I am a heterosexual male. I'm not much of a political activist, I don't use drugs and I doubt the government would ever have a reason to spy on me. Yet I have strong opinions on the issues of abortion, gay marriage, "free speech" zones, the War on Drugs and warrantless NSA surveillance--to name a few issues--even though I'm not directly affected by any of them. Many of you likely share my views, even though you're similarly unaffected.
Individually, many of these issues have been diaried extensively from every viewpoint imaginable. The contradiction that keeps appearing, however, is that all of these issues are identical from both a practical and philosophical perspective, yet they're discussed in completely different contexts, most notably abortion. Why is that? And how should we be discussing these issues?
Consider the issues mentioned above as well as some other high-profile topics, for example, intelligent design and the recent challenges to church and state separation. If we remove abortion from the list of topics, I would (unscientifically) guess that anyone reading this isn't
directly impacted by more than one issue; to clarify, I mean this in the sense that a relatively small percentage of the population are homosexual, drug users, protesters or targets of government surveillance, etc. On the other hand,
half of the population has the potential to be affected by recent abortion legislation, thereby making it--in theory--a more serious issue.
This is where we are failing; by accepting that rationality, we're incorrectly addressing the issue for two reasons:
1.) We are turning abortion rights into a women's issue instead of a civil rights issue, thereby losing a significant base of potential support.
2.) We are giving less attention to other violations of civil liberties, even with regard to those liberties explicitly written in the constitution.
There was no shortage of outrage when the South Dakota abortion legislation failed to include a rape/incest provision. Quite frankly, I find Missouri's state religion even more outrageous. Putting this in the proper framework, once the state of South Dakota decided to destroy the civil liberties of half its population, it doesn't matter to me, from a philosophical standpoint, how they go about doing it. Whether they force clinics to close or throw pregnant women in jail to prevent them from aborting their pregnancies, the infringement on civil liberties is intolerable--even if the recently passed legislation isn't enforced. It's that first step--must like Missouri's first step--that needs to be prevented.
What can we do? A libertarian perspective.
The first thing to recognize is that no argument will convince a religious zealot that abortion isn't murder, so stop trying.
Next, we need to identify the target audience we need to convince. They will likely be conservative, religious Republicans in the original sense of the word--not the George Bush sense of the word. However misinterpreted Howard Dean was when he said, "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," he had the right idea. These are groups that, while typically pro-life, are also for small government. These are people to whom we can say, "While we don't like abortion, if the government takes away that right, what other rights can the government take from you?" I wouldn't be surprised if this was half the population of South Dakota.
Instead of framing the Democratic party, as well as this debate, as pro-freedom and pro-civil rights, outsiders often look at us as the pro-abortion party. In such a narrow framework, this becomes a divisive issue for many people.
People like Kate Michelman certainly don't help our position. As was diaried last Thursday, former NARAL president Kate Michelman wants to run as an independent against Casey and Santorum for the U.S. Senate. While many respect her prior work, this is a candidate who cares about abortion rights, nothing but abortion rights and she'll sacrifice everything else to maintain them. Her position, shared by many of you, can do nothing but hurt our goals. This is as polarizing as a candidate can be, especially in a state as purple as Pennsylvania.
What matters--and what our position should be--is that legislators actually did it and think they can get away with it. What is it? It is any action that removes or restricts the constitutional rights of its citizens. The fact is that on any of the topics I initially mentioned, voters will have different opinions and we welcome that. Our primary message should be as follows: even if you disagree with our common platform in a few areas, doing so will not infringe on your rights to live as you currently do. Alternatively, if you agree with those who wish to infringe on the rights of others, it's just a matter of time until it comes around and affects you anyway.
Let us wear with pride the name "Liberal." We do and should interpret the constitution liberally; the freedoms it guarantees Americans aren't limited to those enumerated in its articles. Why, then, should you--a potential voter--consider a candidate who wants to take away your rights in any form? If you put your status as an American before any other affiliation, you shouldn't and wouldn't want to consider such a person.
And that should be the first part of our message on domestic policy.