Since Philadelphia is the democratic blogging capital of the world, we have the most interesting Drinking Liberally meet-ups. For those of you that don’t know, Drinking Liberally is a national organization that convenes every Tuesday in over three dozen cities. Their purpose? Getting liberals together to have a few brewskis and to discuss politics.
Last night I had a long conversation with Duncan Black about voting reform, and talked with Chris Bowers about Act Blue, Lois Murphy, and the fact that google lists Booman Tribune number one when you type in muff shots. No kidding.
But I also had a long conversation with an activist from Brooklyn, who is trying to organize and promote a growing contingent of Democratic veterans of the Iraq War and former members of our intelligence services. He started out with the Draft Zinni movement, and has just kept going.
We talked for a long time over a couple of beers. And we had quite a lengthy conversation over the subject of abortion. I don’t know whether I was able to persuade him to my position or not, but the conversation was a microcosm of the discussion that has been going on on this site, and throughout the blogosphere.
He opined that the average swing voter does not want to talk about abortion and is totally turned off by the issue. He suggested that the best advice for a candidate, when questioned about abortion, was to change the subject to Iraq and national security. Something like: “This is not the most pressing issue right now, what is important is that we have over 100,000 troops bogged down in Iraq…”.
I countered that only 20% of Americans support overturning Roe and that any issue where we enjoy 80% support should be an advantage, not a disadvantage. I gave Clinton’s 1996 Mediscare campaign as an example where we enjoyed a similar 80% advantage, and where highlighting, even demagoguing, such an issue worked to our advantage.
My argument was basically as follows: the Supreme Court is on the verge of overturning Roe v. Wade even though only 20% of the American public supports such a move. This is only possible because the Democratic Party has failed to raise awareness of the stakes involved in Presidential elections. The most underrepresented group of Democrats (those with the lowest turnout) are single women of childbearing age. And we haven’t made it clear why they should turn out to vote, and to vote for us.
As a counterpoint, I looked at the issue of gay marriage. Opposition to gay marriage is one of the few issues where the GOP actually holds a real advantage with the public. Even though swing voters do not particularly enjoy, or want to discuss, gay marriage, the Republicans are unapologetically against it. They even went so far as to put the issue on numerous state ballots, and the issue boosted their turnout.
So, I suggested, it is better for us to raise the volume of our pro-choice stance than it is to soft-pedal it. Soft-pedalling our support for Roe does not inspire anyone, and it still makes swing voters uncomfortable. Soft-pedalling our support for choice has led us to a point where the federal protection of choice may be lost. It has been a failing strategy, and it is high time that we learned the lesson and began making it crystal clear to the populace where we stand.
He understood my argument but still believed that the issue was a loser. Wherever you stand on the issues and on strategy, it is always fun to drink liberally.
i honestly dont think abortion is going to be a get your ass off the couch issue for anyone until women actually lose their rights….i hate to say this but too many american women just dont have the personal historical pain of what it was like before we had reproductive rights….to many dont remember or have any empathy for what it was like when abortion was illegal and dangerous, birth control was not available, information on birth control was not available, divorce was illegal, property did not pass to them with the death of a parent or husband, colleges were not open to them etc etc….they are going to have to experience it all over again and have their lives negatively affected before they become activists…..part of the blame goes to the schools for not teaching the history of the womens movement….all you learn in history class is what year what battle in what war we won took place…nothing about unions, nothing about suffrage, nothing about the constitution beyond what amendment is what….nothing deep on the meanings of anything….this sucks but proves the old adage true…if you forget the past you are destined to repeat it….these people never even learned about the past much less forgot it….we have all failed them.
but ALSO too few women in congress, both houses….
And now we are exhorted to support “Fighting Dems”.
Pretty clear what is on the horizon. Domestic issues, real economic populism, a (possibly) uniting message, will be sotto voce, and will be so for years. The broad and desperate need for Civil Rights, securing hard won freedoms and guaranteeing personal autonomy, with religion AND (invasive) government out of our lives, is shelved.
It’s a pity…
“Abortion” can be spontaneous, as well as a medical procedure. Always get drowned out on this one, but one more time:
The decision lands hard on the State’s ability to interpose itself in the doctor-patient relationship. Medical privacy IMHO is at least as important as a specific medical procedure. The State has absolutely no business in any decision I make about my medical care.
Privacy, especially in the doctor’s office, is near-absolute as far as I’m concerned.
Privacy, especially in the doctor’s office, is near-absolute as far as I’m concerned.
The KS AG proved that… and he is not the first. Ahscroft went well over the line in MO before that, in the early 90, interfering in a family’s right to determine medical care, over end of life issues.
