I'm not going to carry your water.

A man gave an arsonist some matches and then yelled for help when the arsonist torched a house. "Get me some water!" he cried, and the people got him some water. He dumped the water into his the arsonist's swimming pool--the arsonist was a good guy and needed the water just this once. Besides, they would work together so much better if he compromised. The man cried for more water. "Do you want this house to burn down?" he shrieked. "If you'd only carry my water, I'd eventually put out the fire."

Sound familiar? It should.

David Sirota and Ampersand react to some pseudo-progressives' rants that NARAL was very, very naughty for endorsing Linc Chafee, a pro-choice Republican, over the anti-choice Democrat who ran against him.

Apparently, the reasoning goes, a Democratic majority means abortion rights will be protected, or won't be restricted any further.

Except, as the Walloper points out, that's crap.

NARAL is a single-issue organization. People pay membership dues and send contributions for them to agitate for change. And you know what? I wouldn't send them a wooden penny if they endorsed a so-called pro-life candidate--I'd feel betrayed. I'm not paying money so they can give someone who'd relegate me to breeding mare some cred. The smug, overly-entitled men who insist that choice is no big deal, or that we girls shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it seem to think we owe them our unquestioning support. Next thing you know, they'll expect us to bake them cookies and make them lunch.

Choice is an issue that directly affects me. You don't take it seriously, I don't support you. It's quite simple, really. Why on earth would an organization that collects dues to promote pro-choice candidates be expected to support you?

Some insist that it's not about fealty to the Democratic Party, it's about strategy. What strategy are we talking about here? Throw our support behind a party that takes us for granted and a candidate that would restrict our rights? And then we can keep backing such candidates as the party keeps spewing them out until. . .we have an anti-choice Democratic majority. Makes perfect sense.

Here's the thing, fellas: I'm not going to back any old anti-choice Democrat because you say that strategy will ultimately protect reproductive choice. You'll just have to forgive my skepticism--choice is the convenient boogeyman for elections, and then it's forgotten (and compromised again and again and again) after. I'm supposed to be pretty sure that maybe they'll sorta kinda protect abortion rights, even though they've done a godawful job of it so far? Guess how many Senate Democrats voted against Scalia's appointment to the Supreme Court. That would be zero. This is the same judge they love to to scare us with--you'd better support Democrats or else we'll lose the courts!

Yah. Ever occur to you geniuses that we lost the freaking courts when you all started approving anti-choice judges? When, in the name of bipartisanship, you sold us down the river? Hello?

I suppose if I dropped some acid and bashed myself repeatedly over the head with a mallet, I would eventually get the logic of such a strategy. Supporting and endorsing anti-choice Democrats for the sake of a party that takes women for granted will protect reproductive rights. Even though it has yet to work. It's downright Orwellian.

Diving to the right has lost the Democrats two Presidential elections and diminished their influence in Congress. People who are against abortion and birth control, who are against same-sex marriage, who are pro-theocracy, and who are pro-war, will vote GOP (unless it's Linc Chafee vs. Zell Miller). Tilting rightward has done nothing but confirm to conservatives that they are right, and that we should shut up and fetch their water. It has gotten Republicans elected, since that is the party that conservatives flock to. Backing this so-called strategy will only allow neo-con zealots to further consolidate their power.

You want to start winning again? Start remembering you are liberals and progressives, and start taking the concerns of your constituents seriously. And if you won't do that--if you are that sure your constituents don't give a fig about choice--drop the tantrum when pro-choicers don't support you.

Comments

[Jenny]

Yeah, the people that are giving NARAL shit for this are just, well, being shits.

It's one thing to urge voters to take other factors into account, but to act as if NARAL, whose sole purpose is to support reproductive rights, should essentialy keep their mouth shut when it comes to certain anti-choice candidates is just arrogant and idiotic. Their job is to point out who does and does not support reproductive rights, its the voters job to weigh that with other factors. If NARAL lets some candidates slide because their party (supposedly) supports reproductive rights, voters will have a harder time, not an easier time, weighing these all factors accurately.

After all, a party that supports too many anti-choice candidates could hardly be considered a pro-choice party by anything other than comparision. And being pro-choice compared to Republicans isn't good enough for me; any more than being not as bad as Saddam Hussein is good enough for me. I expect better of my party and my country. Compromises are all well and good, but rolling over and playing dead is not.

[Sheelzebub]

Actually, I rolled my eyes at NARAL's freakout over Nader--heck, everyone forgot that those Dems in GOP armor voted for Scalia, and this collective amnesia burned my bony butt. I've always thought the Dems took us for granted and defaulted to the right far too often, and I was no supporter of Bill "Republican in a Tie-Dye" Clinton. I had no problems with Nader, his supporters, or Gore voters in 2000. I wasn't thrilled with Nader's actions in the 2004 election, though.

[DP in SF]

Couldn't agree with you more, Hellcat. I'd vote for Chafee too, if I lived in his district, perhaps even over a pro-choice Dem. Moderate GOPers have never bothered me. I'll take Arnold Schwarzenegger over Hilary Clinton, for example, on the drugs issue any day.
Still, I'd be real interested in what you and most of the other posters on this blog did five years ago when Ralph Nader pointed out that the Donkey had been "diving to the right" for decades. Wouldn't be surprised if many of the women who also bemoan how the Dems take women for granted pointed to Bush on the TV, January 20, 2001, taking the oath of office and told their friends who voted for Nader, "It's all your fault!" Good luck to Chaffee and NARAL, too.

[Pseudo-Adrienne]

Sorry for the double post, but p.s.--fuck the Democrats who keep selling us out and our reproductive rights! Just keep loosing our votes dumbasses! We'll just have to stop voting for them or anyone else who doesn't support our reproductive rights until they get it.

[Pseudo-Adrienne]

"The smug, overly-entitled men who insist that choice is no big deal, or that we girls shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it seem to think we owe them our unquestioning support. Next thing you know, they'll expect us to bake them cookies and make them lunch. Choice is an issue that directly affects me. You don't take it seriously, I don't support you...[...] Here's the thing, fellas: I'm not going to back any old anti-choice Democrat because you say that strategy will ultimately protect reproductive choice."

Fucking Bravo, Sheelzebub!!! Notice it's always us (women) who are doing all of the "compromising" of reproductive rights and sexual freedom. See any of these pro-compromising guys (or men in general) running off in substantially large numbers to get vasectomies in order to take any sexual/reproductive responsibility for themselves? Being hassled by and having their personal sex-lives dissected and demonized by pompous moralist-supremacist religous pharmacists and clerks? Having their perscriptions for Viagra and other ED drugs being denied for a refill? Being refused by a clerk to purchase a pack of condoms? Embrace the "have sex less often" speech themselves in large numbers? Or have their sexuality demonized and endure attempts by the State to control it? No! Until guys go through all that shit and actually take real steps themselves to "compromise", women shouldn't compromise shit! Women have done that for far too long and it's time for the guys to take some fucking responsibility and compromise themselves. And fucking defend our reproductive rights and take the issue seriously if they want our vote.

[Omar]

Hear, hear! In fairness, some of these people no doubt want NARAL to say nothing, stay out of this particular election rather than endorsing either candidate. But that still sounds pretty bad. 'Shut up and let the men handle this!'