Max wrote:
> > >My impression is that very few on the U.S. left have
> > >any support for the death penalty. This dovetails
> > >with their absolutism on abortion and their general
> > >isolation from the working class.
Yoshie responded:>
> > Wrong! Abortion used to be more popular and death penalty less
> so. Compare
> their respective popularity rates now, in the 80s, in the 70s,
> and in the
> 60s. You'll find that when leftists had mass movement upsurges,
> abortion
> was more popular and death penalty less so. Michael Hoover'll
> give this
> empirical support, I hope, when he gets around to it.
To which Max added:
>
> Your first sentence does not necessarily contradict
> any of mine, or vice versa.
>
> I agree that from 1965-75, the death penalty was
> less popular and reproductive rights more so, but
> my post spoke to who was or was not supportive.
> The 65-75 movement was not labor-based, by and
> large, so its support for reproductive rights
> and opposition to capital punishment, which
> has carried over to be mainstream liberal
> positions today, remains off-kilter, relatively
> speaking, as far as working people are concerned.
> It is one thing to say pro-choice is a majority
> position; one way we can be sure of that is that
> Clinton-Gore support it, no slur on the position
> intended. It is another to say that pro-choice
> is less popular among working people than among
> the population as a whole.
>
> Finally, I would not suggest that out of political
> expediency the left throw reproductive rights
> overboard or embrace capital punishment uncritically.
> I do think that a more nuanced, non-absolutist
> posture, combined with some consideration of the
> class basis of many workers' views on these subjects,
> would improve our politics. My suspicion is that
> our failure or disinclination in these dimensions
> tends to foster an isolation of Catholic and other
> observant religious workers' families from progressive
> causes, whether left or social-democratic.
>
> [By class basis, incidentally, I do NOT mean what
> I took Curtis to be saying, namely that workers
> were so fucked over that their moral sensibilities
> were wanting, and their perversity inflated.
> I do mean that for those with less compensating
> factors in their future lives, the loss of a
> present or future bread-winner can be more
> hurtful, hence the possible added importance
> of retribution.]
>
> So I think it was appropriate, some time back, for
> somebody to suggest that alternative rationales
> for pro-choice were worth discussing.
>
> Present company excepted, left postures in these
> discussions often reduce quickly to moral righteousness,
> forgetting that folks on the other side of the argument
> often act from the same motives. So people tend to
> talk past each other, or simply attack each other,
> both to little purpose, and end up simply avoiding
> each other.
Ingrid: Max, on a certain level, I'd love to agree with you, because I do think that the way in which many on the left discuss these and other issues does tend to alienate people who would otherwise be receptive to progressive causes. But I also think you're a bit full of it. I know that you personally have reservations about abortion and support the death penalty so it's very easy for you to talk about taking a more "nuanced" position. But for starters, you have yet to supply evidence that working people support capital punishment more so than the affluent middle class. That may be true, but it just hasn't been my experience. And even accepting your premise, there are significant numbers of working people who both oppose the death penalty and fully support reproductive rights. While you may be right that the way these issues tend to get argued can be counterproductive, I disagree that it requires taking a "non-absolutist" stand.
If it's true that working people are more supportive of the death penalty, one reason for this that hasn't been mentioned is that most victims of violent crimes are also working class (Ted Kyzinsky being a rare bird among murderers). The emotional gratification of exacting revenge, of venting rage, obviously does come into play. But I think you were too dismissive of what Curtiss was trying to say. He never claimed that the moral sensibilities of working people were wanting; you chose to infer that. He merely pointed out that working people have a lot of reasons to feel rage and bitterness about being exploited (and living in a society that denies this reality). He was speaking from personal experience, and I agree from personal experience. And so revenge fantasies do help to vent the bile. Pardon my old-fashioned phraseology, but meanness begets meanness and violence begets violence, which is just one of many reasons why I can't support the death penalty. And since when was it hard to argue with Catholic and other religious workers against the death penalty?? At least on this position, one could quote biblical chapter and verse, not to mention the Pope, to support one's case.
Of course, abortion is another case, and I have to confess that I've never been able to argue with those who toe the Pope's/Evangelical Christian line on this, and have long since given up trying. But I tend to believe that people who oppose abortion come to this position for various reasons and then allow religious doctrine to close off debate in what they believe. And one reason why working people may indeed be more opposed to abortion is that their own reproductive rights are continuously under assault in an economic culture that often demands two-wage-earner families and constantly beats up on those who have children without having the means to provide for them. But you can't blame honest leftists for this. I always liked that line by Ralph Nader that the difference between the Democratic and the GOP party lines boils down to how they view the status of the fetus. I honestly believe that if we really set about making it easier for working people to raise their children without having to make so many painful compromises, the violence and rage that surrounds the abortion debate would dissipate.
You're right perhaps that we should try to frame our arguments better, but you're wrong if you mean that we should take a "middle ground" on controversial issues that lack support of the majority of working people. Should we support the bombing of Iraq because a majority of working people support the President on this one? I wouldn't be a leftist if I didn't believe that people were generally better than our present political economy allows them at times to behave. And I'm retrograde enough to still believe in appeals to reason (sometimes).
Regards,
Ingrid