Thursday, December 23, 2004

Rethinking Abortion

That is what the Democratic Party is doing, to appeal to a "broader group of voters". According to the Los Angeles Times:

The fight is a central theme of the contest to head the Democratic National Committee, particularly between two leading candidates: former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who supports abortion rights, and former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer, an abortion foe who argues that the party cannot rebound from its losses in the November election unless it shows more tolerance on one of society's most emotional conflicts.
Roemer is running with the encouragement of the party's two highest-ranking members of Congress, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Dean, a former presidential candidate, is popular with the party's liberal wing.
If Roemer were to succeed Terry McAuliffe as Democratic chairman in the Feb. 10 vote, the party long viewed as the guardian of abortion rights would suddenly have two antiabortion advocates at its helm. Reid, too, opposes abortion and once voted for a nonbinding resolution opposing Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.
Party leaders say their support for preserving the landmark ruling will not change. But they are looking at ways to soften the hard line, such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions. Their thinking reflects a sense among strategists that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and the party's congressional candidates lost votes because the GOP conveyed a more compelling message on social issues.

So. The Democratic Party, or at least some of its leaders, have calculated that becoming more pro-life would gain them more voters than it would lose them. This is called pragmatism, and it means that the Democratic Party, as it now stands, apparently doesn't have values, after all. It will choose whatever will give it power, just like the Republicans. Not that I didn't know this before.

I just thought that people like Pelosi are better at electoral mathematics than they seem to be. What they are going to lose from their base by this move would be tremendous both in numbers and in financial support, whereas what they might gain is unsure and most likely not very significant. Unless they go the whole hog to the religious wingnut territory, but then they'll lose all rational voters.

I dislike parties who have no principles. I also dislike parties who crap on their most faithful supporters just after an election in which these supporters handed over most of their money to the Democratic politicians. It might be quite enjoyable to lend a hand in the destruction of the Democratic Party. Please don't force me to go that way, Nancy!