> I think there is little evidence to support the view that large numbers
> of otherwise progressive Catholics (or protestants) have been recruited
> for the right, or withheld their hand from progressive politics, because
> progressives, or Democrats or Clinton, are too rigidly pro-choice.
As I said in another reply, I agree this is the right question.
> 1. Very few people, either pro or anti-choice, are single issue voters
> on abortion as a matter of routine. When abortion is highlighted in a
> particular contest, the pro-choice side usually wins (all other things
> being equal, which they often are not).
The second statement is irrelevant to the first. I don't disputethat pro-choice is a majority view. That's why both parties play to it, though in different ways. The problem is the pro-choice majority is multi-class, and I'd rather see a class majority that is ambivalent on choice.
> The anti-choicers who do use a
> litmus test are mostly very conservative anyway -- i.e. Christian
> Coalition types. These numerical calculations explain why there are very
> few anti-choice "progressive politicians."
Huh? I know a little math. What "calculations"??
> 2. Catholics were very big pro-clinton voters.And Lets not forget:
Yes, Clinton has coopted a lot of cultural conservatives.
> MOST CATHOLICS ARE PRO CHOICE! ( catholics have a HIGHER Abortion rate
Really? Source? Percentage?
> than women of other faiths, by the way -- because they are less likely
> to use birth control. I think Hispanic women have the highest abortion
> rate of any ethnic group.)
That you avail yourself of an abortion does not mean you might not, as a routine matter, be pro-life. People sometimes drink to excess, but it doesn't make them "pro-drunk."
> 3. Richard Marens suggests that some politicaly active religious
> Catholics failed to get involved in Clinton's health care agenda because
> he wouldn't "bend" on abortion. Leaving aside the awfulness of Clinton's
> health care plan, he DID Bend on abortion! The New Yorker reported that
> Hillary Clinton was ready to trade away abortion coverage if necessary;
> there was a conscious clause" a mile wide to enable doctors, nurses,
> hospitals with objections to refuse to be involved in abortion services.
Too little and too late.
> In FACT, although Clinton has vetoed a number of high-=profile
> anti-choice measures, he has signed also quite a few: no abortions for
> military personnel, no health insurance abortion coverage for Federal
> Workers, etc etc. Abortion is harder to get now than it was under Bush.
What does this have to do with the argument?
> 4. I'm a little troubled by Max's opposing 'middle-class pro
> choicers" with "progressive catholics" who care about poverty.One,
> those progressive Catholics are probably just as middle class, however
> that elusive term is defined.Two, Prochoicers also care about poverty.
> three, Abortion is a major issue for working class women -- they're the
> ones who are having the majority of abortions, after all. Reproductive
> rights are not some frill for privileged people.
> It's an especially disturbing classification in the context of
> electoral politics. Those "middle=class pro-choicers" are one of the
> most reliable demographics the Democratic party has! That's why so many
> politicians are pro-choice. If they could get more votes by opposing
> abortion, they would.
>
You're right that poverty is not the best example of what compensates for an anti-choice view, from a progressive standpoint, since strong concern about poverty is relatively rate. It's a combination of things, some stronger in some people than others, such as support for ample public services, progressive taxation, non-interventionist foreign policy, trade unionism, etc.
> I'm not saying there are no "progressives" who are deeply opposed to
> abortion. But there aren't very many, and why women should be forced to
> bear children against their will to please Jim Wallis or the Catholic
I agree the Jim Wallis type groups are rare, though their messageis interesting. I'm talking more about the Reagan Democrats.
> Workers -- are we talking even 10000 people here? -- is beyond me.
> NOW has a quarter of a million members. Emily's List is one of the
> biggest PACS in the country. Why not worry about alienating THEM?
> I don't think this issue would even come up if abortion rights, and
> women's rights generally, were not seen as unimportant, a distraction.
THe issue isn't whether to deep-six womens rights generally,but to compromise on some of the secondary issues within women's rights. Absolutism holds that no issues are secondary and no compromises are tenable. That's bad politics.
> After all, there are probably many core beliefs and
> constituencies"progressives" could abandon and pick up a handful of
> activists here, a hundred votes there. Someone mentioned the death
> penalty, opposition to which certainly sets "progressives' at odds with
> most americans. Prison reform,enforcement of the fair-housing laws,
> fighting police brutality, opposing various popular wars (like the War
> in the Gulf). Not to mention all those laws and regulations that benefit
> some union workers but do nothing for anyone else.
> Why are women the ones always asked to fall on their swords?
In real politics, compromises of all sorts are required for the sake of net gains of one type or another. Unions compromise when they break off a strike. Sacrificing "women" is not at issue, nor is delegalizing abortion entirely (the opposite absolutist position).
Rejecting compromise in principle is anti-political, hence the essential truth underlying Rorty and Alterman's discussion of the campus left, where rhetoric and posturing are understood as politics.
MBS