Have you heard the old saying "dance with the one that brung ya?" Well, the Democrats seem to have forgotten it. They seem to be dancing further away from their base with each passing day.Women, people of color, labor, and environmentalists are major components of the Democratic base, yet the leadership seems increasingly willing to back away from issues key to each of these constituencies.
An example of this is Bob Casey, Jr.'s senate campaign in Pennsylvania. There are a number of individuals who polling data indicate could defeat Sen. Rick Santorum, so why did the party choose to support Casey -- who opposes abortion rights for women?
I think it's because they listen to the wrong polling companies and strategists.
The New York Times, in Senate Campaign Tests Democrats' Abortion Tack, reports:
"... Democratic strategists have argued that the party must find a way to signal tolerance to opposing views on this issue, and sensitivity to conflicting values."The report goes on to say:
"This tension between principle and pragmatism is apparent across the landscape of the Democratic Party this year, weighing on issues that include the war in Iraq and same-sex marriage. Party strategists are trying to piece together enough winning races to take control of the House and Senate, which means paying close attention to swing voters in the middle. But that strategy angers some on the party's left, most vocally in the blogosphere, who argue that the times demand more than a careful centrism."To strengthen their base Democrats must remain true to core issues. Abortion rights is a core issue, as indicated by turnout for the 2004 March for Women's lives. Pictured above are the 1.25 million who attended the march.
It is very likely that Santorum will lose in November. It's also likely that a Democrat who supports abortion could have defeated him. What will be tragic is if Democrats think it's a good strategy to back anti-abortion candidates in future races.
6 comments:
...the old saying "dance with the one that brung ya?"
Good advice.
Women, people of color, labor, and environmentalists are major components of the Democratic base...
Um... that's four. Dance card's filled up. And you've just laid your finger -- probably unwittingly -- on the Democrats' main problem:
They are trying to be everything to everyone and in the process are accomplishing little for anyone. It has become a party of marginals; every cast-off -ism around finds succor and sanctuary in the Democratic Party, where they sit around, chins a-quiver, and ankle bite the Republicans.
...who, for their part, are doing their best to alienate as many people as they can.
The problem, as I see it, with the Republican party is their "base" is so extreme that keeping them happy is causing the party problems with the majority of Americans.
It's taken a few decades for the conversion to take place, but the political right joined forces with the religious right to form the new -- but not improved -- Republican party base. The political right is really only concerned with the bottom line ... or what I would call 'greed.' The religious right is only concerned with making sure everyone walks in lock step with them ... forgetting completely that what sets this country apart from most others is that we have a separation of church and state.
Most Americans aren't part of the political right -- a group comprised of individuals who fall within the top 10% income bracket. And thankfully, most Americans aren't part of the religious right. In fact, they think Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are idiots.
So, in order to keep their "base" happy Republicans have to give them no-bid contracts and promise of a Federal Marriage Amendment that has no real chance of passing.
Democrats stand the best chance of getting their act together, because their base (for the most part) is supportive of the other members. You see the head of the AFL-CIO speaking at reproductive rights rallies, feminist leaders standing side-by-side with leaders of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, and all of them giving at least lip service to supporting the work of environmentalists.
So, they are not as fractured as you might think.
I think what Democrats (and probably Republicans, too) need to do is STOP listening to pollsters and consultants. THEY are the true problem with politics in this country.
They convince candidates to talk about what they THINK the public wants, instead of urging candidates to talk about issues they are passionate about.
Under the guidance of their consultants candidates have ceased being leaders and have instead become homogenized talking suits.
We can all only hope that soon, very soon, candidates wake up and kick the pollsters out of their campaigns.
BAC
Getting back to the race at hand I would like to point out that Democrats have not thrown their support behind Casey that would be the party bosses like Rendell and Schummer that decided he should run.
The race at hand is the Democratic primary on May 16th in which I am confident the party will choose Chuck Pennacchio.
The problem is that they were not looking at the right polls when they asked Casey to run. When people find out he is pro-life he is somewhere between losing this election considerably or in a dead heat with Santorum. This according to polls by Quinnipiac, Rasmussen and Zogby.
In his only tough election Casey let his 17 point lead turn into a 12 point loss. Amazingly he is on pace to turn his once 20 point lead into an even bigger loss. When Democrats learn about how conservative he is they overwhelmingly favor Chuck Pennacchio. Learn more about both of these guys at www.chuck2006.com (click on the Casey Jr. fact file to hear about Casey in his own words).
Your comments point to why it was such a huge mistake for the national leadership to "select" Casey, Jr.
And PA is not the only state where they made a mistake.
NOW and the Feminist Majority are supporting Alan Sandals, http://www.alansandals.com, but I doubt they would have a problem getting behind Pennacchio if he wins the primary.
Like most progressives they are in an 'anyone but Santorum or Casey' mode.
Actually, it is the NOW & FM PACs which are supporting Sandals. Chuck Pennacchio (www.chuck2006.com) refuses ALL PAC money, so the NOW & FM PACs could not have contributed to Chuck.
Sandals, BTW, was, according to his web site, in favor of requiring minors seeking abortions to obtain parental consent (not just notification). At least that was his position up until the day that the NOW PAC came calling. In order to get their $$$ he changed his position (detailed by The Cajun Jew here: http://cajunjew.blogspot.com/2006/03/open-letter-to-alan-sandals-campaign.html
That's suspicious.
Post a Comment