidates who have military experience. Why anyone would think that being a veteran is an advantage for a Democrat, after the the flame-out of Wesley Clark and the swift-boating of John Kerry, is beyond me. But the delusion that Democrats can neutralize the GOP's advantage on 'national security' by running candidates who have worn a uniform persists.

Clark wins one straw poll after another at Daily Kos, and left-of-center bloggers are practically lining up to fellate Paul Hackett. Why? For one reason, and one reason only: they've served in the military. Military service, it is thought, is the key to electability, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Liberals really need to be shaken out of this delusion.

Very intriguing. But this just scratches the surface of the analysis offered in NCHeartland's dK diary:

Wedge the other guy's base, not your own:

When Bill Clinton defeated veterans George H.W. Bush then Bob Dole, the era of required military service to serve the people was declared dead. Why is the Democratic Party trying to revive a dead era? Because there's a war on? Because they need a public relations face-lift? Stacking the House (and our party) with vets may sound like a good idea superficially, but what's the actual message? Is there any other kind of Democrat but a fighting one? Apparently not according to the "Fightin' Dems" brand. Forget education, jobs, privacy, community responsibility--our values and what we stand for; all we want now is 'boots on the ground' experience to combat Bush's war. The tactic looks cynical and reactionary--Why? Because it is. If many of us in the Democratic Party are turned off, what do you think swing voters (not to mention republicans) will think?

Swing voters:

If all we needed to take America back was an "officer and a gentleman" to sweep everyone from hippies to hawks off their feet, John Kerry would be President right now. And if the republicans didn't have a plan to undo every 'hero' someone places on a pedestal, John McCain wouldn't be a punchline.

[--snip--]

Target practice:

Does anyone really think this tactic scares republicans? One little bit? This distraction from the issues is permission to swift boat the entire party with broad brush strokes. I'm doing it right now. Look how easy we've made it. You can't swift boat someone until some moron places them on a pedestal - Not only smugly above their republican opponent, but above the typical voter. That makes knocking someone down a peg or two not only welcome, but a spectator sport. If you don't think Frank Luntz has a national campaign ready to tailor to each of these "uniformed" Dems, open a window -- The fumes from the broad brush being used to paint the "Fightin' Dems" as our savior will be turned against us faster than John Kerry can change his mind.

[--snip--]

Forget Katrina, there's a war on:

"Fightin' Dems" not only accepts the republican framing of the war as the most vital issue of our day, it endorses it. In Washington the war in Iraq may be the most important issue to "get Bush" but how does that translate to a family in NC, or AZ, or PA that can't buy food, afford healthcare or find a job? Triangulate. How do "Fightin' Dems" fighting Bush (or his war) help the average swing voter's bottom line? Politics 101: It's still the economy, Stupid.

Metaphorically speaking:

And what does "Fightin' Dems" even mean? I mean really mean? I've seen fresh from the front lines and ready to face Bush, among other things and worse. Are we serious? Do we still not get swing voters at all?

First, the supposed metaphorical appeal of a candidate in uniform (Dem or otherwise) is one of discipline, heroism and patriotism. Right? Or am I giving the DCCC too much credit here? If the idea is experience on foreign ground is what matters, we've already lost the swing voter that thinks in terms of values, not product benefits. If the message is Dems can wage republican wars more competently, then again John Kerry would be President if that even remotely worked.

So "Fightin' Dems" is a viable message to send swing voters if the goal here is to not only accept the republican framing that the war is the most important issue of 2006, but endorse the idea that only people with military backgrounds will be taken seriously in Congress.

[--snip--]

Let me tell you what swing voters actually see in this giddy "Fightin' Dems" hysteria. 'Cause it aint pretty. Order takers, not following orders. Subordinates turning on their Commander in Chief. Whiners. Every "Fightin' Dem" is an insubordinate flip-flopper. See how easy that was? Did you really not see this coming? Learn from our mistakes. Stop repeating them.

While on the most superficial of levels a "Fightin' Dem" does accurately project the chickenhawk nature of his republican opponent (which worked so well in 2004), it actually does much more damage to the "Fightin' Dem" (and our party) than it does any opponent. "Look at me! I'm a turncoat. Swiftboat at will. I was for the war (even fought in it) before I was against it. But I can wage it better than my boss. And by the way, the other Dems aren't "Fightin' Dems" like me. I'm special. Better than you even."

