A Democrat is Always Better
Purity tests accomplish nothing. Putting more Republicans in charge makes things worse for women.
First, I understand that this is a very emotional issue. It is for me too. To recap, the DCCC made an announcement that they won’t be adding a pro choice litmus test for candidates. This entire episode was tragically mishandled. Let me walk you through how we got here.
“Chairman” Tom Perez took Bernie Sanders on a “Unity Tour” which Bernie used to bash Democrats and then jet to Omaha to endorse Heath Mello in the mayoral race. He did this because, out of the millions and millions of progressives Our Revolution claims they recruited to run for office, Mello was the only one who actually did.
By all accounts, Mello is a good guy. He seems to be a talented politician and it’s unfortunate that Bernie basically ruined his career. Mello had achieved a delicate balance between the pro-choice and “pro-life” community in Omaha and had the support of both. (Note: The pro-choice community compromised so they could get the best available candidate elected.)
Then the political virtuosos at Bold Nebraska invited Bernie Sanders to town, bringing with him the national spotlight and forcing Mello to answer questions he had managed to avoid up to this point. Mello lost the support of both sides, was savaged by the press, and his campaign tanked. Thanks Bernie!
(Here’s what I wrote about Bernie’s Heath Mello endorsement at the time.)
There was a huge outcry from Democrats, most of whom probably hadn’t thought much about pro-life Democrats before. This is understandable, but Tom Perez panicked and over corrected. He made a completely unnecessary announcement that the Democratic party is pro-choice.
Of course we are pro-choice. Empowering women is what the Democratic party is all about, and having a few dissenters in our big tent doesn’t change that. But this announcement alarmed the “pro-life” Democratic officeholders. They need the party as much as the party needs them.
So Lujan’s announcement was supposed to reassure those Democrats that they still have the full support of the party. Unfortunately he made it sound as if it was a new policy instead of what the party has always done — support the best Democrat available who can win a particular seat.
Now that the dust has settled, I hope this essay can put you more at ease with the existence of “pro-life” Dems and why the pro-choice community should, and usually does, support them.
I wouldn’t have put myself out there and tweeted about this issue ten days straight if it wasn’t really important, so thank you for reading.
As an aside, several friends and colleagues have reached out to thank me for speaking out on this topic and saying things they can’t publicly say. These are experienced Democratic operatives currently working in the political arena, but they can’t speak openly and risk being labeled “pro-life” as I have been. So this debate has actually served to silence pro-choice allies without a fair hearing.
My position has always held that “Purity Tests” aka “Litmus tests” are always bad and a Democrat is always better. This in no way conflicts with my lifelong commitment to fighting for reproductive rights and social justice. My record speaks for itself. I have taken this stand because a litmus test would put the pro-choice movement at a bigger disadvantage in the long run, while accomplishing nothing in the short term.
Everyone is frustrated that we keep losing ground on women’s issues, but our fight is not with Democrats. The GOP is 100% responsible for the forced birth agenda, and a strong Democratic party is our only chance to combat it. If the “pro-life” Dems wanted to be part of that agenda they would have switched to the Majority by now. They stay, and they vote for Nancy for Speaker, and the count towards our majority, because they are Democrats.
Believe me, I was just as frustrated by the Blue Dog Democrats in the 90’s as anyone. But I knew if they weren’t “Blue Dogs,” they would be Republicans. There are only six “pro-life” in office right now, but we need those seats and those votes for Nancy. To take back the House in 2018, we need 25 seats, and only 24 are “gettable,” so we already need a miracle. Without “pro-life” Dems, we’d have to make up those six seats somewhere else, and there isn’t anywhere else. We’d forfeit any chance of taking the House.
To be clear, this is not about a choice between a pro-choice Democrat and a “pro-life” Democrat. This is about a choice between a “pro-life” Democrat and a Republican. And this is not about the Member’s personal beliefs, it’s about the Congressional district. These specific districts require their reps to be “pro-life.” They will elect a “pro-life” Democrat or they will elect a “pro-life” Republican. A Democrat is always better.
Several of you have asked if I would support a litmus test over civil rights or white supremacy, and this is where clear definitions are important. Here’s the thing: People don’t generally put “White Supremacist” on their resume (unless they’re Steve Scalise) so there’s no way to use a litmus test to filter them out. To determine racist qualities or tendencies, you have to evaluate the candidate’s record, voting history, and other factors. So by definition, that’s not a litmus test, because the candidate is evaluated in totality, not eliminated automatically on a single issue.
Another thing to remember: The Democratic nominee is determined by Democratic voters. So it’s safe to assume the nominee is preferable to the other primary candidates, and preferable to the Republican. That candidate probably won’t get party funding, but they should get your vote. Otherwise, you’ll get a Republican.
This applies to all the WHATABOUT scenarios people are presenting still won’t benefit from a litmus test. Even with the most egregious reductio ad absurdum, the Democrat is more than likely preferable to a Republican.
And in the WHATABOUTs with David Clarke or the David Beasley situation, we would KNOW. Their whole campaigns are based on hijacking the Democratic ballot line. That’s why they wouldn’t get party support, not because of a litmus test.
Some of you question if these candidates can win. Don’t you think that determination should be made by locals and professionals? No, the DCCC and state parties don’t get it right every time, but they are a lot more likely to get it right than armchair operative misinterpreting irrelevant polling cross tabs. We have to trust the party to do what they have to do to help Democrats win.
My dad once sat on the PAC board of a banking organization. When they met to discuss the Congressional delegation, one of the board members said he didn’t want to support Congressman (withheld) because he wasn’t pro-life. Congressman (withheld) sat on the Banking committee, it would have been unheard of for bankers to snub him. (It would have made the news. There would have been a run on banks. You get the picture.) My dad told him if he wanted to advance a social agenda, there were plenty of orgs he could support on his own time, but that’s not what this board was for.
And that’s part of what I’m trying to say. Dictating a policy agenda isn’t what the party apparatus is there for. The DNC has a policy platform, but that’s determined by the membership, it isn’t imposed upon candidates in any way. The party’s mission is to elect and support Democrats. There is an important role for activism and advocacy, but they have to work hand in glove with electoral strategy and legislative procedure. These components and more have to work together without duplicating efforts.
- Activism promotes an issue.
- Advocacy wins hearts and minds.
- This allows us to get better public officials elected.
- Better public officials make better law.
The first two are the hard part. But once we succeed, we have to believe in the process, and trust the party and our elected Members to get us the best deal they can.
Have you ever wondered why the really controversial legislation succeeds or fails by only one vote even when several were on the fence? That’s by design. Leadership tries to avoid having Members take controversial votes when they don’t have to. So when the whip determines they have the votes, Nancy or Harry Reid “releases” the rest. No point in wasting a vote. So that’s what they do with the “pro-life” Dems. Everyone gets it. We have to trust our elected officials to do what we elected them to do.
“Pro-life” Democrats are Democrats. They’ve been loyal to the party, to Nancy, and to the Democrats from the districts they represent. They need party support to hold their seats. They have no impact on our party’s pro-choice agenda, and they keep those swing Districts out of the hands of the GOP. We need them as much as they need us.
I know this is difficult for everyone, and it’s been difficult for me as well. This is not a position I ever thought I would champion but it’s important. I never dreamed so many of people would unfollow me or I’d be attacked me from all sides as anti-woman for advancing a pro-choice argument -Support the Democrats. But someone had to step up, so I did. Thanks for reading.
Read my follow up essay here
Read about primaries and why Bernie Sanders is still wrong here:
More from Sally Albright on Medium:
