Beware the Uber-Patriots

Below the Belt: A Biweekly Column by NOW President Kim Gandy

April 18, 2006

Tax season may be over (phew!) but from the looks of it, the number crunching is only beginning.

With midterm elections a little over six months away, the pundits and pollsters are having a ball analyzing, postulating, hypothesizing and guessing what we voters are thinking.

According to a March 27 Democracy Corps poll, voters are tired of George W. Bush. Two-thirds of us think the country should go in a "significantly different direction" than the one the Bush administration has mapped out. But, the report said, a winning strategy will require Democrats to "think outside the box."

In other words, the Democrats are in a position to win in November if (and that's a big if) they can prove to voters they have something to offer. Good luck with that.

Last time I checked, the Democrats' strategy involved ignoring their base (especially women) and focusing on winning the votes of male veterans, NASCAR dads, Alabama guys with gun racks in their pickup trucks, and the "ban abortion" crowd. The uber-patriotic rhetoric, combined with support for the war, confirmation of right-wing judges, and distancing themselves from women's reproductive rights, is starting to make a lot of democrats look like "Republican-lite"—same bad aftertaste, one-third fewer votes.

Repeat after me: It's not a winning strategy. Ignoring your base will not bring success at the polls. Ignoring the deeply held convictions of the majority of democratic voters won't either.

The Democrats want to convince us they have ideas that will turn this country in a new direction. I'm all for it. End this disastrous war, don't start a new one, restore public programs that were cruelly cut by this administration, raise the minimum wage, and secure the homeland in a responsible way—not by cracking down on hardworking immigrants. And restore our right to privacy—on our telephones and in our bedrooms. Just for starters.

But George W. Bush's losing strategy is not the Democrats' winning strategy. It will take more than "I'm not George Bush" to move the disillusioned to the polls. They will have to convince us that liberty and equality will have a place at the table.

Speaking of George W. Bush's losing strategy, the Democracy Corps report had this to say about South Dakota's ban on abortions:

South Dakota Abortion Ban
The South Dakota ban on all abortions, except for the life of the mother, is not a popular act. By 64 percent to 33 percent, voters say they would be less likely to support a candidate who endorsed it; almost half the country says they are "much less likely" to support that candidate. That act, as it moves up the judicial ladder, may well create a new issue that pushes voters further away from Bush and the Republicans.

Hmmmm . . . passing a law designed to challenge the Constitutional right to privacy that women have depended upon for more than three decades is unpopular? You don't say.

This poll is good news because it sends a message to legislators on both sides of the aisle: Voters will not stand for lawmakers who try to control women's lives, and especially our reproductive health options. And both parties should remember that.

Here's a thought: if people are moving away from the Republicans because of anti-women laws like South Dakota's—perhaps the Democrats should give them somewhere to move. They could start by ending the recruitment of Democratic candidates who would ban abortion, just like South Dakota. Now there's an idea.

Of course, we've known since last summer, after Bush nominated his first arch-conservative Supreme Court justice, that this year had the potential to present a challenge to Roe v. Wade. And now that South Dakota has started the ball rolling, the word is spreading. An article in USA Today this week summarizes the current state of abortion rights in this country. And it looks bleak.

The article, which quotes data from the Guttmacher Institute, suggests that 22 states will follow South Dakota's lead and impose further restrictions on abortion; nine of those laws will look like the one in South Dakota, which bans all abortions. Those 22 states reportedly account for 50 percent of the U.S. population, and 37 percent of all abortions performed every year.

According to their analysis, if the Supreme Court examines the South Dakota law—as it is expected to do—and overturns Roe v. Wade, "a fight that for three decades has focused on nine members of the Supreme Court would be waged instead among more than 7,000 legislators in 50 state capitals."

That should make us all nervous, because state-by-state campaigns are very expensive, and our opponents have traditionally had a lot more money to wage such campaigns.

But November 7 is still six months away, and there's lots to do before then—like the April 29 march for Peace, Justice and Democracy in New York City. I'll be there, telling the world that I don't like George W. Bush's plan. And I think we need a new one.

I know you want to join me.

For peace and justice,

Recent Below the Belt columns |