And there's the real rub. In this cynical effort to reframe the elitist stereotypes of the Democratic Party, "Fightin' Dems" effectively enforces it. It also demonstrates a common criticism of the Democratic Party that it doesn't know what it stands for, and reinvents itself on whims. We are the war party now? We wage war better than anyone? What happened to the people's party? The party of regular working people, labor, education, healthcare, our environment, equality? CHOICE? Not to mention diplomacy and cooperation.

The last part, especially, is what concerns me. Whatever happened to progressive values? Liberal values? Democratic values? Many "fighting Dem" supporters call themselves "progressive," but it seems almost as a form of cover, or simply to differentiate themselves from wingnuts. Meanwhile they crash down on anyone who calls for candidates who support progressive values as "single-issue voters" who are only interested in "ideological purity" or just their "pet cause" -- often couched to portray progressive values (of tolerance and inclusion when it comes to effective government for government, healthcare policy and equal rights for all) as being "intolerant" of other views --- never mind many of those other views are defined by intolerance. Can we just 86 progressive values as just too inconvenient for politics?

There's a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, and the "fighting Dems" approach is emblematic of the theory that the greatest vulnerability Democrats have is the politically inconvenient amalgam of traditional Democratic values.

Mike the Mad Biologist adds:

The whole "Fighting Dems" concept troubles me for many reasons, but the one thing that really gets me is that we're willing to sacrifice qualified, popular, and progressive candidates for moderate and conservative Democrats. The most ridiculous example of this is the primary race between Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett in Ohio. It's refreshing to see that someone else thinks that throwing good Democrats under the bus in the name of electability (didn't we try this before....) is a really stupid idea.

The Counterargument: Image

For rebuttal, Ezra Klein Ezra Klein's guest-blogger, Neil the Ethical Werewolf, talks up the appeal of the military [attribution corrected. -mg]

There’s a world of difference between a presidential candidate who has the mannerisms of a Senator invoking his Vietnam service, and a congressional candidate who actually sounds like a soldier invoking his Iraq service. Kerry had a long public record, and there were more things that could interfere with his attempt to cultivate a military image. One of these things was his own speaking style, which sounded nothing like the stereotype of a military man. The war he fought over 30 years ago was against a different enemy. By contrast, congressional candidates who served in Iraq – especially if their bearing, like that of Paul Hackett, fits some military stereotype – will get instant credibility on a huge issue in contemporary American politics.

I think this oversimplifies the perception of our fighting forces. What the uniform represents is not automatic leadership. In fact, American military leadership is looking pretty poor right now. While sympathy is with those who are paying the dearest price for the war, it seems pretty transparent to me that anyone who tries to appeal to voters simply on that basis is going to come off as smelling a bit false. The uniform is not political armor -- Gore, McCain and Kerry are proof of that. The candidate has to step up with character, and nobody needs a uniform for that.

The vast majority of the Iraq veterans in the primary won’t face anything close to the Swift Boating that Kerry faced. Remember that Kerry had a Nixon-appointed stalker, John O’Neill, connected to a pool of 527 money and a network of veterans who hated him for his part in the Winter Soldier investigation. Most congressional candidates won’t have anything like that against them. And if they do, they can still respond as Kerry should have – by thrusting out their chests on TV and using the allegations as a platform to boast about what they actually did. Furthermore, as Jean Schmidt has recently learned, actual politicians slander ex-soldiers at their peril.

I don't think it takes 30 years for the flush and well-oiled Republican smear machine to develop a hate for any candidate that steps up against them. And as history shows us, they don't even need facts: they'll just make things up, as they did with Kerry, as they did with McCain, as they did with Iraq.

As for veterans' simply puffing up their chests and boasting about their war exploits, I'm not sure how that would appeal to many voters. I don't care how many sorties they flew or insurgents they killed. I want to know what they would do in office. I want to know their plans, their beliefs, their philosophy. And that puts them on the same footing as any other candidate.

And holding up Schmidt's blunder against Murtha as some sort of proof that veterans are now slander-proof doesn't wash with me. Murtha may have emerged from obscurity due to his speaking out, but he didn't emerge unscathed, and in the end he seemed to simply declare victory and retreat.

The Bottom Line

When I look at a candidate, I look at who they are as people. Let's face it -- lots of chuckleheads go enlist in the military because nobody else would have them, or because the violent life actually appeals to them. I don't think these sorts actually define our military, but just because someone wore the uniform doesn't automatically mean that that person has character or integrity or a clear vision of where the country should be going. Richard Nixon was a veteran. Lee Harvey Oswald wore the uniform. And if we've learned anything in the past year, the uniform doesn't automatically make the man or woman worthy of wearing it.

