General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's difficult today not to feel intensely resentful
and angry at all the so-called progressives who told me--in person or via the internet--that they were tired of women "holding the progressive agenda hostage to the single issue of abortion."
I heard this from Nader supporters in 2000, and from folks in 2016 who held themselves out as too pure to vote for Secretary Clinton. This came as the response to the argument that a vote for a third party candidate was a vote for Bush II or Trump, and that the Supreme Court--and thus a woman's right to choose--was at stake.
That issue ALONE should have been enough to convince any waverers to back the Democratic candidate, seeing as how it affects more than 50% of the population, and disproportionately affects women of color and those less affluent. But no, abortion was "a distraction" from the "real" agenda--ranging from the environment to workers rights to foreign policy to whatever.
As if efforts for progressive changes on any of those issues haven't seen a devastating backlash as well.
So here we are. On the verge of a Supreme Court super majority that will undermine anything and everything progressives might hope to accomplish for decades to come.
Who was it who said "women's rights are human rights."? Oh yeah, the candidate too "tainted" by grubby mainstream politics to be worth the "too pure to care about the consequences" vote.
End of rant, and thank you for your patience.
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)I share your views.
It has been demonstrated that the more education and economic independence and control over their fertility enjoyed by a society's women, the more progressive its policies and mores will be.
Walleye
(30,697 posts)I heard this from Nader supporters in 2000
Nader supporters have the freaking gall to accuse anyone else of "holding the progressive agenda hostage"?!?
ihas2stinkyfeet
(1,400 posts)i once heard that she would come up to rehnquist and ask him- how´s the baby?
tormadjax
(164 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)The Supreme Court is about far more than abortion. The framing you describe limited it to that single issue.
The Supreme Court is about equal justice, civil rights, valuing people over profits, criminal justice, etc. For ALL of those reasons, voting for the democratic candidate was (and is) critical. I would not have dreamed of framing itas just about a woman's right to choose.
thucythucy
(7,983 posts)but the right to choose was the right that received the most vociferous condemnation by our opponents, and also seemed the one issue the self defined (and almost entirely male) "progressive left" seemed most eager to jettison in its quest for a "pure' candidate. At least this was the case in my experience.
And as I say, it isn't as if you can detach women's rights from the rights and issues that affect others. As we are about to so painfully learn.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)who hid that I am married to a woman - specifically because it was being used as an issue to drive conservatives to the polls in the 2004 election.
The reality is that we are not all of one mind (then, on same gender marriage - or at any time on abortion). Disclosing that I opposed the Marriage Discrimination Amendment while I was door-knocking for Kerry would have cost votes because there are people I might convince to vote for Kerry (or to get to the polls) if I did not rub their noses in the same gender marriage issue. Having the ability to appoint justices - for lots of reasons - was far more important than getting one more vote on an amendment that was destined to pass anyway.
Pick your battles. Far better to discuss the broad range of things on which virtually all Democrats agree than to risk alienating that anti-choice Democrat whose vote we need to be able to appoint justices who will - among other things - protect a woman's right to choose.
thucythucy
(7,983 posts)all claimed to be pro-choice.
"We're pro-choice, but having Supreme Court justices that might overturn Roe is just not important enough to force me to hold my nose to vote for Gore, or Clinton."
One moment that stands out for me during the 2000 race was a televised town hall style meeting with Ralph Nader.
A woman at the forum asked Nader if he was concerned that his candidacy would take votes away from Gore.
His response was infuriating. His tone was one of sarcasm and utter contempt for the questioner.
"Oh yeah," he said, smirking. "I lose sleep at nights worrying about taking votes from Gore."
As much as the content of the sarcastic remark (meaning it obviously didn't bother him at all) it was the contempt, the scorn he displayed to that woman. Some in the crowd actually cheered what I saw as mean-spirited bullying, a tact I don't recall him ever taking toward a male questioner.
(Then too, there was all that blather he went on and on about how Gore was a "faux environmentalist." Honestly, he actually said there was no difference between Bush and Gore when it came to the environment and climate change. But I digress).
I understand the importance of picking your battles. But the Naders, the Steins, the Susan Sarandon's are hardly ones to tell us what battles to pick. I mean, have any of them EVER won an actual election, for city council, school board, house or senate seat, let alone a run for the presidency?
Their arguments and actions gave us the worst of all worlds. They drew votes away from candidates whose election would have kept us out of the stew we're in now, without advancing by one iota any aspect of the progressive agenda they are so vocal in coopting as their own.
Anyway, I think you and I are in basic agreement. I just needed a chance to vent some of the rage I feel at what has happened to this country, and all we could have accomplished under two terms of Gore and at least one term for Hillary. Instead we're now looking at decades of a right wing court--a court which in all likelihood will be with us for the rest of my life.
Best wishes to you and yours, and please stay safe, and please wish me well in retaining what little composure I can still muster during these dark and dismal times.
electric_blue68
(14,598 posts)"gonad" issues.
I can't remember during the 2000 what speech, question, or action that someone(s) did that set off that response .
I thought LGB (not really TQI yet), and Choice.
😠😠😠😠😠