Single Issue Interest Groups (Nader and Lieberman)

[cally]

This post by http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/07/single-issue-trap.html">Gilliardraises an important concern about single issue groups. I'm curious what others think about his points.

The Single Issue Trap

...

When people properly blame Ralph Nader for turning progressivism from concerns for social justice to middle class comfort and consumerism, one of the things they should note is that is his leadership led the way to interest group politics. Instead of broad alliances, there are narrow factions.

In this world, the NAACP is just one more interest group, along with the rest. Real issues of social justice become second place to consumerism and political game playing. Which is why the Green Party went from weak to irrelevant. Instead of developing as an adjunct to the Democratic Party, it wound up riven with factional disputes. Why? Because every idea is valid. Everyone has a voice and leadership is a debate. Which is fine in ordering pizza, but politcs is supposed to create leaders, not serve as a personal temper tantrum.

So I am constantly amazed that people expect NARAL and Planned Parenthood to see a bigger picture. Why should they? They have been trained to be single issue advocates. And those kinds of organizations are dedicated to schmoozing in DC and hiring Hill Rats. It is rarely about what the local members want or a larger picture.

Why risk pissing off Lieberman who can help you on the Hill over prinicples? Lamont has no vote.

[557188]

1. HAHAHAHAHA

Yes the Green Party is just one big single issue party! Nader was a single issue canidate!

What a load of shit. They are starting to get desperate in their absurd defense of Lieberman.

[madfloridian]

2. NARAL said in an email to someone at FDL.....

that Joe effectively explained to them why he said it was no problem for a rape victim to find another hospital if the one they were in did not believe in emergency contraception.

Trouble is they did not share how he explained it.

I would love to hear how someone can explain a comment like that.

Here is what he said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/lieberman-betrays-rape-vi_b_17312.html

"This fight isn't exclusively being drawn along party lines.U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who often takes a conservative line on social issues, is facing a liberal Democratic primary challenge from wealthy Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont. But that hasn't stopped Lieberman from supporting the approach of the Catholic hospitals when it comes to contraceptives for rape victims.

Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn't be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.

Here is what Lamont said:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/38856/

"I absolutely support women’s right to complete and appropriate health care and to reproductive freedom. I will fight to make the morning after pill available over the counter, to make emergency contraception available to all rape victims, and to support the nomination and appointment of pro-choice judges.

I would have led the opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Alito, since he fundamentally tilts the balance on the court and jeopardizes a woman’s right to choose. South Dakota recently passed a bill which outlaws a woman’s right to an abortion even in the case of rape and incest; this law is certain to be decided by the newly-reconstituted U.S. Supreme Court."

So, NARAL needs to tell us how Joe Lieberman explained it to them.

I have been supportive of them, but I wrote them tonight.

[cally]

3. I contribute to both NARAL and Planned Parenthood

and I'm rethinking that. Part of Gilliard's essay that intrigued me was how the grassroots need to become more active in single issue interest groups. I've never been involved with these organizations so maybe it's time to rethink that.