I don't know much about Paul Hackett or Sherrod Brown, the primary Democratic candidates for Ohio's senate seat who seem to be at the center of this debate. It seems to me that the Democratic Party will only be helped by a robustly competed primary. And not just in Ohio.

Of all the "fighting Dems," I've seen only Major Tammy Duckworth (on C-SPAN, mostly), and she really has impressed me. But it's not because she wore the uniform. It's not even how she's met her injuries with such an incredibly positive attitude. It's because of how she talks about life, how she talks about working with other people, how she seems to understand how to get things done, and that's not military -- though she's the first to credit her military background for discovering that talent within her.

She's a leader. She's a manager. I could see her being effective. And that, more than anything else, is why I find her appealing and why, were I in her district, I would consider voting for her.

But it would come down to her values. What does she stand for? What does she want to accomplish? What role does she see government playing in our nation? What solutions does she see to problems we face?

I don't think I'm alone when I say that's the kind of thing that motivates me to vote for someone. The largest voting bloc in this nation is the non-voting bloc -- those who don't find anyone to vote for and feel that deciding whether Beavis or Butthead would be less worse is hardly a reason to take off work or find a sitter for the kids and go wait in line at the polls.

So for me, when it comes to the so-called "fighting Dems," I shrug and yawn. Tell me what you're going to do. That's what matters to me.

Up until now, Republicans who don't fully buy into the rabid dog pro-criminalization agenda of the radical right have had to just shut up and pretend not to believe that a woman has a right to her own body.

The so-called "social conservatives" were probably counting on that when they called for an all-out culture war over the nomination of Samuel Alito. They hope to cow the majority of Americans who support reproductive rights while they embark on a concerted effort to get Alito confirmed.

But now Republicans are daring to speak out against this radical right's push for authoritarian government regulation of private lives.

ST. LOUIS - Former Gov. Christie Whitman called on moderate Republicans on Thursday to become more vocal within the party as she helped launch a new chapter of a GOP group that supports abortion rights.

Whitman said she fears the far right has too much power in her party, which she wants to return to core principles such as "the restriction of government intrusion into our everyday lives."

I confess I like Whitman. I lived in New York when she was governor of New Jersey, and got the sense that she was doing okay ... at least for a state that has such messed-up politics.

Her quitting Bush's EPA over principle also earned some of my respect.

Now her push on reproductive rights -- another voice in what I hope is a political trend to take undamental human and civil rights for women out of the distorting lens of party politics. I've always thought that the dominionist Republicans' neo-fascist ambitions were an odd mix with the corporatist Republicans' anti-regulation agenda -- unless we're talking nostalgia for the Victorian days portrayed in Dickens' Hard Times.

Whitman lent her support to the new chapter of the Republicans for Choice Committee, which is part of an effort by Republicans and Planned Parenthood to increase support for abortion rights within the party. The committee also supports funding for family planning programs and age-appropriate sex education.

Expect this Planned Parenthood endeavor to draw the embittered enmity of staunch Democratic Party supporters, especially those who've been asserting that any Democrat, even one of the "Democrats for Life," will back reproductive rights more than any Republican, even a pro-choice Republican. But given how wobbly and unreliable the Democrats have become on reproductive rights, I for one am glad that Planned Parenthood has joined NARAL in seeking out allies on both sides of the aisle. Let's hope this helps the silent majority find their voices and speak out against the extremists in their party.

So who are the Republicans for Choice?

Republicans for Choice began in the late 1980s, but increased its efforts in the last five years or so, said Darlee Crockett, co-chair of the Republicans for Choice National Committee.

"We have 15 to 20 chapters formed or in formation," with a database that allows them to reach about 300,000 Republicans who support abortion rights, Crockett said....

"I think people are starting to say, 'enough,'" Crockett said. "I think there's a growing concern that the Republican Party has been taken over by a small, but very vocal, minority."

This development is also sure to draw the ire of the chattel caucus, but so far the GOP is putting a smiley face on it:

John Hancock, a spokesman for the Missouri Republican Party, said he wasn't concerned about disagreement among party members over abortion rights.

"We are the majority party in America, and our two-party system necessitates a divergence of viewpoints within each political party," Hancock said. "We welcome the support of pro-choice Republicans and value the support of our pro-life Republicans as well."

