Roe's Political Impact
David Brooks argues for the overturning of Roe v. Wade with a unique argument about the political fallout caused by that now 30 year old decision.
While I'd hate to see women (and men) lose their right to choose, Brooks makes some good points. Back when I was first involved in politics in the early 1980s, the DFL (Minnesota's Democratic Farmer Labor party) was still a "big tent". At our suburban precinct caucus we had both pro-choice and pro-life Democrats. We got along well. Abortion was a very important issue for the pro-lifers, but it was not the only issue. Labor issues, taxes, nuclear disarmament/proliferation also had equal time on the agenda. But the biggest issue of all was defeating Republicans. Now you cant find a pro-life Democrat.
When I moved to the city in 1986 I saw few if any pro-life DFLers. But then again, MPLS has always been known for having a different political culture - - some of the older folks were still split about who they backed in 1968, Humphrey or McCarthy. MPLS DFLers are a lucky group. They tend to be more of an "issues forum", caring more about "winning" on the issues - choosing candidates that are "correct" on the various issues of the day, than actually winning the race. They are lucky because the Republican party in MPLS is pretty much non-existent. The city was home to many moderate Republicans, electing several to the city council and state legislature in up to the late 1970s. I'm told that the growth of the religious right in the early 1980s drove out most moderates. DFLers win almost by default. While that works for MPLS, it doesn't work for the rest of the state.
Statewide DFLers seem to be in some trouble, holding only one statewide office - that of State AG. It will be interesting to see how they fare in the coming years.
Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists. Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views. The parties polarized as they each became dominated by absolutist activists.
While I'd hate to see women (and men) lose their right to choose, Brooks makes some good points. Back when I was first involved in politics in the early 1980s, the DFL (Minnesota's Democratic Farmer Labor party) was still a "big tent". At our suburban precinct caucus we had both pro-choice and pro-life Democrats. We got along well. Abortion was a very important issue for the pro-lifers, but it was not the only issue. Labor issues, taxes, nuclear disarmament/proliferation also had equal time on the agenda. But the biggest issue of all was defeating Republicans. Now you cant find a pro-life Democrat.
When I moved to the city in 1986 I saw few if any pro-life DFLers. But then again, MPLS has always been known for having a different political culture - - some of the older folks were still split about who they backed in 1968, Humphrey or McCarthy. MPLS DFLers are a lucky group. They tend to be more of an "issues forum", caring more about "winning" on the issues - choosing candidates that are "correct" on the various issues of the day, than actually winning the race. They are lucky because the Republican party in MPLS is pretty much non-existent. The city was home to many moderate Republicans, electing several to the city council and state legislature in up to the late 1970s. I'm told that the growth of the religious right in the early 1980s drove out most moderates. DFLers win almost by default. While that works for MPLS, it doesn't work for the rest of the state.
Statewide DFLers seem to be in some trouble, holding only one statewide office - that of State AG. It will be interesting to see how they fare in the coming years.
Comments