Happy Endings: Rethinking and repackaging abortion rights.

Abortion on demand and without apology.

Patriarchy's got to go.

Dead women can't cook your meals.

Hey Bush! We wish your mother had a choice!

Those were some of the slogans on display 15 years ago when pro-choice activists marched in Washington for abortion rights.

It's a crucial moment for the abortion rights movement. Don't blow it.

Marches attract passionate advocates and concentrate them in one place. They foster the illusion that you and your sisters who have filled the National Mall represent a cross-section of America. You don't. Most Americans hate abortion and don't consider themselves feminists. You need the votes of these people. Praise abortion, shout about patriarchy, and you'll alienate them for another decade.

Smart feminists understand this. In 1989, they drowned out the radicals in their ranks by filling the pro-choice march on Washington with signs, buttons, and stickers asking, "Who Decides? You or them?" This message, developed by the National Abortion Rights Action League after months of polling and focus groups, was designed to appeal to voters who considered themselves moderate or somewhat conservative. The marchers thought "you or them" meant "women or sexists." The public thought it meant "families or government." The latter interpretation cut to the heart of conservative thinking. People who had previously voted Republican because they thought the government should stay out of the family began to vote Democratic — most notably in Virginia, where they elected a black governor for the first and only time in the history of the South.

The full article can be found here.

- - - - -

Mr. Saletan's thesis is, of course, correct. But hardly applies only to the abortion rights issue. The problem of extremists driving away centrists is a significant issue for both parties. Speaking just for myself, I can tell you that I'd rather see a frothing-at-the-mouth freeper at a public debate than a frothing-at-the-mouth-D.U.-green. (You know the kind - people who like to write about how terrible Kerry is because he's too right wing). People in the center tend not to think of things in black and white terms, and they don't like people who attack them for not adhering to an extreme ideology.

- C.D.

In an otherwise good post, you can't resist a gratutitous slap in the face to *everyone* to your personal left: "You know the kind - people who like to write about how terrible Kerry is because he's too right wing." Are you really so embarrassed that the Democratic Party has a left wing that you just plain don't want us to show up and vote for Kerry? Or is it that you just want us to shut up and never ever disagree with what they're told again? Sorry, but if you try to shut us up, we will feel that the Democratic Party can't be changed, and that it is pointless to belong to it. If we walk out, we don't want to hear you whining next yesr about how we cost Kerry the election; we walk because you insisted on showing us the door. You can't have it both ways. You are also making a huge mistake in confusing people who have poor political skills with "extremists." There are plenty of extremists, both left and right, who have superb political skills. The Republicans recognize that, which is why you see so many right-wing extremists in positions of power. But the Democrats? No, you want us to shut up.

It's not "everyone to my personal left". It's people who, when they don't get absolutely everything exactly they want, decide they'd rather have Bush than a less than "perfect" Democrat. Personally, I don't understand why Skinner tolerates it. Kerry gets insults from freepers all the time. He certainly doesn't need it coming from people in this website too.

Again, the whole point of the article was about people who are fundamentally too blinded by fervor to realize that they're being counterproductive to the very cause they're trying to advance. Do you get it?

The GOP certainly does. How you think hard right GOP extremists get elected in the first place? By doing precisely what you say you don't want to do. They "shut up" about their unpopular positions.

Bush didn't run as a "screw the poor" conservative, he ran as a "compassionate conservative". He didn't say we was going to start wars on a whim, he said he was going to be "humble" in his Foreign Policy. And when he said these things, he didn't have to worry about being attacked (like Kerry is being attacked) by members of his own party for not being ideologically pure enough.

There is room for many opinions in the Democratic party. But that also goes for you as well. You do not own the Party. You are not being "shown the door" when people tell you that your positions are not the majority opinion in the party. You are merely being invited to represent your side in an adult fashion. (In fact, it is extreme leftists with their "can't tell the difference between the GOP and Democrat" antics who are the people who are really trying to kick centrists out of the party - not the reverse).

Which brings me to my last point: Pragmatism. My opinion is that Democrats should support the nominee unconditionally. Maybe your guy lost in the primary. Mine did too. But childishness only helps give Bush a second term. As do statements that do nothing but serve as grist for the GOP attack machines.

- C.D.