I believe this is called having your cake and eating it, too. The intolerance of the "pro-life" position, which would bring politicians and the government into private medical decisions, would seem to preclude any acknowledgment, let alone acceptance, of pro-reproductive rights folks into the dialogue, let alone into their ranks. That's about as likely as the racial integration of the KKK.

Still, one can hope.

That's the gist of the WNBC/Marist Poll released Friday.

Voters divide over whether they would support a woman nominated by one of the two major political parties for president. 26% of registered voters say they are likely to support a woman for president regardless of whether she is a Democrat or a Republican. At the other extreme, 28% would not support a woman for the United States’ top job regardless of which political party nominated her.

You've come a long way, baby! Now put out that cigarette and make dinner!

"But wait!" you say. "What about party breakdown? It must be Republicans who are pushing up the anti-woman numbers!"

Not so fast, liberal pollyanna. While among Republicans, 29% opposed any woman in the White House, Democrats weren't much more egalitarian-minded, with 21% opposed to a female chief executive.

"So this is just male anxiety about women in power, right?" you ask.

Oh, if only it were so. Even though men opposed anyone with a womb in the Oval Office (33% opposed), a full 23% of women also opposed having any woman of either party calling the shots.

Not any woman, for either party.

How far have we come, really? This is the "post-feminist" era? Is Geena Davis the closest we're going to come in our lifetimes? Is this fake blog never going have real-life imitators?

[via Tennessee Guerilla Women]

I've become disillusioned with the whole "netroots" thing when the biggest and loudest voices on "the left" who claim to represent and lead the "netroots" are pushing so hard to move the Democratic Party rightward while vilifying the real grassroots.

I feel attacked not only by religious nutjobs, misogynist MRA types, and martinet neo-fascists, but also by the so-called opposition that claims to be "liberal" and/or "progressive" while attacking anyone who actually defends any liberal or progressive values.

I am very disillusioned by the apparent eagerness to abandon reproductive rights. Despite the fact that most American support a woman's rights over her own body -- and that many, if not most, "pro-(fetal)-life" folks seem to consider abortion bans should not apply to themselves ("I'm an exception," she says to the Planned Parenthood counselor) -- I see the Democrats embracing more and more of these anti-choice folks, and I see the biggest überbloggers scolding us repeatedly for objecting to this.

Look at the new ads featuring Barack Obama and Wes Clark plugging for anti-choice, homophobic Tim Kaine (Dem candidate for governor of Virginia). Look at the "Democrats for (Fetal) Life" who endorse TRAP laws and are about to make their big push for a new "95-10" anti-choice bill that, among other things, bans parents from taking their daughters across state lines to abort a pregnancy. Look at all the apologists who say such hate should be embraced in "the big tent." Look at all the "liberal" men who say it's only "reasonable" to claim ownership of their women.

While some of this can be chalked up to mere determined ignorance, most of this comes from people who very much know what they're doing.

I smell bullshit.

I can tell you I'm not the only one. We are waking up to this shit. And we are not pleased. My 69-year-old mother, who has never ever voted Republican and maybe once or twice voted for a third party candidate in a minor election, and who has given thousands of dollars to the Democrats every national election, has vowed to never give the Democratic Party a dime ever again.

That's money, for all you "money is the only important thing" types.

I'm disgusted. And now going online to many of the bigger SCLB sites has become an exercise in getting my teeth kicked. That's not a pleasant way to start the day. It ruins my coffee. It's bad enough having to face up to all the fucked up things the Republicans are doing, all the corruption, all the welfare for foreign corporations, all the pseudo-Christian dominionist fascist rhetoric, all the lack of accountability....

And yet so many big voices who have audiences, who get attention from the MSM, are pushing for the Democrats to be more like Republicans. If I want someone like a Republican, I'll vote for a Republican! Yet these voices of hubris, who grew up under Reagan and know scant history, bang the drum against progressive values -- while calling themselves progressive.

And I feel I'm witnessing the death of the Democratic Party. These asshats and fucktards are destroying it by pushing ever harder to have it represent nothing.

I'm disgusted and angry and in despair.

I am a very political person, but right now the voice with the most appeal to me right now is Timothy Leary's. And any readers who don't get that reference need to crack open some history books and learn about the days when liberal and progressive values not only flourished in government policies, but also dominated -- DOMINATED -- all political discourse. If you don't know it happened before, no wonder you don't believe it's possible.

/rant