We usually consider this issue from the Republican POV. A "pro-life" Democratic Candidate is in deep doo doo.
Weekend Perspective: A Democratic disconnect
Why is the party beholden to the pro-choice lobby?
Saturday, January 24, 2004
Pittsburg Post Gazette
By Mischa Gelman
The underlying principle of a republican form of government is that the populace does not decide issues but rather that our elected officials vote in a manner representative of their constituents' concerns. Unfortunately, on some of the major issues, our present officials are more beholden to powerful interest groups than to citizens
One especially glaring example of this disconnect is in the Democratic Party's stance on abortion.
A recent Zogby poll showed that 43 percent of Democrats deem abortion to be manslaughter and a New York Times/CBS poll indicated that 52 percent disagreed with the statement that "abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted."
While the party's members are narrowly divided on this issue, none of the major Democratic presidential candidates are pro-life and the Democratic National Committee even refuses to place a link on its Web site to Democrats for Life of America. With a consensus that the party is losing its identity and grass-roots support, wouldn't it be logical to employ in this area the big-tent principles for which the party has traditionally been renowned?
Thankfully, this situation has not been evident in our commonwealth or in southwestern Pennsylvania specifically. Our state and local Democratic parties have refused to demand a pro-choice stand from their candidates and, as a result, the Democratic Party has remained strong in Pennsylvania while losing ground nationally. We have seen numerous pro-life Democrats represent us in all levels of government -- individuals like Ron Klink, Mike Doyle, Dan Onorato and two Bob Caseys. A problem arises when such individuals seek more prominent positions.
In 2000 Klink ran for the Senate seat occupied by Rick Santorum and lost by just 7 points, despite receiving significantly less funding, a margin he could conceivably have overcome if he had only gotten more financial backing.
This case demonstrates the crux of the problem. The large Democratic donors and groups like Emily's List fund only pro-choice candidates, forcing candidates less principled than Klink to change views just to compete. Recent history is replete with prominent Democrats who changed positions on abortion when seeking higher office (Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Dick Gephardt).
A notable recent example is Dennis Kucinich, who displayed a consistent life ethic on abortion, war and the death penalty until he became a candidate for president, at which point he suddenly sacrificed his lifelong opposition to abortion on flimsy grounds so as to better enable him to raise money from the interest groups. Sadly, Rep. Kucinich's change only aligned him with all the other major candidates instead of allowing him to run on that difference in outlook. Gen. Wesley Clark has gone so far as to say he would never nominate a pro-life judge, regardless of merits, instituting an ideological litmus test that could only cause our nation's judiciary to be further damaged by political games.
This whole phenomenon is quite unusual in that it runs counter to traditional Democratic views and the rest of the party's platform. The party has had a long history of advocating for the disenfranchised and vulnerable groups -- the poor and racial, religious and ethnic minorities, women, unions, homosexuals. ... Why then has the party allowed big donors to sway it from protecting the most vulnerable?
Polls over the past 30 years have repeatedly indicated that the majority of Americans and about half of Democrats oppose abortion on demand. Traditional Democratic-leaning groups such as women and African Americans have tended even more to pro-life views (and Democratic women are more pro-life statistically than Democratic men).
The percentage of Americans who identify as pro-life has consistently risen as well. For the sake of our party's continued existence and for the sake of truly representative government, Democrats nationally should follow the example set in Pennsylvania and reformulate the party's stance on this issue, which is driving it apart. Let's return to a focus on environmental issues and labor concerns that resonate not just with some small donors but with the party and country as a whole. |