Democrats would have needed to get noisy years ago… or lately! really, actually oppose Bush from GE ’00 onward.. (there is a plan) and I well remember Henry Hyde in the 70s, the early unravel of fed funds for abortion, directly affecting poor women…. Dems fell in line, just as now Dems voted so that in mil hospitals, even with one’s own money to pay for it, an abortion is unobtainable. Reid voted for that one.
Just suggesting that privacy (including medical) is a real issue, and one that most people understand and support. A “woman’s right to choose” is much narrower, far more contentious, and hands the opposition a fixed target.
Interesting that religious orgs want to maintain the sanctity of privacy in minister/parishioner communications, but deny the same right to doctors and patients.
The main thing that Roe v Wade did was make choice available to middle class women. Affluent women had choice before Roe, and will have choice when it is overturned.
Poor women, unless they are lucky enough to live in a state that provides funding for abortions, have as much choice as they have money.
Middle class women, who did not have enough money to fly down to a tropical island were the primary beneficiaries of Roe, and to a lesser extent, contraception, though the latter question is more “nuanced.”
As the middle class is phased out, the number of women impacted by the death of Roe will be smaller, what will be impacting those women more is their new lowered economic status, whether Roe stays or goes.
Contraception is technically available for poor women, however the most effective methods require either funds to visit a doctor or a day or two to sit around in the “reception area” of the overflowing, understaffed, underfunded clinics run by Planned Parenthood or other organizations, which means that poor women who lack transportation or do not wish to jeopardize their $6 hour jobs are empowered to purchase a less effective method at a drugstore. There was, for a time an over the counter method available, but it was removed from the market, ostensibly because a few women used it incorrectly and developed serious illness, so it was decided that obviously women on the whole were just too stupid to remove the device after use, or it was decided that poor women should not have so much control over their bodies, take your pick. Every once in a while the company announces that the product will be back real soon now, but this has gone on for years.
“as the middle class is phased out”…The phasing out has definitely increased in the last week in S.E. Michigan!
I am with you on this for sure Boo. When you have an issue that is polling at 80% in your favor you use it for all it is worth. I do believe, as is evendent here and other liberal blogs that Roe could be and should be a prominent issue presented to the voters in every campaign. I don’t believe the republicans even eant to see it over turned because they can use it as a wedge issue and keep their base inflammed and out there voting for them. We should do the same.
I was just thinking yesterday, what would happen if the Democrats went pro-active on abortion? We could begin asking the fundamentalist wingers some difficult questions:
Just when do you think human life begins, at fertilization – or implantation? If the former, then are you opposed to ANY birth control that destroys a fertilized egg? And what about all those that are discarded by women by natural means? Should we try to capture all of them? What do we do with them?
Is all abortion murder – or are you willing to make exceptions? If so, when and why? If you make exceptions for rape and incest, would a woman have to prove her case in a court of law before she could have an abortion?
Is health of the mother an exception? What about a woman who needs meds that would harm the fetus to manage serious mental illness? What about a woman who needs chemotherapy to save her life? Does she need to carry the baby to term and then raise a child who has serious medical problems because she needed chemo?
If an abortion is illegal and a woman has one, are there criminal penalities and for whom?
I know this might not be the BEST political strategy. But as the fundamentalist wingers answered these questions, I think “swing voters” would finally see that “libruls” are not the heartless “baby killers” we have been portrayed to be. Maybe its the wingers who are devoid of humanity.
Ahhh crap you were there! I was at the 76ers game [free tix from a friend]. And Alex made it down from NY again? I owe him a beer or two.
First of all, thanks for the head’s up on “Drinking Liberally.” I’m going to attend a San Diego meeting.
Second, the problem may be that no matter how hard Democrats try to make it an issue, most Americans do not believe Roe to be in jeopardy. If it were to be overturned, of course this would be a HUGE issue for Democrats, which is why it is my belief that it will never happen. Republicans have too much to lose.
The reality is that there are more pressing issues, not because choice is not important, but because choice is probably not in jeopardy. Bush, Rove, etc. are not motivated by some pure ideology that babies are being killed by abortion, they are motivated to get and keep power and to distribute wealth.
Should we continue to talk about it? Absolutely. But I do not think this is our issue the way that bashing gays was the Republicans’ issue in 2004. Americans mostly want to know about issues that are pressing them right now: health care, jobs, social security, national security. Iraq is about national security and can and should be a primary issue, if not THE primary issue, in 2006. Kerry almost turned the electorate on national security by the “Bush took his eye of OBL and went into Iraq” push, but the electorate is much more ripe for that argument now. See Paul Hackett for example.
