The Battle for the Reagan Democrats
By Mitch Berg
Speaking of Lieberman…
Salina Zito writing in the Pittsburg Trib on the battle for the “Reagan Democrats”:
In 2005, Howard Dean was the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee and saddled with a party weakened after years of national losses. Determined to turn the tide, he commissioned a massive poll with Cornell Belcher aimed directly at values voters.
After poring over the polling data, Dean recognized a couple of things:
- First, Democrats did not speak about their faith — but they should.
- Second, when Democrats talked about abortion, they didn’t emphasize that it should be a last resort. While Democrats needed to protect the rights of women, they also needed to talk about taking care of every child brought into the world — an aspect on which Republicans are perceived to fall short.
Dean took his poll to the party’s leadership and to labor leaders. He pointed out that while swing voters do share Democrats’ values, the party was not speaking to them in the right way.
Which is, by the way, true of both parties. But I digress:
Dean’s mission became to link things in a way that makes it more difficult for cultural conservatives to walk away from Democrats.
The challenge for both parties is similar: dealing with the control of the primaries by the parties’ extremes. For Democrats, it is their bloggers who want out of Iraq tomorrow; for Republicans, it is the extreme pro-lifers.
One wonders what Ms. Zito means by “extreme pro-lifers”, exactly, but there’s a point there. Some of my worst political memories involve walking into district caucus meetings where half of the crowd were there purely to introduce and pass infinite varieties of the same pro-life resolutions – not that I disagreed – and who were completely illiterate about any other issues.
If Republicans want to win, they should remember that Reagan, as president, never let the abortion issue define what it meant to be a Republican. He was against it but he never took steps to make it harder to obtain.
That’s a tough pill for many erstwhile Reagan Conservatives to swallow; Reagan was no dogmatist on abortion or, for that matter, Second Amendment issues; he believed the right things in both cases; he just didn’t push either.
The more each party must run to its corners and defend what mainstream America considers extreme positions, the harder it becomes to win over Reagan Democrats.
Which is the conundrum for Republicans; getting both “Reagan Democrats” and Evangelicals – both of the “must-turnouts” and “must wins” for the GOP – to play nice together.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:25 am
I think it goes back to the courts. Judges Democrats put in there will legislate from the bench on these issues. For example, the taxpayers must pay for others people abortoins according to Democratic judges. So the converse of that, even if a Republican doesn’t push pro-life legislation, at least they will not put pro-abortion people in power.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:33 am
“extreme pro-lifers”
Qouth the Indigo Girls “It’s only life, after all. Yeah.”
June 14th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Shame on you for misspelling Pittsburgh, Mitch. You should have your bagpipe privileges revoked. (Pittsburgh is a Scots city pronounced “pittsboro”)
On the other hand, I suppose you can be excused as a native North Dakotan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburg,_North_Dakota
June 14th, 2007 at 8:34 am
The problem with voters of all stripes is that they want what they want and want it NOW. Then they want the debate to be over.
That is exactly what the Pro Abortion crowd felt they got with Roe V Wade. The Supreme’s ruled/ debate over. Bad court decisions are exactly why we have to continue to work together and get Senators who will try to block Jurists who see their post as a place to right the wrongs of our country. That is the job of Congress (as little faith I put in it, it is far better to trust elected officials than appointees).
June 14th, 2007 at 9:25 am
jpmn, totally agree. I can live with a law I hate, if that law was enacted by the people we voted into office. From City Hall up to Congress. If the majority of the people want to continue to be represented by the ones who enact these laws, fine. Then I am in the minority so will deal with it.
But when you have judges creating laws from the bench, or doing things like ruling the Pledge of Alligence to be unconstitutional, that really bites my ass.
Most people don’t make the conection between a liberal Nixon, Carter or Clinton judge, and the wacky rulings they make.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:34 am
“”I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith. But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation and I have to make that judgment. You can take that position and not be pro-abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don’t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them””
— John Kerry, 2nd Debate
Say what you want, but this was one of the most reasoned descriptions of this issue I have heard. For a Party like the GOP, who espouses less government control, yet supports the Government’s intrusion on the basic right of all citizens, the right to make medical decisions, is extremely frustrating. Even Mitch, well Real Mitch anyway, feels it is less about pro life or pro choice, but about state rights. If anything, the ‘New’ GOP needs to coalesce around a consistent vision, one that begins with a raw framework of less government control, and if that is the case, they shouldn’t even be in the medical decision business.
Flash
Personally Pro Life, Politically Pro Choice
June 14th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Flash, circular reasoning.
Pro-choice justices decided the Constitution affords people the right to taxpayer funded abortion, so Kerry favors Constitutional rights.
But that doesn’t tell you whether the justices ruled rightly. What was wrong with the prior 150 years of Constitutional scholarship and reasoning?
What if the President appoints new justices who overturn the “right” to abortion? Will Kerry then agree with that?
The present abortion debate has moved beyond a right to make medical decisions in the abstract. It’s about deciding when a person has a right to expect the government to step in and protect that person’s liberty, property, and yes, life.
Reagan knew that, but he also knew there was little he could do about it until enough justices changed. He didn’t get a chance to appoint enough good ones (and SDO was a huge disappointment). But give the guy a break – he had other things on his mind, such as the continued existence of a country under threat of nuclear annihilation. Those of you who don’t remember the Nuclear Freeze, SALT, START, and all the others, have committed the sin of judging his actions in light of today’s Peace Dividend circumstances.
.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I have a problem with:
“making certain that you don’t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them”
because to some it means paying whatever “a poor person” requires for “happiness”, and not simply “the pursuit of happiness”.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Anyone know where I can go pick up my government provided gun? Got my eye on a 1911, but it’s out of my price range.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Buzz inquired “Anyone know where I can go pick up my government provided gun?”
May I suggest the United States Marine Corps?
June 14th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Here’s where social conservatives need to get smart. If they would realize that the government gets the power to corrupt our social fabric from the money they take from us in taxes, they could join with the fiscal conservatives, cut taxes and spending, and we could all get what we want.