As President Bush completes his State of the Union speech, the Democratic Party looks for a new chairman, and it seems that former presidential candidate Howard Dean has it in the bag. Dean?s main opponent, Tim Roemer, was handicapped in this race from the beginning. Why? It?s because Roemer is pro-life, a big no-no for the Democratic Party.Tim Roemer served on the 9-11 Commission and was a member of Congress as a Democrat representing a chiefly Republican district. Not too bad, but to the elites, that doesn?t matter. It is funny how one issue defines a person?s worthiness for leadership.
“Don?t litmus test me!” Roemer pleaded last month to his fellow Democrats, but who is listening? Roemer?s words are falling on deaf ears of a party that is a captive of the prochoice movement. Despite the Democrats? losses in the lasttwo presidential elections, which polls attribute in part to the issue of abortion, the party has identified itself as one which supports abortion rights on demand. The slightest restriction (even on lateterm abortions) is seen as “bad for choice.” They actually make this argument on the floor of the House and Senate.
I?m not weighing in on the race for the Democratic National Committee, just pointing out a reality. Senate Democrats call President Bush an ideologue on the abortion issue, regardless of the fact that Bush believes in exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, which is really a moderate stance. It?s not totally prolife, but not supporting abortion on demand either. Yet, the example with Tim Roemer shows just how flexible the Democratic Party claims to be. It is hypocritical to claim one?s opponent as ideologically driven while your own party is behaving that exact way. Again, does anyone hear Roemer?s plea, “Don?t litmus test me”?
They love to call themselves the tolerant party. On the contrary, the tolerance they claim to have has never been extended to Democrats who hold the pro-life position on abortion. Just look at what went on right here in Pennsylvania. In 1992, Robert P. Casey, then Governor of Pennsylvania, was humiliated when the DNC refused to allow him to speak. It didn?t matter if Casey was going to speak about taxes. He was pro-life and that made him bad news in their book. Imagine this kind of treatment to the popular governor of a swing state!
Actually, the Republican Party suffers from the same exact practice of single-issue defining, but they deal with it and move on to other issues instead of alienating members of their own party. Last year, I watched both the Republican and Democrat conventions. At the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York, primetime speakers were California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Both are pro-choice on abortion. Sure, the religious right got angry about this, but contrary to popular belief they are just one part of the Republican Party, not the only part. Republicans agreed to disagree and move on to other issues. In contrast, no pro-life Democrat at the party?s Boston 2004 convention was visible.
The rhetoric claiming that Bush is dogmatic is groundless, while these acts on the part of Democrats raise some interesting questions. Which party is really the ideologue? Who really shies away from moderation? I can?t recall a single time when Rudy or Arnold had to plea “Don?t litmus test me!”
Anthony Maalouf is a junior majoring in political science with a minor in Spanish.