In the aftermath of Election 2004, as endless pundits and pols consider why the Dems lost — especially against a candidate that they thought should be easy pickings — the question that matters keep coming back to is, What next?
Did the Dems lose because they were perceived as too extreme to the “left,” too far out of the “mainstream?”
And, if so, then what’s the right answer? Try to appeal more to the center, and so offend those on the left, and possibly compromise key principles held by many in the “center” of the Democratic party? Or become stronger in those principles, possibly shift even further left, appeal to the “true believer” base, but possibly further alienate those in the center?
That seems to be coming to a head in the abortion issue, as an anti-abortion Democrat has said he’s vying for the DNC chairmanship, and others are dead set against the prospect.
The problem is, are principles any good if you can’t get elected to enact them? If the American public is uncomfortable enough with the current state of abortion law in this country to reject those who support it in favor of those who might likely restrict it further, is it better to compromise and keep half a loaf rather than face the real risk of losing it all? Is a victory “in principle” any comfort when it means that the other side can write the laws (and appoint the judges)?
On the other hand, what shall it profit a man to gain the world at the price of his soul? If abortion rights are a keystone of what it means to be a Democrat, is compromise on such a principle possible without compromise on any number of other principles, without putting “winning” over doing what’s “right.”
It’s analogous to the question of human rights in international relations and trade. If the only people hurt by the US declaring it won’t trade with Country X because they’re run by evil and sadistic tyrants are workers in America because other nations will continue to trade with them, that may be principled but it may also be counter-productive. Similarly, if the only people hurt by the Dems taking an absolutist approach to abortion rights are Democratic candidates (and, ultimately, the very people the principle seeks to protect, when those who would restrict abortion rights even further end up winning), what kind of “moral victory” are we talking about?
I would rather not see further restrictions on abortions in the US, not because I’m a gleeful supporter of the practice, but because I’m not sanguine about American politics being able to maintain anything other than an all or nothing approach to it, and I’d rather appeal to conscience than the police to deal with it.
All that begs the issue of where the American electorate, as a whole, actually is (and is goin), and whether the 2004 election was a matter of principles, personality preferences, or better fear-mongering by the GOP than the Dems. Is the populace generally shifting “right,” and, if so, at what point will the Dems have to either shift with them or give up the game to the Republicans? Or were abortion matters secondary to other factors in the election, and are the Dems giving ground where they don’t need to?
I don’t have any easy answers here. I just mistrust any controversial issue being declared the sine qua non of a political party … just as I mistrust the idea of too easily abandoning principles just for the sake of winning. I suspect compromise is the only viable alternative, but that, too, is an awfully slippery slope.
This reminds me concerning a discussion I had with another evangelical. The topic was how Republican does not necessarily mean evangelical particularly when the issue of poverty is raised. Because the two classes are so often conflated, evangelicals get pegged as being greedy and not generous. Yet, the other individual noted being trapped by the fact that pro-life people are not at all welcome in the Democratic party.
The lack of diversity within the Democratic party with respect to abortion keeps away people who might be otherwise sympathetic to some of its other ideals. This is not necessarily a left/right issue in that those who might be more liberal are frozen out because of the insistence of a rigid pro-choice orthodoxy. This is why the Religious Right has more political power that it ought. Namely, other more moderate (and even liberal) evangelicals simply have no choice. Given the Hobson’s choice they reluctantly side with the Republicans and by extension the Religious Right. The Democrats don’t need to compromise but they shouldn’t force those whom they might attract to compromise also.
Well, that indeed is one of the problems — having a collection of binary choices (abortion, foreign policy, economic policy, trade policy, security/defense, any number of others) that can map out only into one of two parties almost inevitably means mismatches, where someone is forced to go with party A because they agree with you on X, even though you’re closer to party B on the marginally less important Y. That goes back to folks who disliked Bush on any number of issues but thought his defense stance trumped that (for this election, at least) — or folks who thought Kerry was a jerk, but preferred *his* stance (such as it was) on Iraq.
Of course, even though a multi-party setup would make it a bit more likely that you might find a party you agree with on a few more issues. But you’ll never find a party (aside of one) that you agree with on everything.