You say:
but because choice is probably not in jeopardy
ROE may not be in jeopardy, because then Repubs couldn’t use it as a wedge issue, or for other reasons, but CHOICE most certainly is and has been chipped away at steadily for quite some time now. Democrats are equally at fault for that.
for handling that, because I get tired of typing it.
What kind of support for reproductive rights can women expect from the rest of the public, when even “we” are so uninformed?
Happy to, moiv. “We” are not only ill informed, but also delusional about the prospects of any of the elected dems (newly or incumbent) doing a damn thing to stem the tide of anti-choice legislation — Roe has become they way in which politicans can cover their asses and say the support choice while it is slowly being taken away. It is a distraction from the actual facts ont he ground and democrats don’t want to go there….
The reality is that there are more pressing issues, not because choice is not important, but because choice is probably not in jeopardy.
If you’re in the San Diego area, your sisters’ choices are in jeopardy right now. If California Prop. 73 passes, the Constitution will be amended so that young women up to the age of 18 will not be allowed to get abortions until 48 hours after parental notification by a physician. In California, the Supreme Court has found that evidence overwhelmingly shows that rather than supporting families, these laws put teenagers in danger. By interjecting a judge into family affairs, Prop. 73 would contravene our Constitution’s explicit provision of the right of privacy, eroding choice for all women in the state.
And if you’re in Texas, the volume of regulations between a woman and an abortion is thicker than most encyclopedias. From mandatory waiting periods to mandatory literature review to standards for abortion doctors so high that the Republicans would scream “murder” if they were applied to any industry handling hazardous waste…
Never mind the punishments doctors face for violating any of these regulations!
Although I think we can make the religious right look very wrong over this issue, I have to appreciate your analysis. Either we press pro choice at every opportunity, or treat it like something we support, but not as a defining issue. (Understand though that the far right has linked pro-choice and gay-rights to the LibrilDems and have controlled the discussion, because we have not aggressively backed our position.)
An intriguing predicament, is it not? Having to choose, I would vote for pushing pro-choice and linking it to our other progressive issues. Which way is right??
“Probably not in jeopardy”, although logical, might be a faulty assumption!
As long as they don’t bring the troops home in mid 06, Iraq will remain a Huge issue for us at the mid-term. (Cause it doesn’t look like it is going to get any better soon.)
one of the the great fault lines in the Dem coalition. The right to choose has always been marketed as a concession to a particular group of women. Instead of continuing to single out this particular instance, Dems could make headway by coming out fighting for privacy, for the right of individuals and families to make their own decisions regarding reproduction, medical care, information, substance use, end-of-life issues.
Of course that would require outfits like NARAL and its allies to join the coalition instead of remaining quietly supportive of assaults like the drugwar, censorship, homophobia, and all the rest. They’d also have to support candidates based on their basic attitudes toward rights, not just on their willingness to inconsistently pander on the abortion issue.
As long as the Dem Party remains a department store selling privacy for prochoicers at one counter while it closes down the medical marijuana section, it will have no context for its pitch and no constituency that’s unified around a core set of principles.
For all their violations of reason and ethics, the neofascists have managed to create such a context. It’s time for the Dems to do the same or just get out of the way.
Gay Marriage “..issue boosted their turnout.”
Oh shit. Is this another libelling homophobic liberal weblog? Sure sounds like it.
Although BooMan can speak for himself, I think that was really intended as a reference to the homophobic nature of the Republican party, and not reflective of his personal views. I’ve been here for awhile and haven’t seen anything that I thought was remotely homophobic (and I tend to notice that kind of thing).
In fact Booman is being fundamentally dishonest. He claims that only 20% of the public wants to overturn Roe. But the 8/25 CBS (or is it ABC) poll indicates taht 42% of the public want to make it harder to get an abortion whereas 47% want it to be the same. That is not the vast bedrock of support that Booman would like to insinuate.
In contrast, recent polls (see pollingreport) indicate taht opposition to gay marraige has declined from 63% in 2004 to 53% today. THis is the fastest moving positive trend in the entire history of gay rights. A tiny amount of rhetorical support by socalled liberals and progressives would accelerate this trend. And their silence on this issue only validates and encourages those who oppose us. There is no way around this issue. The only way out is through the issue and bringing it to resolution. The only way to put the culture wars behind us is to win them. The Baptists gave up on alcohol consumption, dancing, divorce and birth control. Eventually they will give up on abortion and gay rights. Because in the end their interest is abstract and theoretical, not personal as it is for us and our advocates. Advantage ours.
