Even the Michael Moore debate is more useful

During the depths of my illness Blogger ate a post I wrote about Amy Sullivan’s inevitable post-election abortion column. I had planned to just let it rest, particularly given Atrios’ devastating reply, but seeing definitively inept Dem spokesperson Donna Brazile spout similar nonsense in the NYT reminded me that this will become an ongoing theme and worth attacking. Basically, it’s a repeat of the Beinhart-initiated “we shall win by preventing people with no influence on the Democratic Party from influencing the Democratic Party” debate, with one crucial difference. Beinhart, at least, is discussing an actual problem with the Democratic Party; national security is, without question, a large net negative for the Dems, although attacking Michael Moore does nothing to solve the problem. Abortion, conversely, is a net positive for the Dems, making for a particularly high burden on those like Sullivan and Brazile who claim that Dem policies and/or rhetoric require major revisions. Needless to say, they’re not even close:

1. It’s not really clear a lot of the time what’s being argued. What should the Democrats do about abortion? Sullivan, in a way, constructs the argument in the most palatable form: no changes in policy, pro-choice is a core value, etc. The problem, as Atrios notes, is that this move leaves you with a theoretical group of voters (people who would be Democrats except (mostly) for abortion, although they’re not single-issue voters, and would be mollified without any substantive policy changes) that is vanishingly small virtually by definition. Trying to appeal to this group is obviously not a particularly productive strategy. Even I have enough respect for pro-life voters to think that their behavior will change significantly based on small shifts in rhetoric with no substantive differences.
2. In a related and even more important problem, it’s not clear who Sullivan and Brazile are referring to when they discuss Democrats who celebrate abortion as an optimal form of contraception or whatever. Certainly, if the argument is that it’s Democratic politicians doing this, their claims are plainly false (which is why names and examples are never offered in such arguments.) John Kerry’s statements about abortion during the debates were so mealy-mouthed and defensive they pleased Sullivan herself. Democratic politicians simply aren’t going around saying they wished there were lots more abortions because they’re inherently great. If anything, they’re running too scared. Again, I think Atrios is right that’s what’s really going on here is that pro-life Democrats or quasi-Democrats don’t like having their views challenged by strong pro-choicers. Well, tough. If the argument is that pro-life positions should be exempt from the normal give-and-take of debate, I vote no. I can understand why otherwise progressive pro-lifers would prefer not to be reminded of who their allies are, what the actual effect and purpose of actual American abortion legislation is, and the extent to which the positions of most American pro-lifers are monuments to illogic and contradiction, but that’s not my problem. I understand that Democratic politicians have to shade rhetoric for certain audiences, but if people are asking me to do the same, I’m not going to. And I’m certainly not going to say that women who get abortions should feel shame or that they’ve done something wrong.
3. In addition to being completely wrong on the merits, the demand that pro-choicers concede that being pro-choice is a tragically necessary expedient while the pro-life position is a deeply held moral position is also bad politics; it concedes far too much and shifts the debate onto Republican terrain. (Claims that Democratic politicians celebrate abortions are even worse, as they’re dishonest claims that play directly into Republican hands.) Do you notice Republicans apologizing for their positions? Democrats need to emphasize their popular positions: first trimester abortions should be legal, a constitutional amendment banning abortion is a terrible idea, freedom and women’s rights are positive moral values. And if you want to mention that Democratic positions on reproductive rights, in toto, will tend to reduce abortion rates, that’s fine too.
4. Finally, I note that people who claim that the Democrats need to court the pro-life minority never take the downside into account. Look, there’s a corollary to Tom Frank’s thesis: it’s not just Kansas and Alabama that vote against their apparent class interests. The single biggest factor keeping Democrats competitive in presidential elections is that they have two of the largest states, which happen to contain the country’s most expensive media markets, in their pockets without spending a dime. Abortion is surely one of the most important factors in keeping California and New York–which, of course, both have pro-choice Republican governors–among the safest of blue states. Any policy or rhetorical shift that could attract significant numbers of pro-life votes puts these votes at risk. And since there are more pro-choice voters than pro-life voters, the risk is considerable indeed.

The claims that abortion is a huge problem for Democrats need to be RU-486’d as soon as possible. If we’re looking for ways to become a majority party again, I suggest starting with issue areas where our positions are actually unpopular, as opposed to selling out a core value in order to make futile appeals to a demographic whose members could fit in a bathroom stall.