A woman asked Mayor Pete about room in the (inclusive) DFL for those who are pro-life. She indicated that there were 21 million pro-life voters in the DFL. Obviously Mayor Pete, and the platform folks, said "No, there isn't room for you unless you abandon your deeply held principles.". Or words to that effect.
So, if you hope to be the DFL nominee, who wants to run against the worst candidate the GOP has fielded in ages, are you really in a position to tell 21 million voters, "Thanks, were good without you."?
This points to a problem I've seen coming in the DFL for a while. The party that prides itself on inclusion has too many factions that are opposed to each other. For example, organized labor (as opposed to public sector unions) has traditionally been solidly in support of the DFL. Yet the DFL commitment to virtually unrestricted immigration and the increasingly radical environmental movement, seems to leave the AFL-CIO folx out of luck. Although, not a big constituency, we're already seeing the LGBT (especially the T) conflict with the feminists. Obviously the party can't be in complete support on virtually unrestricted abortion for any reason up to the moment of (or after) birth, and accommodate those who identify as pro-life.
If I were a member of a labor union, I think I'd be asking the DFL "What have you done for me lately?".
It's interesting that we are seeing some degree of growth (or at least visibility and vocalness) in the GOP of constituencies that have traditionally supported the DFL, (Jews, POC, and gays). Probably not enough to move the needle much, but enough to raise questions about the DFL lock on these groups.
As someone who is interested in politics, it’ll be interesting to see how a party that welcomes groups with opposing interests, survives when they don’t allow room for compromise.
Hillary got 65,853,514 votes in 2016 and lost. Are y’all sure you want to tell 21 million voters that they don’t have a voice or place in your party?
3 comments:
What matters is how committed to life these pro-life Dems really are. Which of the likeliest nominees are pro-life, and what would pro-life Dem voters do when one of them wins the nomination? I didn't want to support a horn-dog, but a woman who supports abortion is far worse, so I supported the horn-dog. My priorities could not allow for a pro-abort victory while a pro-lifer was in the running. Are any of these pro-life Dems single issue voters, and if so, are there enough of them to make a difference?
As to the general point, this also is the question. Are any of them committed enough to their positions to prevent their support of the Dem candidate? It would depend on the degree of revulsion they have to Trump and/or their honest assessment of how his policies impact their situations. How many of those with these conflicts see the Dems as still being better overall, even without their pet concerns not being met? There's some of that among the right-wing as well.
I don’t disagree with either of your points, but I’m more troubled by the fact that the DFL is willing to tell 21 million voters, who mostly agree with them that they don’t get to be included in the party that preaches inclusiveness. It doesn’t matter if they vote for Trump, if they just stay home Trump wins.
It’s the condescending superiority inherent in the response that blows my mind.
“The Democratic Party used to support a position that welcomes pro-life members,” she said. “The 1996 and 2000 Democratic platforms noted that we are ‘a party of inclusion’ and ‘we respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue.’”
She wants the party to return to that platform but fears the billion dollar abortion industry is getting in the way. Even Joe Biden, who was once considered a moderate on the abortion issue, recently flip-flopped and now supports taxpayer-funded abortions.
“The reality today is that the Democratic Party, hounded by abortion extremists, is deep in the pockets of the pro-choice lobby,” Day said. “As much as today’s candidates talk about ending big money in politics, they make one major exception: the family planning and abortion lobby, a $3 billion industry that pads the wallets of political candidates to protect its own interests.”
Polls consistently show that most Americans, including a large number of Democrats, do not support such extremes. Day referred to a recent Gallup poll, which found that 59 percent of Democrats support at least some restrictions on abortion and 29 percent identify as pro-life.
Significantly, “20% of pro-life Democrats say they’d only vote for a pro-life candidate, according to a 2019 Public Religion Research Institute poll,” she noted. “More than 17 million Democrats identified as pro-life in 2016, and 44% of Democrats support drawing the line to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, according to a recent Marist poll.”
Post a Comment