In his diary, Booman further states:
“As a counterpoint, I looked at the issue of gay marriage. Opposition to gay marriage is one of the few issues where the GOP actually holds a real advantage with the public. Even though swing voters do not particularly enjoy, or want to discuss, gay marriage, the Republicans are unapologetically against it. They even went so far as to put the issue on numerous state ballots, and the issue boosted their turnout.”
The technical name for this is a “dig.” Shorter version of the diary is that abortion helps us and equal marriage hurts us and lost the election because it drove conservative turnout. This has been thoroughly and completely debunked. Values voters were by and large voting against the war. COnservative turnout wasn’t any higher than it has been in the past for the most part. And in those redneck precints where it was higher, there is no way to validate what drove it, particularly when our candidates where NOT advocating equal marriage, but WERE advocating abortion. Booman is trying to have it both ways by saying that equal marriage drove conservative turnout but abortion did not.
THis kind of inconsistent logic and specious reasoning reveals the depth of his bigotry. The fact that he has put it in print only confirms it.
I understand your point, but can’t/won’t speak for BooMan. I do agree that most people put support for free access to abortion at around 65%.
I can speak for myself that, as a single woman, I notice things that are a dig at women far more quickly than, say, a straight male (I’m actually thinking about how I moved away from the big orange place even before the pie wars because I felt the “throw the women to the wind so we can get more votes” misogyny was evident then). A lot of folks (I mean guys) didn’t notice it then, because they werent as attuned to it because it isn’t directed at them.
In a similar way, I think I am probably not as attuned to subtle homophobia as you are. FWIW, I think we are both targets for the conservatives.
If you look at a state-by-state analysis of how people describe themselves (pro-choice vs. pro-life) you will see that Bush won all states that are pro-life and most of the one’s where pro-life reached 40%. He even poached Nevada and Colorado, despite them being strongly pro-choice states. Clearly the Republicans are working an advantage on the issue that doesn’t (or should not) exist. Why? Because they turn out the people on their side and we don’t.
As for the 80%, it is misleading, I admit. Here is a poll that shows 31% of the public wants Roe overturned. I have seen polls that showed 20% want it overturned (thus the 80% that don’t in my conversation last night). Of course, some people are undecided.
Regardless, if only 31% of the people want Roe overturned, then we should not be afraid to oppose overturning it. That’s my point.
On the issue of gay marriage, polls have been improving, which is encouraging. But most polls still show a decisive majority are against it, and the numbers are worse when you look at the internals. Kerry looked at those numbers and refused to endorse gay marriage. Bush wasn’t deterred by the Roe numbers from saying he would appoint another Scalia or Thomas (judges on the record as opposing Roe). I would argue that Kerry was hurt very marginally by the gay marriage issue, but that he would not have been hurt worse, and may have even gained an advantage, by supporting gay marriage.
I don’t want to spend too much time getting into a debate over the exact numbers, but a great deal of variation in any poll results relating to right-to-choose issues depends on the precise wording of the question. But it does seem, unfortunately, that support for a woman’s unfettered right to choose is much smaller than we might like to admit:
The 20% figure cited I believe comes from the Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll from June 24-26: “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?”
Always illegal: 20%
Always legal: 24%
Certain circumatances: 55%
Then there’s this from the Pew Research Center, on July 13-17: “Which comes closer to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. Abortion should be available but under stricter limits than it is now. Abortion should be against the law except in cases of rape, incest and to save the woman’s life. Abortion should not be permitted at all.”
Generally available: 35%
Stricter limits: 23%
Only in exceptional cases: 31%
Never permitted: 9%
The same poll asked whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and 29% said “Yes”.
Similar numbers were seen in the CBS News poll of July 29-Aug. 2:
All cases: 28%
Stricter limits: 15%
Only in exceptional cases: 48%
Never permitted: 5%
This poll asked if the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe was a good thing or a bad thing. Only 60% said “good thing”.
And when asked in late August by Gallup/CNN/USA Today how they considered themselves, the split was 54% pro-choice, 38% pro-life. As recently as May 2005, however, those figures were only 48% pro-choice, 44% pro-life.
To my mind, what this all seems to say is this: While the right to choose must remain an absolute position within the Democratic Party platform as a vital component to our support of individual rights and a right to privacy, making this a prominent, signature issue in campaigns now is unlikely to create the kinds of gains we would hope to see. Like it or not, many Americans do see shades of gray involved and are willing to accept various restrictions; it is our task, then, to educate those voters about the dangers inherent to us all in any of those restrictions.
thanks for taking the time and effort to put those numbers together for us.
