James Kroeger: Democrats, Gay Rights, & Abortion Rights

[Linette]

James Kroeger gives Democrats another strategic alternative to consider:

The Democratic Party has been victimized by Republican Party stratetgists in a number of different ways. One of the things they’ve done in recent years is “brand” the Democrats as ‘pro-gay’ and ‘pro-abortion.’ Today I am going to argue that it is both possible and desirable for the Democratic Party to separate itself completely from the divisive abortion rights and gay rights issues. How might it do such a thing?

Well, formally, by declaring in its platform that the Democratic Party has no identification whatsoever with either the pro- or anti-abortion positions, or the pro- or anti-gay rights positions. It should also formally state that Democrats welcome opponents of abortion and gay marriage into the party as long as they sincerely identify with the Democratic Party’s historic mission to pursue economic justice and improve economic security. We want them to feel free to express their opinions on these hot topics as individuals, but not as Democrats.

If we can do this, the Democratic Party will succeed in becoming a true Big Tent Party, since it will become more inclusive than ever before.

It should not be a secret any more that there are gay Republicans who like the GOP’s anti-tax policy, and anti-abortion Democrats who believe passionately in the goal of economic justice. In distancing itself from any specific position on the most polarizing of social/moral issues, the Democratic Party would be telling the American people that it recognizes (1) that these divisive issues cut across party lines, and (2) that none of the positions on any of these moral issues is necessarily connected to either the economic agenda historically pursued by the Republican Party or the economic agenda historically pursued by the Democratic Party.

Yes, Values Liberals who currently identify with the Democratic Party can be expected to scream and yell and protest this proposal vehemently, but nothing is stopping them from focusing their energy on building up a strong, passionate non-partisan Advocacy Movement that would promote their agenda across party lines.

After all, we have to ask why those who are passionate advocates of, say...gay rights...would want to intentionally alienate those Republicans who might be sympathetic with their cause? There is a reason why there are Gay Republicans. It’s because they do not agree with the economic agenda that the Democratic Party has historically pursued.

If gay rights advocates were to separate their cause from the Democratic Party and make it ‘non-partisan’, they might even find that their funding would improve substantially. Why intentionally alienate potential financial contributors by unnecessarily connecting your cause to a particular economic philosophy?

It is certainly not dishonorable to promote a moral cause you feel deeply about in a non-partisan fashion. Indeed, doing so tends to give your movement a claim to moral superiority above partisan interests.

In order to successfully pull off this identity makeover, all Democrats—no matter what their persuasions—-would need to zealously defend the Party’s non-partisan stance on divisive social morality issues. Any Democrats who try to represent their personal views on these hot-button issues as the views of the Democratic Party should be zealously reprimanded by the party faithful.

We should encourage those who feel strongly about Abortion rights, Gay Rights, etc. to speak loudly for their causes---not as Democrats---but as advocates of certain causes who also happen to identify with the Democrats’ economic agenda.

What we’re talking about, people, is tolerance. Tolerance of differing opinions on ‘peripheral’ topics. Democrats already have to tolerate different viewpoints within the party on foreign policy and other issues. Why shouldn’t we be tolerating different opinions within the party on the issues of abortion and gay rights?

It’s a solution that I think almost all parties would benefit from. Gay Rights and Abortion Rights advocates would be free to directly appeal to sympathizers in both parties and the Democratic Party would be able to escape the branding that has worked so well for the Republicans for so long.

The only interest group that would really stand to lose from this kind of Identity Makeover would be—-you guessed it—-THE REPUBLICANS!

Gee, do you think anyone might disagree with him?

:hide:

[terrya]

1. As a gay man, I really don't like the term "gay rights"

Because...well, it always plays into the "special rights" stuff. And it causes some to run away from the whole issue.

The Democrats can stand for full equality in this country. The Democrats can stand as the party against discrimination of other Americans. It can be done, politically. Robert Reich talks in his book "Reason" about how the Democratic Party can support same-sex marriage.

Why do I need to leave the party to talk about my rights as an American?

[Ian David]

2. No special rights for straight people! n/t

[Linette]

5. No need to leave the party

Why do I need to leave the party to talk about my rights as an American?

As James Kroeger points out, Democrats who disagree on foreign policy issues are not asked to leave the party.

Why shouldn't disagreements between Democrats on gay marriage and abortion should be the same sort of disagreement?

[EST]

3. Has a too-narrow view of what the Dem party is all about.

It's not just economics. It's about freedom and responsibility.

[Linette]

6. Freedom and responsibility

Isn't that what the Republicans claim they are for?

How is such a "definition" supposed to distinguish Democrats from the Republicans?

[EST]

7. There is no real difference between ds and rs

Not much, anyway. The real difference is the out and out insanity which has crept into the republican party and holds them in such thrall they refuse to excise the cancer.

[meg]

4. Lets just do away with civil rights for anyone except

rich correct-sort-of-christian white guys. Why mess around.

Oh. That would make us Republicans.

[dsc]

8. The problem with this is that

there might well be more votes lost than gained. We currently pull in about 25% of the pro life vote. (around 21% of those who would ban it outright and around 26% of those who would ban it but for a few discrete exceptions). I honestly don't know how many of the rest of the pro lifers would agree with us on economics. Conversely gay males are the only majority whites who vote with us 70+% of the time except Jews. Union workers are down to about 60% voting with us and are more likely to be a woman or minority than is a gay voter. Demographicly gays should vote against us but they don't largley due to our being a much better party than the other one on this issue.

I think the real solution is to put our economic issues front and center but to also forthrightly fight for our cultural base.

[Linette]

9. The gay male vote

If the Dems distance themselves from pro gay rights positions like Kroeger is saying, would we really lose the gay vote as you fear?

I mean, are they going to vote for the Republicans who would still be campaigning against them?

After all, the Dems wouldn't be taking an anti-gay position, they'd just be advocating tolerance of disagreement on the issue.

Gay males could choose to either not vote at all or vote for some fringe party, but neither of those possibilities would hurt Democrats as much as switching over to the Republicans.

[K-W]

10. People would stop voting.

People dont vote if they arent motivated.

[K-W]

11. Yes, lets make the Democratic party as useless as possible.

Sounds like a bang up strategy.

Any more groups the party should stop appealing to so that maybe the Republicans will like us?