There are a lot of things I love about this community--the willingness to engage in debate and discussion, the fact that there are people willing to both listen and talk within the community, and the fact that the community represents a broad swath of views on most things, but in the post-election climate, I've become troubled by stereotyping within the community.
This stereotyping seems to take one major form:
"If you're (blank), you're not really a Democrat."
I think that formulaic is generally wrong.
But first, a few words on stereotyping generally--we are eager (and right) to condemn it when it comes from people like Limbaugh and Hannity. Popular memes include "If you're not for Bush, you're an Islamofascist," "All gays are pedophiles," and "If you don't support the war wholeheartedly, you're not patriotic." Why do we turn a blind eye to it within our own ranks. We are (in my view) the party of inclusion, the party of sitting down and talking it out, the party of protecting the minority, and with our stereotypes, we seem more and more committed into parcelling the electorate into ever tinier segments and saying "well, those people aren't REALLY Democrats" until we wafer ourselves out of existence.
I want to offer two major points of stereotyping I've seen around the blog lately, and a third one that I expect to see soon and explain why they're wrong-headed.
1. "If you're not pro-choice, you're not really a Democrat."
I'm pro-choice. So is the majority of the American electorate, by about 60-40, I believe, in recent polls. But do we want, as a matter of politics, to simply write off that 40% of the electorate? Furthermore, those of us in the pro-choice community are often overly willing to minimize the moral issues involved. I think we need to recognize the moral dimension of the debate and recapture it. I'll offer a couple of suggestions for you in understanding the moral dimension--the novel and subsequent film of "The Cider House Rules," and Season 1's "Episode 22" from the WB series "Everwood." Both are ultimately pro-choice ("Cider House," rousingly so), but recognize the moral dimension of the debate.
2. "If you're not opposed to free trade, you're not really a Democrat."
Honestly, this is one of the big battles I expect to be fought within the party over the next few years. It's also one of the reasons I supported Kerry over Gephardt and Edwards in the primary. Has free trade caused problems in the world? Yes. Have workers and the environment been hurt by it? Yes. But I firmly believe that trade and cultural exchange had as much or more to do with the ultimate fall of the Soviet Union than did weapons buildup and the like. I support (generally) free trade, but with caveats. Should I, then, be cast out of the party?
3. "If you're not for Howard Dean, you're not really a Democrat."
This has seemed to be an increasingly popular meme around here these past few days--that Dean represents the "true" party, and the "will of the people." As I've mentioned before, I supported Kerry in the primaries. Does this mean I should be cast out of the party? Further, even in those states that Dean ran and polled best in, he was, at his peak, around 40% of the primary electorate, and that only in some states. Making Dean-ism the litmus test of the future cuts out a massive group of the primary electorate--our base.
I'm well aware this is probably a minority opinion around here, and I'm likely to get troll rated. But before you do so--please head on over and listen to a couple of episodes of This American Life--"Big Tent" from 9/11/04, and "Swing Set" from 10/29/04. The "TAL" crew are all passionate Democrats, and "Big Tent," in particular, should be essential listening as we look toward the future. It asks the question "why are so many people finding the Republican party a more 'tolerant' one?" And the answer is not "because those people are stupid" or "because they actually are."
I'm proud to be a Democrat, but I don't agree with the party platform right down the line on every issue--some folks around here seem to say that means I'm not welcome, and that, to me, is something we should leave to the Republicans--let them say "Gays not welcome," "Pro-choicers not welcome," "Poor not welcome," "Minorities not welcome," and let us say "We may not agree on everything, but come on in and talk." That's a vision I think and hope all of America can get behind.