What I take away from the polling numbers is that issue of overturning Roe has more support than it deserves. People don’t support banning abortion in all circumstances, which was basically the law pre-Roe. Someone with more knowledge could tell me how really problematic pregnancies were handled back then…I’d be curious to know.
I think the issue of framing (a term I hate) is very important on this issue. What we really want is to protect women’s health, and women’s privacy. Couching the abortion issue within a more general advocacy for access to health care and freedom from government intrusions into our privacy is probably a good way to communicate the issue.
But I also think we should make clear that only 20% of the people think abortion should always be illegal, and yet there may be 55% on the SCOTUS.
The answer to your question in some hospitals is the woman dies. When I was pregnant with my first child in 1965 I was amazed by how adamant my family was about which hospital I went to. At some hospitals the policy is to save the child by whatever means necessary,including letting the woman die. I don’t think anyone younger than 45 realizes that the who do you save if the pregnancy is in trouble discussion was a perfectly normal part of getting ready to have a baby.
If you have enough money and know the right doctor a problem pregnancy would be ended with a proceedure called a D&C. That would only be in the first couple months.
did they have any way to end of pregnancy if they deemed the mother might die in childbirth? How does the Caesarean fit into that?
Ours is a very scary country. Thanks for the #s.
Thanks for the numbers. I’ve notiiced too that when you start asking people who are anti-choice what they think is an appropriate sentence for a woman who seeks and abortion is, they are dumbfounded and say things like, “well, I’m really not interested in the policy end of it.”
If they’re not interested in the policy, why push for the overturning of Roe? Scary people indeed.
No one disputes that Bush got better turnout in states that had gay marriage on the ballot. They dispute whether the issue had any effect on the outcome of the election.
I would argue two things, that are somewhat contradictory.
First, I don’t think any states changed hands because gay marriage was on the ballot, and therefore I don’t think it is possible to say that Bush won because of gay marriage. I agree with the analysis that an 18% advantage on terrorism explains his victory, and it dwarfs all other considerations.
Second, I think the studies, like the one done in the Slate article I referred to (above), are wrong-headed. They seek to measure the influence of gay marriage on the election by looking at turnout numbers in the states where the issue appeared on the ballot.
Gay marriage was much on the mind of many voters I talked to in both Florida and Pennsylvania. In the black community (where I spent my time during the election) it caused a not inconsiderable number of people to feel uncomfortable about Kerry and some of the older generation went to Bush over the issue. So, the GOP was successful in getting the message across even in states that did not have the issue on the ballot.
My point in the main story, is that the GOP has an advantage in being against gay marriage. When you poll the American people, they reject gay marriage. But, the prototypical swing voter doesn’t want to talk about gays, or think about gays. So, using the logic so prevalent on the left, they should be quiet about the topic to avoid alienating people.
But the GOP doesn’t do that. They were loud enough about their opposition that it filtered down to the masses and that worked to their advantage, not their disadvantage.
In my opinion, the Dems should learn that lesson on abortion. I never met a single voter (in my registration duties) that brought up Roe or the Supreme Court unsolicited. It wasn’t filtering down. And therefore, Kerry got no benefit from being on the majority side of the issue.
In Casey’s case in PA, I think they’re relying on his ANTI-abortion stance not filtering down to the masses. How the hell are they going to differentiate him as a candidate from Santorum? They have an awful lot in common: anti-stem cell, anti-Roe, pro-gun, pro-war, pro-Roberts…
How do we get the Dems to wake up and support choice? They’re fast moving in the opposite direction.
tell me if you have an answer.
With Casey, he will probably win the election. And we can console ourselves that Santorum will be gone. And when you add the possibility that DeLay, Frist, and Rove may also be gone, well, we are seeing some progress.
I won’t miss Santorum, that’s for sure.
I guess my only idea is to support local pro-choice candidates in the hope that they can do something about preserving ur rights before things get any worse. I hate to say this, but I am not feeling very hopeful thhat anything will work at this point, particularly with the success of TRAP laws in so many states..
Projection has been around forever, so lot of men say things like this. And when they do, what I hear is that they, personally, feel highly uncomfortable when people insist on talking about abortion.
They think we need to shut up about all that icky old girl stuff, because they’d much rather talk about stuff a little closer to, well, an 11 on the Manly Scale of Absolute Gender.
But hey, what else is new? Thanks for taking it to him anyway, Booman.
That the frog pond is full of idealists, who didn’t have a practical, pragmatic bone in their bodies!