Provacative? Sure. It's meant to be.
This is a tangent coming from Kos' post about the Rhode Island senate race,
here. Now, I am a strong, vocal supporter of abortion rights, but what I saw in this thread was an incredible number of people who seem to automatically disqualify candidates who are not pro-choice.
So, my question is this: what is more important to you?
More below the fold...
Abortion Rights vs...
Health Care Reform: How many people die every year because they could not afford simple preventative care? How many people go into debt or declare bankruptcy because of the ridiculous costs of health care? Why are we the only industrial, Western nation that does not guarantee health care to all of its citizens? If things continue down this path, in 15-20 years, who will be able to AFFORD an abortion?
The Environment: Guess what I like doing? Breathing, drinking, and eating without pollution. Well, thanks to the GOP, each of those is becoming harder and harder to do. Clean Skies, mercury standards, deregulation... you name it, if it helps us live, the GOP hates it.
What side supports reductions in greenhouse emmisions, stronger mercury legislation, renewable energy, hybrid cars, etc.? Certainly not the Repugs.
If nothing is done, and we wind up with a runaway greenhouse effect, then, abortion rights won't mean a good goddamn, cause EVERYONE will be dead.
Labor Issues: How many people are "uniquely American," working three jobs just to play the bills? How many Americans fear the return of debtor's prisons after the new Bankruptcy legislation? Who keeps killing amendments to raise the minimum wage, introduced so people can live with a modicum of dignity, and who keeps passing bigger and bigger tax cuts for the rich at the expense of everyone else? Abortion rights suddenly become less important when your house is foreclosed on and your car is repossessed.
The War in Iraq, Social Security: What else do I have to say about these that haven't already been said?
So, my question is this: You have two candidates. *Option A is a Democrat, and has very strong records on all of the above. You know you can count on them to fight against GWB and the theocons. However, he/she is also devoutly religious, and they believe that abortion is a sin.
*Option B is a Republican. He/she is a self-proclaimed moderate, although their record on the above is woefully inadequate. Their party affiliation helps keep the GOP in power. They are also pro-choice, although that conviction has never been seriously tested by a party whip.
For whom do you cast your ballot? If you said B, why?
You know what? I wish EVERY Democratic candidate wanted real progressive reform AND was strongly pro-choice. But, guess what? I don't get to vote for The Crimson Kid in every election. And unfortunately, the only person I've ever met who agrees with me on everything is The Crimson Kid, so, occasionally, I have to make value judgments, and have to sacrifice some of my values in order to achieve others. It's the way of the world.
So, I ask you... on how many issues must you agree with an anti-choice candidate before you can vote for him/her? 5? 10? Tell me. Please.
I mean, what if a GOoPer ran on the platform of "Killin' Jews, Enslavin' Chinamen, and Legal Abortions for All", and the Dem opponent was strong on labor, strong against discrimination, strong on the environment, and strong on every other progressive value except that person was anti-choice? Who would you vote for? Obviously, this is extreme, so tell me where the middle ground is.
We roundly (and correctly) criticized Alan Keyes for booting his daughter out of his life because she was gay. I wonder, are there people here who would disown their children if they turned out to be anti-choice?
The moral: the Democratic bench is woefully weak if we can't get people who are progressive, pro-choice, and viable in a state as blue as Rhode Island. We have to start some serious local-level pushes to replenish the candidate pools so we no longer HAVE to compromise some issues in order to win on others.
Till then, I accept the political reality of needing a Senate majority. If I can get there with Casey and Langevin, so be it. If I can get there with Pennacchio and Brown or Whitehouse, HUZZAH! But, until the GOP is out of office and our options become less limited, I will do what I think is best for the country overall.
Update [2005-5-10 1:12:34 by TheCrimsonKid]: So, rereading this, I realize that I left out the following:
If the Democrats can regain the majority, we get to SET the agenda, HEAD each committee, and have a MAJORITY in each committee. With these tools, we can make SURE that a woman's right to choose is protected by never even allowing anti-choice bills to see the floor. Even with a Casey and a Langevin caucusing with us, we are not going to turn our backs on a maor plank of our party (unless, of course, you believe that Harry Reid would do this, in which case, we have bigger problems that PA and RI.)
Update [2005-5-10 16:50:59 by TheCrimsonKid]: (as posted below) This is where the real heart of my point lies, even though I realize I didn't articulate it well (moral: don't write a diary late at night when you are angry.) If we on a the left keep acting as a conglomeration of single-issue voters (whether it be choice, gay rights, the environment, labor, anti-war, etc), and each of us has our own litmus test for any candidate, we will never achieve the unity we need to win this fight. We have to recognize that all these causes are important, are often interconnected, and they must all be addressed, instead of constantly focusing on our own little part of the whole picture. The GOP doesn't even have to divide and conquer... we've already divided ourselves.