As a pro-life Democrat, I was pleasantly surprised to see Howard Dean say that the Democratic Party must reach out and accept its pro-life members. Normally, Democrats recieve the pro-life faction of the party with a certain coldness normally reserved for Democrats who voted for George W. Bush. It makes a pro-lifer feel ostracized and left out. However, Dean is onto something when he says Democrats should welcome pro-lifers, I felt a spring of hope. Perhaps this is the beginning of a new Democratic party that, with only a slight opening of its ideology, could suddenly be the majority party in America.
Any strategy for the future must begin on November 2nd, 2004. A dark day for Democrats, true, but hopefully a lesson that will stop the Republican onslaught in 2008. The biggest number out of this election was number of "values voters." Now, anyone who's continued to follow the elections will tell you that actually "values voters" were actually down from recent times, reaching their height during 1996 with Clinton. Nevertheless, they made up a sizeable chunk of the electorate, and are crucial to any Democratic majority. What would it take to regain some of these voters?
The answer lies in Thomas Frank's book, "What's The Matter With Kansas?" Places like Kansas are full of blue-collar types, who have changed their priorities over the years. While the older ones voted Democratic because they valued union economics more, the current generation values social issues more, and they vote based on these issues.
Democrats respond by pulling their hair out over these "dumb social issues voters," and plot how to project an image of caring about social issues without changing the party's stance. This is where the party goes wrong.
From personal experience, I can say that pro-life Democrats are not popular at liberal parties. In fact, we normally stand in for Republicans as other liberals (who agree with us on almost every other issue) attack our stance and bewail our stupidity. From what I have seen, this is no different with Democrats who are pro-gun rights, anti-gay rights, or out-of-line with the party on any social issue.
Across the aisle, Republicans let people like Ahnold, Giuliani, Pataki, and McCain speak out at the conventions. Republicans have realized the pros overwhelm the cons of letting these social moderates speak.
Yet, behind the scenes, and ever more in public, the Christian right has begun to assert its power. For example, Arlen Specter nearly lost his chairmanship of the Judiciary committee because of the Christian right. In places such as Kansas, moderate Republicans are being driven from the party. As I shall explain in a later diary entry, this is true for both economic and social moderates. In Kansas, part of Katherine Sbelius's victory was due to moderate Republicans who could not stand the Christian right takeover of the party.
Democrats have a chance here. As I will explain in further detail in my next diary entry, if we can accept the social moderates, we can attract many of them away from the Republican ranks. When we open our minds and positions to moderates, we look more acceptable to moderates. Then, we can weather the storm of rightist fury, and preserve the dream of liberal progress and achievment for a stronger America.