I did something really, really dumb today. In a comment on the
Howard Dean Does the Footwork diary, I noted in passing that Tim Roemer's position on abortion doesn't really bother me, as DNC chair doesn't really carry any institutional heft on the issue, and that in general I think the Democrats would gain from being less ideological on "cultural" issues.
Before I knew it, I was being described as "contemptuous", "ignorant", "condescending", "attention-seeking" and worse. Not because I personally oppose reproductive rights; I don't, and I took pains to note this again and again. But because I suggested that maybe it was politically wise for Democrats to think about how we were coming across to voters who, rightly or wrongly (and I'm less sure that they're wrong now than I was before I stepped into this quagmire), perceive the Democratic Party's position on abortion to be universally in favor of it, with no restrictions of limitations.
Let me state this again, because it sure didn't seem to get through with my interlocutors: I'm pro-choice. I think the party should stay pro-choice. I'm on the same side of this issue, substantively, as everyone who evidently thinks I'm indistinguishable from Coburn and Santorum. But I also think that we're getting slammed in the voting booth because of a perception that we think abortion is dandy and something to celebrate; we have no sensitivity to people who might feel differently on this issue, even though they might agree with us on everything else of significance.
Why is this so immediately offensive to people? All I want is a broader tent for the party, and maybe a way to move the conversation from the more contentious ground of the morality and legal soundness of Roe to the point of consensus across the board on this issue: reducing unwanted pregnancies. For this, I'm suddenly being attacked for "bargaining away other people's reproductive rights."
A gilas girl had a great response as this debate unfolded, and I don't just say that because it didn't include calling me a coathanger fetishist. Her point was that the Democrats as party have failed to make a substantive, principled case for why abortion should be legal, instead assuming that the rightness of this right was self-evident and variously either dismissing its critics' arguments, or hoping that they'd vote Democrat despite their disagreements.
I have a lot of sympathy for this position, and I felt the same way about the Dems' failure to offer a loud and proud defense of gay marriage in the campaign. I also don't think this is incompatible with treating those opposed to abortion rights like human beings, and maybe even welcoming them as Democrats... it's certainly less arrogant, and IMO more politically palatable, than just dismissing anyone who doesn't have sufficient enthusiasm for unfettered abortion rights (much less anyone who opposes them) as worthless.
I just find it ironic that the same absolutist attitude I think the party needs to get away from on "social issues" smacked me in the face when I made the point in passing that insistence on ideological purity wasn't working out so well for us, in terms of winning elections. My fear is that this same attitude will carry us farther and farther from a position in which we can actually shape public policy.
Democrats should leave intolerance and ideologically based condemnations of disbelievers to the folks who do those things best. If we're never able to agreeably disagree on *tactics*--again, not even core principles--it's hard to fathom how we'll ever regain a majority.