As i have noted before the fundamental cultural divides that separate people of color from the liberal white elite that controls the Dem party (and much of the liberal blogosphere). i am not a Democrat because of Roe/abortion, gay marriage, church/state, flag burning or whatever else consumes the social liberals. i'm a Democrat becuase i fundamentally believe in the role of government to regulate in the public interest and that i hate and despise corporate power above all.
the framing that has occured over the battles over the Supreme Court has deeply disturbed me. Democrats wonder why the working class "votes against their economic interest" or why the GOP resonates among rural or middle class folks, who think of Dems as cultural heathens or elitists. i think exhibit number one has to be the framing in the midst of the Supreme COurt nomination, where all i have heard is SAVE ROE! SAVE ROE!
Jon Chait, whose columns i have never liked, hits it on the head on how the obsession with social issues and abortion reflects the elitist nature of the Dem activists and party:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050725&s=chait072505
Noting that O'Connor is a pro-corporate whore whose ruling on business is even MORE right wing than Thomas or Scalia:
This is not to say that all of O'Connor's pro-business rulings were wrong. The point is that her lionization by Democrats says less about O'Connor than it does about the political disposition of elites, and especially liberal elites. These elites--donors, the media, business leaders, politicians, and strategists--are drawn from the ranks of the affluent and highly educated. People with high incomes and education levels tend to be more economically conservative and socially liberal than the population as a whole. The 2005 Pew survey of the electorate, for instance, found that large segments of the Democratic Party base oppose liberal positions on issues like gay marriage and the role of religion in public life. Similarly, large segments of the Republican Party base dissent from the conservative stance on questions like the minimum wage and private Social Security accounts.
Because these elites shape public opinion, there is a general tendency to identify political figures who tilt right on economics and left on social policy as "moderate."
In emails i have gotten from various so-called progressive groups, they all emphasize Roe and "civil liberties" and the possible "theocracy." VERY RARELY do i get an email talking about the Supreme Court's vast power on the economic lives of working people--whether it be workplace safety, the min. wage, the right to organize.
Nathan Newman is one of the few liberal bloggers i've seen to even bother to mention at all in serious detail O'Connor's anti-workers rights record.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/12/1101/61205
As i have said, give me a pro-life, anti-corporate populist anyday than a pro-choice corporate whore. In John Kerry's email to his list after O'Connor's resignation what did he mention? Roe and "civil liberties." i'm sorry, but the vast majority of Americans are just not gonna be swayed by that message. why nothing about the supreme court's impact on working people? and we wonder why people no longer view the Dems as caring about the little guy and more as the pro-abortion obsessed party?
Chait issues a warning:
Right now, conservatives are further away from their economic offensive than they are from striking down Roe. But, if Roe is struck down, it would merely shift the battle over abortion to state legislatures. If conservatives eventually succeeded in banning the government from regulating things like worker safety and the minimum wage, on the other hand, liberals would have no legal recourse at all.
Why can't liberals like the ACLU and Alliance for Justice and People for the American WAy take a page out of David Sirota book and just say it's a battle between Big Business and the rest of us, whether it be consumers, workers, the environment, minorities, etc. focusing on Roe and religion, while i understand their importance, only underscore the power of the social liberals vs. those of us who are more concerned with economic liberalism.
Which means Dems shouldn't simply be satisifed with another O'Connor:
In the broad sense, it's true that O'Connor is a moderate. But the particular nature of her moderation makes the Democrats' lionization of her revealing. O'Connor famously voted to uphold Roe v. Wade and has deviated from conservative orthodoxy on other social issues. But Supreme Court justices do not only rule on social policy. They also settle disputes between business and labor, consumers, and environmentalists. And here, O'Connor has compiled a staunchly pro-business record. It is a distinction Democrats ought to pay far more attention to in the coming battles over Supreme Court nominees. In vast areas of economic, environmental, and regulatory policy, a justice in the O'Connor mold would not be what the Democrats want.