Markos has been a severe critic of NARAL [permalink/no comments link] and now the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), for supporting Lincoln Chafee for re-election in Rhode Island. Before I begin to address the merits of his arguments, I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Kos’s critics on one thing. The tone Kos has used to bash NARAL and the HRC has been unnecessarily alienating to large segments of his community. I don’t see any reason to attack innocent bystanders when the target is supposed to be the governing bodies of the interest groups.

I think taking such an approach detracts from the point he is trying to make. And his point, as I understand it, makes a lot of sense.

He thinks the best way to protect and advance progressive values on choice and civil rights is to gain majorities in the House and in the Senate. It’s hard to argue against that logic.

:::flip:::
I don’t understand why Lincoln Chafee remains a Republican. He would be welcome in the Democratic Party. He has a good record on most issues that are important to progressives, and his record would be even better if he didn’t have to toe the party line from time to time. But Chafee has refused to follow Jeffords and he continues to support Bill Frist and the rest of the GOP leadership.

Only 10% of Rhode Islanders are registered Republicans, and George Bush is more unpopular in Rhode Island than in any other state. There is no reason why Rhode Island should have a Republican senator, but they do, and he is currently way ahead in the polls. What specifically angered Markos was NARAL’s succussful campaign to get anti-abortion Representative Jim Langevin to drop out of the race against Chafee. Many political insiders felt that Langevin was a shoe-in to beat Chafee, and pro choice Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse and Secretary of State Matt Brown are much less likely to prevail.

There are two problems with Markos’s argument beside his tone. The first problem is that he doesn’t take into account what special interest groups like NARAL are designed to do. They don’t just support or oppose candidates. They work to pressure elected officials on specific votes. And they reward or punish politicians based on how they cast those votes.

A good friend of mine is the president of a teacher’s union in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. He is a passionate, raving, partisan Democrat. But when his union had to decide whom to endorse for Senate in last year’s Specter/Hoeffel campaign, he had no choice but to endorse Specter. It tore him up inside, but Specter had given him every vote he has asked for. If they had turned their back on Specter, they would have lost the credibility to pressure Republicans on votes in the future. The same is true of other interest groups, whether they are environmental, woman’s rights, civil rights, or something else.

Markos ignores this aspect of interest group pressure (votes) and only focuses on the bigger picture (power). Interest groups don’t have the luxury of ignoring votes, particularly when the Democrats have so little power. That is not how interest groups work, or how they flex their muscles.

The second problem with Markos’s thinking is that it presupposes that the only way to beat Chafee (or Santorum, for that matter) is to run Langevin (or Casey). But Langevin and Casey are anti-abortion candidates. Neither Pennsylvania or Rhode Island are anti-abortion states. Being pro-choice in these northern states is not a liability, and in Rhode Island it is actually a plus.

And, even though Chafee is solidly ahead in the polls, 52% of the people have not made up their minds. Santorum is polling slightly ahead of Usama bin-Laden. It is simply not true that the only way to beat Chafee and Santorum is to run anti-choice candidates against them. That kind of logic makes a lot more sense in states like Kansas and Nebraska, but it makes little sense in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.

The most I can say for Markos’s reasoning, is that it is true that Casey and Langevin would give the Democrats the best chance to beat Santorum and Chafee. But, in both cases, it is not their position on abortion that makes them attractive candidates, but their name recognition and ability to raise money.

And that is where the progressive blogosphere comes into the picture. We have the ability to raise money for candidates when the DCCC won’t. We can help raise the name recognition of candidates. We don’t have to settle for candidates that don’t represent our values on gay rights, women’s rights, civil rights, or anything else. If we look the other way while the party leadership forces GOP-lite representatives on us, then we are abandoning the purpose for which we exist.

The Democratic Party is a pro-choice party, it is a gay rights party, it is a civil rights party, it is an environmental party. We have room for some representatives that don’t share our views on some of those issues, but we should not recruit them in blue states, nor should we show them preference in contested primaries over candidates that believe in the party platform.

So, I agree with Markos that the best way to protect the rights of women and gays is to take control of Congress, but I disagree with his analysis of how that can best be done and I think his attacks on NARAL and the HRC demonstrate an unrealistic expectation of how interest groups function. And then there is the tone.