A couple three more nuggets from the
NYT PIECE ON THE MAYBE-KINDA-SORTA DEMOCRAT ABORTION RETHINK.
Here’s the first:
Emily’s List and other groups have also sounded alarms about the direction the party leadership is taking over all. During the search for a national Democratic chairman, Ms. White posted a rallying cry on the group’s Web site: "We fought like mad to beat back the Republicans. Little did we know that we would have just as much to fear from some within the Democratic Party who seem to be using choice as a scapegoat for our top-of-the-ticket losses."
No. This issue is not a scapegoat. The Democratic Party is losing more votes than it’s gaining by its bloodthirty support of babykilling, and with thin margins of victory, that is what keeps them out of office.
It’s The Abortion, Stupid.
"The Democrats have to be very careful about this because they could end up undercutting themselves with the donor base," Ms. Stone [of Republicans for Choice] said. "The pro-choice donors in both parties tend to be the more wealthy."
Durhay!
Of course they have more disposable cash to give to political parties! They aren’t spending that cash on raising children! (They’ve also been brainpoisoned by the college and grad school degrees of liberal academia that are a key to greater wealth, and they have been putting their careers–i.e., wealth–ahead of raising children.)
But y’know what: Because they’re not raising children they’re not raising new votes. You can have your choice between short-term cash and long-term votes.
I choose the latter.
But abortion rights advocates warn of a bigger revolt within the party if its members start compromising on new abortion restrictions like parental notification laws or the fetal-pain bill. Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood, said some of her allies were saying that "to the degree that the Democrats move away from choice, that could be the real birth of a third-party movement."
Yes, which is part of why–though I haven’t talked about this publicly before–I think that depending on how things go . . . we may be nearing the breakup of the Democratic Party.
More on that later.
The other day I was having a chat with a pro-abort and reminded him that throughout history, various religious and political movements have literally become extinct because their tenants failed to interpret reproduction as noble. To which a Catholic co-worker chimed in: “You hear that? You’re going the way of the Shakers!”
I think the most important thing any politician can do right now is look at that fact as something that can lend courage in these troubling times. Do not fear taking the hard stance against abortion because overwhelming numbers of Americans will venerate you as a hero in the generations to come.
Liberals also have to own up to what they have done to the Catholic voter. They are the ones who sided with Hitler’s plan of eugenics and man-made societies where the poor, the sick, the weak, the depressed, the socially-inept, the deformed, the mentally-deficient, the religiously incompatible … are denied life because of the “harm” they would inflict on society as a whole. They betrayed us. We still have the great humanitarians like Mother Theresa, the Jesuits in Paraguay, and Fr. Maximillian Kolbe. In their corner, they have Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Bad company indeed.
And like Hitler, Stalin and Mao, the culture of death advocated by the pro-aborts cannot but self-destruct.
There is an inherent bias in the Democratic system. It tends to favor those cultures that have survived the longest and thrived most. It is from these cultures that our democratic community as a whole draws its societal wisdom. This is important to remember because there are times when opposition to these standard-bearers of societal wisdom find themselves in the minority. But we are never silent and we are never cowed by the call to change and eventually, God-willing, this makes all the difference in the world.
Also, “It’s the Abortion, Stupid” would make a great T-shirt. ^_^
we may be nearing the breakup of the Democratic Party.
How long would the GOP in its current “big tent” form last if the Democratic parts split apart? I doubt very long since the big tent compromise would lose its usefulness for the GOP.
If both parties do split apart, I think the different pieces would eventually coalesce together to form a new two-party dynamic. Whether this would be a good thing or a bad thing in the end, I have no idea. But I doubt that we’re likely to see a true multi-party system develop any time soon since our laws, both state and federal, are against it (e.g., the necessity of getting an absolute majority in the Electoral college rather than just a plurality).
“Durhay!”
Translation?
Jimmy, I am really enjoying the recent posts on abortion.
A contemptuous expression indicating that one has just stated the obvious.
Accent on the first syllable: DUR-hay!
I hope the Democrats do adopt a pro-life stance but I don’t want them to self-destruct. We need at least two strong parties to generate good ideas for the future.
But, perhaps they need to hit rock bottom before they can come back up.
There have been two changes of the guard in US political parties.
The Federalists faded away to non-existence. Shortly thereafter, their opponents fissioned into the Democrats and the Whigs.
The Whigs also faded away into non-existence. Shortly thereafter, a third party (including many former Whigs, one named Lincoln) reached a major party status.
Having a 3-party or more system seems like would produce a much higher probability that top political offices would be chosen with a mere plurality of ballots as opposed to a majority. Remember Ross Perot?
I believe having two parties also helps to distill the big philosophical questions down to the point where more significant choices can be made. A 3-or-more system might lead to more balkanization of the American political scene, with more fingers in the pie and less willingness to compromise.