home

The Politics of Contrast By Default

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 11:46:09 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In light of the SCOTUS' decision upholding as constitutional a federal ban of an abortion procedure, intact dilation and extraction, much activity on abortion ban legislation in the States is now expected:

Both sides of the abortion debate expect a new push for restrictions as state lawmakers around the country digest the implications of the Supreme Court decision Wednesday upholding a federal ban on a type of abortion.

So despite the attempts of many Democrats to avoid the Politics of Contrast, particularly on social issues such as choice, it appears the Democrats will be forced to battle the Party of Dobson on social issues. This is politically fortuitous for the Democrats, particularly on the issue of choice.

Some more discussion on the Politics of Contrast on the flip.

Responding to my post, Ed Kilgore wrote:

As for the "politics of contrast," which Armando has repeatedly used me as a foil to promote, yes, of course, absolutely, if you don't explain to voters why you're different from the opposition, you can't expect to win many elections. But just as obviously, there are legitimate questions about where to draw contrasts, and how much contrast is necessary. If contrast is the only thing that matters, then Democrats should just distance themselves as far from Republicans as possible, regardless of public opinion, principles, actual consequences, or common sense, and I doubt Armando or anyone else really thinks that makes any sense. He has his point of view about how far Democrats need to go to "contrast" themselves with the GOP on Iraq, but that point of view, however passionately and articulately advanced, is just a debating point between people who agree on the basics, not a self-evident position held by anyone who wants "contrast."

(Emphasis supplied.) I accept Ed's point that the issue NOW is how, how much and when to contrast Democrats from Republicans is now the consensus view. But Ed must admit it was not always so. On Iraq especially, Ed's former organization advocated shying away from contrasting Democrats from Republicans. Similarly, blurring contrasts with Republicans on some social issues like choice has also been strongly recommended by the DLC, Third Way and other New Democrat groups.

Ed argues semantics, instead of substance here. Because he knows that in fact on issues as diverse as choice and Iraq, many, if not most, New Democrats, have argued for anti-Contrast. As a narrative for the NATIONAL party, as opposed to the regional and state Democratic organizations, this has been folly. The Democratic Party became a party that stands for nothing.

It is time to recognize on the key issues of the day, the Politics of Contrast is the winning strategy now. Maybe in five years it will not be. But today it seems clear to me that it is.

< Friday Open Thread | The Right To Choose: Rudy Was Against It Before He Was For It Before He Was Against It >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Politics of Contrast By Default | 8 comments (8 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    "It appears... (none / 0) (#1)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 12:12:51 PM EST
    ...the Democrats will be forced to battle the Party of Dobson on social issues."

    Yes, and they do not compromise nor do they take prisoners.

    Where to draw the line. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Naftali on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 12:25:36 PM EST
    I find his list of criteria determining where we oughtta distance outselves from Rs  interesting: public opinion, principles, actual consequences, or common sense.

    Not sure if those mean much, outside of reference to CW. Be interesting to see that list teased out.

    Public opinion: if the D position is held by a plurality of Americans, then we draw contrast? A majority of Americans? How large a majority? When should we try pushing a minority opinion into the majority (as the Republicans do so often)?

    Principles: Well, that's the question, I guess. Whose principles? What are the principles of the Democratic Party at large? At what point can a principle held by the majority of members of the party be said to be a principle of the party? At what point can a principle held by the majority of politicians in the party, ditto?

    I don't really understand 'actual consequences', as we'll never know the consequences of drawing a contrast until we actually do so. We can argue about these, and depend on the opinions of experts, but this isn't really a, if you'll excuse the expression, known known.

    Common sense: Well, I hope this is covered by 'priciples,' in that no Democratic principles are entirely lacking in common sense. I guess Kilgore's saying that just because Rs say they're against crime, we shouldn't say we're for it. Um, okay.

    But the only real places to draw the lines of contrast, according to Kilgore, appear to be 'public opinion' and 'principles'. Which Democratic principles are opposed by a majority of public opinion? Which aren't? And can we at least start by drawing sharp, sharp, razor-sharp contrasts with the latter?

    (And then once we learn the skill, we can try to catch the Rs in shoving that Overton Window wide open.)

    intact dilation and extraction (none / 0) (#3)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:33:57 PM EST

    If you want contrast, why use a term such as "intact dilation and extraction" that most lay persons have no idea what it means?  You sound as though you are hiding something.  Put it in lay person's terms.  You are four square in favor of a doctor being allowed to suck the brains out of a partially delivered baby.

    Because I was attacked (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:13:47 PM EST
    for calling it late term abortion by some bloggers as a know nothing since the procedure is occasionally used prior to the third trimester.

    Now, I am criticized for the reverse.

    Can't win.

    Parent

    language counts ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Sailor on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 03:53:33 PM EST
    ... which is why the anti abortion folks labeled it  'partial-birth' abortion. Strictly for shock and eww value.

    Using the medical name for a medical procedure is correct, neutral language.

    You don't call a tonsilectomy 'ripping flesh out of your throat.'

    Parent

    exactly sailor, (none / 0) (#6)
    by gollo on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:31:08 PM EST
    and why circumcision for non medical reasons is never referred to as pre-meditated genital mutilation (often performed on minors because of parents religious belief.)

    But that would require honesty from certain anti-abortion advocates.

    Parent

    circumcision and abortion (none / 0) (#7)
    by diogenes on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:55:57 PM EST
    Of course, male circumcision is now regarded as highly protective against AIDS, to the point that it is recommended for African adult males.  
    Whatever Americans think of early term abortions, the majority simply do not support third trimester partial birth abortions, and the more they know about it the less they will like it.  On the other hand, Americans know exactly what circumcision is already.  
    Why must people here draw a line in the sand here, of all places, rather than on non-Partial birth abortions?  Is there a death wish involved?    

    actual medical professionals ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 11:33:06 PM EST
    ... know that there is no such term as 'partial birth abortion.'

    They also know, as bush has stated, that medical decisions are best left to the (consenting adult) patient-doctor consensus.

    Parent

    The Politics of Contrast By Default | 8 comments (8 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment