Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

The Democratic Party: Whose Team Is It, Anyway?

By Katha Pollitt, The Nation. Posted November 14, 2009.


In the wake of the passage by Democrats of a radical anti-abortion measure, Democratic women are asking, "Whose party is this?"
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

You know what I don't want to hear right now about the Stupak-Pitts amendment banning abortion coverage from federally subsidized health insurance policies? That it's the price of reform, and prochoice women should shut up and take one for the team. "If you want to rebuild the American welfare state," Peter Beinart writes in the Daily Beast, "there is no alternative" than for Democrats to abandon "cultural" issues like gender and racial equality. Hey, Peter, Representative Stupak and your sixty-four Democratic supporters, Jim Wallis and other antichoice "progressive" Christians, men: why don't you take one for the team for a change and see how you like it?

For example, budget hawks in Congress say they'll vote against the bill because it's too expensive. Maybe you could win them over if you volunteered to cut out funding for male-exclusive stuff, like prostate cancer, Viagra, male infertility, vasectomies, growth-hormone shots for short little boys, long-term care for macho guys who won't wear motorcycle helmets and, I dunno, psychotherapy for pedophile priests. Men could always pay in advance for an insurance policy rider, as women are blithely told they can do if Stupak becomes part of the final bill.

President Obama, too, worries about the deficit. Maybe you could help him out by sacrificing your denomination's tax exemption. The Catholic Church would be a good place to start, and it wouldn't even be unfair, since the blatant politicking of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on abortion violates the spirit of the ban on electoral meddling by tax-exempt religious institutions. Why should antichoicers be the only people who get to refuse to let their taxes support something they dislike? You don't want your tax dollars to pay, even in the most notional way, for women's abortion care, a legal medical procedure that one in three American women will have in her lifetime? I don't want to pay for your misogynist fairy tales and sour-old-man hierarchies.

Women Democrats have taken an awful lot of hits for the team lately. Many of us didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary because the goal of electing a woman seemed less important than the goal of electing the best possible president. Only a self-hater or a featherhead didn't feel some pain about that. And although women are hardly alone in this, we've seen some pretty big hopes set aside in the first year of the Obama administration. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which would expand women's protections against sexism in the workplace, is on the back burner. Meanwhile, the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is not only alive and well; it's newly staffed with antichoicers like Alexia Kelley of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, who, as Frances Kissling notes in Salon, has compared abortion to torture.

I know what you're thinking: conservative Democrats like Stupak took Republican districts to win us both houses of Congress. Thanks a lot, Howard Dean, whose bright idea it was to recruit them, but those majorities would not be there, and Obama would not be in the White House, if not for prochoice women and men--their votes, talent, money, organizational capacity and shoe leather. We knocked ourselves out, and it wasn't so that religious reactionaries like Stupak--who, as Jeff Sharlet writes in Salon, is a member of the Family, the secretive right-wing Christian-supremacist Congressional coven--would control both parties. Elections have consequences, you say? Exactly: Obama, the prochoice, prowoman candidate, won. Stupak didn't put him in the White House, and neither did the Catholic bishops or the white antifeminist welfare staters of Beinart's imagination. We did. And we deserve better from Obama than sound bites like "this is a healthcare bill, not an abortion bill." Abortion is healthcare. That's the whole point.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: barack obama, jimmy carter, democratic party, howard dean, jim wallis, the family, jeff sharlet, dana goldstein, frances kissling, stupak amendment, peter beinart, alexia kelley, catholics for the common , eleanor smeal

Katha Pollitt is a columnist for The Nation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Civics 101
Posted by: Revolutionary (Direct) Democracy on Nov 14, 2009 1:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's only one political party in the United States, and it's owned by the corporations, the rich and the well-connected.


FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Civics 101 Posted by: smalldave
morgan1
Posted by: morgan1 on Nov 14, 2009 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prior to WW1, the Republican Party was the party of the people which means the working class, blue collar men and women. It was for unions, families and all the rights that go with that. The Democrats were the elites and for the wealthy. As it shifted and the GOP became Far Right fanatics and for the corporate, the Dems lost their message. Now they are a bunch of whiners, nail biters and straddle the fence until its necessary to get on one side or the other. They have shown their true colors this time as they are not for women's right, nor unions, nor the average working man and woman. Obama has betrayed us with his rhetoric and is not one of us, or for real change. It is time to stop buying into either party and fund real progressives and real liberals. It is time to take back our government from the ones who keep lying and stand for nothing but moral depravity. Great article and well said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whose team?
Posted by: whoopingcrone on Nov 14, 2009 5:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not mine, for sure.
Nor of anyone of good will since 1944 when Roosevelt replaced vice president Henry A. Wallace with Harry S Truman as his [Roosevelt's] running mate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In this instance,
Posted by: moloko velocet on Nov 14, 2009 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it's obviously The Megagalactic Insurance Lobby's team.

"Meet the New Boss; Same as the Old Boss"!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Minor Political Parties
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 14, 2009 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Minor Political Parties links

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The root cause and solution
Posted by: truthteller on Nov 14, 2009 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The root cause of these problems with progressives being forced to back down on what we really want is the very real lack of choice in the candidates who have a realistic chance of being elected. Only two members of the Progressive Caucus - Kucinich and Messa - actually stuck to their guns and voted against the corporate health care bill in the House. We need to remember them next year when the establishment targets them for defeat, like they did to Kucinich in '08 to get him out of the Presidential campaign so he would shut up about prosecuting Bush's crimes.

The solution(s) to this is to truly open up the electoral process nationally to however many parties of whatever bent can come up with a reasonable number of signatures to get on a ballot, coupled with a fair run-off election system. It has to be the same as for the Democrats and Republicans, and we MUST take the money out of the system and truly level the field. Then you will have a system that is for "The People" and not for the rich, or the corporations. Oh, and EVERYONE eligible must be allowed, nay required to vote. That is what the ACORN uproar is really about - they are good at getting the poor and dispossessed registered to vote and to the polls. We can't have that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Fantasy
Posted by: Southern Gal on Nov 14, 2009 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My fantasy is that we could get all of the women in this country to withhold sex until we get equal rights for women including federal funding for abortion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Equal Rights Posted by: Government Is The Beast
» RE: My Fantasy Posted by: bigbrother
Why, It's the Corporations' Party, Of Course!
Posted by: Blueprelude on Nov 14, 2009 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the 1980's the Democrats have become a wholly owned subsidiary of our large corporations and financial institutions. As Gore Vidal has pointed out many times, there is only one party in this nation: the property party. This party has two corrupt wings, the Republican wing and the Democratic wing. Outside of a few brave souls in Congress, everyone, including the President, is bought. After all, Obama's largest single contributor last year to his election campaign was Goldman Sachs. Subsequently, Goldman Sachs took over all financial aspects of White House policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm sending money to Kuchinich
Posted by: elaine46 on Nov 14, 2009 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But, I will not support Obama in 2012. All I have from Obama that pleases me is a few speeches in that mellifluous voice.

I will send money to Kuchinich, both for his 2010 race and any presidential bid he chooses in the future. He is the only one that makes sense to me, and I wish I had given my small political gifts to him in 2008.

I was a Hillary supporter, partly because I really wanted a woman president, and mainly because I thought she would do a better job than Obama. I don't think she will challenge him in 2012, but I would certainly be with her if she did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm sending money to Kuchinich Posted by: Blueprelude
» RE: I'm sending money to Kuchinich Posted by: Prinzowhales
The Right Will Never Be Satisfied
Posted by: Lilly on Nov 14, 2009 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The pattern seems to be that 1) the hard-right yells and screams then 2) the left gives in a bit then 3) the hard-left continues to yell and scream while in the meantime 4) the right does not offer concessions equal to those made by the left. And all the while, the right simply sees the left as weak for making concessions.

Last week we saw this with Stupak, but it's been going on for years. Remember that, even though both Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs have now left CNN, CNN actually HIRED them at some point. Yesterday in a doctor's waiting room I had time to read through two recent issues of Newsweek, both of which featured articles defending various conservative ideas. When my most recent issue of the Atlantic arrived, I thought it had been written and edited by Michelle Malkin. The Washington Post now has a regular column on faith issues. The New York Times regularly publishes conservative op-ed columnists. Rachel Maddow has all the conservative guests she can rope in. But FOX, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times do not return these favors, and the whole right-wing gang just keeps complaining that the media are left-biased.

I have been actively participating in (as reader and poster) hard-right websites every day since the week Bush invaded Iraq---going on eight years now. Believe me, those folks will NEVER be satisfied with any concessions the left makes. The day is never going to come when they will be happy with bipartisan compromise. First, they are into control, and in the instant one accepts a gift, one loses control, so control freaks never say "thank you, and what a nice gift you have given me"---this will not happen---they will deny the gift or deny its value or just ask for different or better gifts. Second, their objective is to run the social and political agenda of the United States---absolutely.

Right this minute, on townhall and WorldNetDaily, nobody is praising Stupak. Nobody is praising a single concession of the left. It was telling the other day when a townhall.com thread devoted itself to angry predictions that Obama, Nidal Hasan's fellow Muslim, would never allow Hasan to be charged with murder. The next day, when Hasan was charged with 13 counts of murder, posts to townhall ran "Why not 14 counts---this disrespects the unborn" and "See? See what Obama did? No accusation of terrorism".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Answer: War mongering enabler of debt, servitude, and demise of liberty, just like their...
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 14, 2009 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...bought and paid for so-called republican analogs?

Did you think chope and hange would come because the same folks in Washington moved to a slight predominance of "D"'s behind their monikers?

The really interesting question, in my mind, is exactly how much a Congresscritter of my own would cost me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no liberal party in this country.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford on Nov 14, 2009 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There isn't.
There really isn't.

We have a conservative party, and a moderate party, that is more sympathetic to the whims of the conservatives than to the unorganized, yet large numbers of liberals.

The democrat party in this country is NOT liberal.
Let me repeat that...

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS NOT LIBERAL!!!!!!

There are a few liberals in congress who keep using the term "democrat," just so they can keep getting elected, because they know that if they use some 3rd party term, they'll be ousted. But otherwise, no, there is no official representation for liberals in congress.

This country is owned and operated by conservatives, and moderates who sell out to conservatives. And worse still is that one of those moderates who sells out to conservatives is Obama himself.

Before he ran for president, he was pro choice, pro single payer, pro this, anti that... a real stand-up-for-the-little-guys kind of guy.

Now, he's little to no different from Bush.
Thanks a lot, asshole.
You betrayed your base with false promises of gingerbread houses and lollipop dreams.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No, but there's the Green Party. Posted by: oregoncharles
» SECESSION! Posted by: Rusty Shackleford
» RE: The Civil War Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Words versus policies Posted by: oregoncharles
The solution is simple:
Posted by: wireup on Nov 14, 2009 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop voting for the idiots who would pass a law like this. Change your registration to GREEN and vote 3rd party. That's what I've done. I'm a life-long Democrat who will no longer vote for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Welcome to the party! Posted by: oregoncharles
» Really? No kidding? Posted by: GuitarBill
» More red herring, PrinzOfLies? Posted by: GuitarBill
Until "abortion", the feminists supported this pompous fraud instead of HR676 !
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 14, 2009 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And now with Stupak, suddenly they pop up. KP, please shut up and make the Democrats put HR676 first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nice rant, but, you know,...
Posted by: oregoncharles on Nov 14, 2009 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm running out of sympathy.

Pollitt and the rest of the whiners COULD have voted and campaigned for a woman who is a real, outspoken progressive and feminist. Instead, they suckered themselves yet again. Now the sticker shock is setting in, and I'm getting tired of the whining. Don't get mad, get even, and vote for the party you should have supported in the first place.

The real problem here is gutless voting. Progressives love to say their Dem politicians should "grow a spine" and vote their "principles." (Snicker.) Well, how about you, in the voting booth? Every 2 years, the Dems wave the big, scarey Republican boogeyman at you and you go limp as a mollusk, voting for another closet neocon. One who'll sell you out just so they can claim a "victory."

Whose team is it? Goldman Sachs's, obviously, and they don't give a flying fig about you - just so long as you cave in every election year and vote for them despite everything.

So don't get mad, get even, and vote for real feminists and progressives. You can look us up at www.gp.org.

"Spoilers?" Damn straight - but we didn't make the rules, the Democrats did. You ain't seen nothing yet. It might be clear, above, that my patience, at least, is wearing out. What about yours?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another thing...
Posted by: truthteller on Nov 14, 2009 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also want to say that the neo-con/religious freaks that control the reproductive agenda are not primarily interested in abortion. It's their battle cry, but not their true objective.

Their true objective is the total subjugation and repression of women. They hate women having any rights and freedoms, starting with control over their reproduction. It shows in their opposition to the one thing that would reduce the number of abortions in this country - effective contraception and sex education about it.

What this fringe element wants is to punish women for having any enjoyment of their sexuality, and personal freedom to not need to be dependent on men. They want to force them to be pregnant and have lots of unwanted children. They really don't care about the babies once they are born, or they wouldn't object so strongly to providing healthcare for all children or a decent public education for them, and they certainly would be all for giving massive amounts of money to prenatal care of, and feeding the children of poor women, who can least afford the babies that they are forced to bear because they lack contraceptive education, access to contraceptive and abortions. However, we know that is not true and infant mortality rates for this group are at third world levels.

So this is really about control and punishment, not the rights of the "unborn".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A major disappointment
Posted by: realveive on Nov 14, 2009 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A year after being elected, Barack Obama has proven to be a major disappointment. Had McCain been elected most of us would also have been disappointed but at least we would have known what we were getting. With Obama we expected a whole lot more. We expected action to follow the soaring rhetoric. Sadly, what we're getting is no significant action along with rhetoric that feebly bounces more than it soars. The "best" Obama can do is delay a much needed 2nd American Revolution. That's not a good thing, Barack.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just another reason ...
Posted by: Augustus_818 on Nov 14, 2009 2:44 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For me to punch the next politician who comes to my door in the face. Whatever name he happens to call himself this week is irrelevant. So in the interest of "Bi-partisanship" I giving a middle finger to both Dems and Repubs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Register Green. Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: You mean like Gore and Kerry? Posted by: oregoncharles
Wasn't it Rahm Emanuel That Promoted Blue Dogs?
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 14, 2009 4:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I know what you're thinking: conservative Democrats like Stupak took Republican districts to win us both houses of Congress. Thanks a lot, Howard Dean, whose bright idea it was to recruit them."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cyclig In Paliville
Posted by: scremf on Nov 14, 2009 7:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading this article and the ensuing posts I am convinced of one thing. This country needs a strong third party, and please don't tell me that's the green party. I've also heard all the rhetoric about how we need to take back the democratic party but I just don't think that is possible or even worthwhile.

A strong third party would be one that attracts not only "progressives", but the working poor of America. The republicans owe a large part of their success to reaching out (albeit in a disingenuous fashion) to white working class poor. While we're on the subject perhaps it would help if we "progressives" started talking and behaving to the working poor as if they were our equals, not our serfs.

Now I know alot of us find it relatively easy to believe that an immigrant or an ethic minority is more deserving of our help than someone who say is a white middle age working stiff working 3 jobs and 84 hrs a week trying to make ends meet. After all they had "every opportunity" to better themselves in this level playing field we call a democracy.

It is true that we only have one party in America today and I didn't need Gore Vidal or Noam Chomsky to tell me that, it has been brutally evident to me since the day I entered the ranks of the working stiffs. Progressives, those are the people we need to enlist in our struggles. Time was when the socialist party was the working class party of America. I mean does the green party truly believe that mainstreet america is ever going to vote for a trustifarian with dreadlocks or Ralph Nader?

Progressives we need to get back to our roots and embrace the working class poor even if they are full of hate and spite from being mangled in the machinations of our ludicrous farce of a workforce. Even though they are spitting out the lasted racial/ethnic hate filled spew they heard from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, we still need to embrace them. This is something we never can win on the national playing field until we've won it on the steets of our home towns one on one. As unpleasant as it may seem, we need the working poor on our side, and we're going to have to get a bit dirty to get em there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 3rd party Posted by: oregoncharles
http://www.ebuyings.com
Posted by: jacklang0001 on Nov 17, 2009 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.ebuyings.com
have some cheap things ...
nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet ...
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://www.ebuyings.com
Posted by: jacklang0001 on Nov 17, 2009 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.ebuyings.com
have some cheap things ...
nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet ...
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement