I came to political maturity at the beginning of the modern women's movement. A particularly vivid memory in the early seventies is a Newsweek cover with Gloria Steinem and Angela Davis. Of course it wasn't Angela Davis, it was Florence Kennedy. I once actually argued with Gloria over whether it was Angela on the cover with her. She politely pointed out she thought it was Ms. Kennedy and declined to argue further. So I'm not altogether unconscious of what this peculiar memory says of me, my biases, and proclivity to accuracy as well as name dropping.
More below
I've just finished reading John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira's four-part analysis of the state of the progressive movement and prescription for the future in the American Prospect. It is full of intriguing statistics, delicious demographics. I can't say that I disagree with the broad outline of its prescriptions, although the national security list seems pretty lame to me. But the end of the series brought a tell-tale hollowness in my chest, certain precursor for me of danger.
If by nothing more than omission, their prognosis seems to share the central DLC premise that our need to appeal to moderates means we have discard being the party of women's rights and reproductive freedom. Despite denials and denunciation of the DLC, many on this site share the view that we have to inoculate the party against this part of our past.
I have been trying to be open to the possibility that change may be necessary. To that end, I have finally come around to the view that NARAL's endorsement of Republicans is counterproductive. Two decades ago it was politically prudent of them to endorse both Ds and Rs and to reward past support with endorsements regardless of party. Today the parties are so polarized, the progressives within the Republicans so cabined, their actual demonstrated commitment to protecting reproductive freedom so weakened, that I agree it is better for progressive organizations to confront them, not protect them.
But, I do not know how to operate in a world that discards women's rights and reproductive freedom as central organizing principles. Several of us at dailykos have been alternatively appalled and outraged at the marginalization of abortion rights from core Democratic principles. Some of you would argue that "discard" is too strong a word. We're not really discarding them, you say, we're just pretending to do so for a while. I do not believe in this pretense. I do not tap to Chuck Schumer's merry dance with Bob Casey, especially when Pennsylvania is a pro-choice state and Santorum's support is weakened. Schumer's backing is not about choosing a candidate who can beat Santorum. It is not about being pragmatic in anti-choice state. That hollowness in my heart tells me it is about announcing to Democrats, and the middle moderates, that abortion rights are off the Democratic table.
I can't agree that we can become a party where commitment to gender equality through protection of access to abortion is optional. I can't be in that party. I like "the common good" as a general election theme. Its virtue is its very opaqueness, its capacity to reflect whatever meaning one projects on it yet still being a progressive unifying principle. But know this. But I am not letting go of choice. The common good will not be served by making access to safe and legal abortion our party's dirty little secret.