MotherJones.com | MoJo Blog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: In Defense of NARAL

« Building Worse Mousetraps? | Blog Index | Darfur Won't Go Away »


Advertisement
recent entries WMD Terrorist Attack "More Likely Than Not" by 2013, Says Report Obama Takes Initial Open Government Step South Texas Indictments of Cheney, Gonzales Dismissed Harvey Milk: Local Legend or National Figure? Bush Earns Medal for AIDS Efforts If Only Those Dead Indians Hadn't Been So Cowardly The Curious Retention of Robert Gates Picking Up the Pieces: A Sober, War-Time National Security Cabinet Takes Shape Major League Baseball Catches Outsourcing Fever

In Defense of NARAL

I'm pretty sure I've posted something similar before, but in light of this misguided swipe at NARAL today over at Daily Kos, it seems time for another go. Kos isn't happy because the abortion-rights organization would dare endorse a pro-choice Republican, Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, over a pro-life Democrat, Jim Langevin (who eventually dropped out of the race). Kos sees this as precisely the wrong strategy, and argues that NARAL should stick with Democrats come hell-or-highwater: "[T]urning the Senate Democratic is far more beneficial for their issue (women rights) than anything the Republicans can muster." Well, no. That's not necessarily true.

A quick finger experiment. Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that it's Chaffee (pro-choice R) vs. Langevin (pro-life D) in a Rhode Island Senate race, and that NARAL's endorsement makes a shred of difference. Here are the scenarios that pro-choice advocates face face:

1) Republicans keep the Senate in 2006 and Chaffee gets elected. Well, that's bad news. But notice, whenever the Republicans slap down some bit of legislation restricting abortion rights, Chaffee will be voting against it (remember, he votes pro-choice 100 percent of the time. 100 percent!).

2) Republicans keep the Senate in 2006 and Langevin gets elected. Worse news. Republicans are still in charge, but now whenever they slap down abortion restrictions, Langevin will likely vote for them, giving pro-life legislation one extra vote and making it more likely to pass. Clearly outcome #2 is worse for NARAL than #1. But then we have...

3) Democrats retake the Senate and Chaffee gets elected. Hooray! Now whenever Democrats want to push through some legislation expanding abortion rights, Chaffee votes for it, making it more likely to pass. Which is still better, from NARAL's perspective, than...

4) Democrats retake the Senate and Langevin gets elected. This scenario is worse than 3, since that legislation expanding abortion rights suddenly becomes harder to pass—at the very least, you'll have to do Langevin some favor elsewhere to get him to vote for it. But odds are, he won't vote for it!

So NARAL's preferences here are ranked: 3, 4, 1, 2. Endorsing Chaffee, then, is a pretty optimal choice—it makes either 3 or 1 more likely, rather than 4 or 2. The wild card here, of course, is the scenario in which control of the Senate actually hinges on who wins in this race, Chaffee or Langevin—in which case, the choice would be between outcome #1 and #4. But the probability of that seems pretty small, all things considered. So, yes, it makes sense for NARAL to endorse the pro-choice Republican over the pro-life Democrat. Meanwhile, in light of various liberal intellectuals getting ready to throw abortion rights overboard in order to win more elections, NARAL certainly has every reason to worry that it needs to hold the party's feet to the fire. Traditionally, interest groups that get too cozy and complacent with one particular party—see, for example, unions with the Democratic Party, or evangelicals with the Republicans—get taken advantage of pretty easily.

Posted by Bradford Plumer on 08/09/05 at 3:49 PM | E-mail | Print | Digg this | de.licio.us

Comments

Excellent, excellent breakdown of the issue. Thanks so much for making it clear... I've been following the thread over at Feministing, and it's gotten wild... http://feministing.com/archives/001761.html

Posted by: deanna z on 08/09/05 at 10:02 PM

I still agree with Kos's points for the most part. I feel that a candidate should not be shot down over one issue, but rather be evaluated on ten or twenty issues.

As far as the Chafee thing, I do see why Naral may have been right in this situation because there is a Republican majority and this is the US senate.

If this were a local race for some other office, I'd probably say that the choice issue would not be as important a factor. Even if this was the US Senate and there were a Democratic majority i'd probably say that choice would not be as a important a factor.

Posted by: Jason D Gooljar on 08/10/05 at 4:30 AM

One problem: Langevin says that he isn't running, leaving the Democratic primary between two pro-choice candidates, Sheldon Whitehouse and Matt Brown. While everyone is certain that Langevin could whup Chafee's butt, Whitehouse and Brown are questionable. Whitehouse lost the 2002 Democratic gubernatorial primary to Myrth York, and Brown is a newbie to state politics. Rhode Islander's might dismiss Brown as too opportunistic, seeing that the only office he's held if Secetary of State and he hasn't even been governor or congressman. The Chafee family, on the otherhand, has been an RI institution for a good, long time.

But, oddly enough, there's the possibility that Chafee may not make it past the primaries. Republicans in this state are PO'ed with him, and of local GOP hero Steve Laffey, mayor of Cranston, challenges Chafee's seat, he stands a good shot amongst the party faithful of dethroning Linc.

Personally, I kinda like Chafee, though I do think that NARAL jumped the gun by endorsing him so quickly. However, the state Democrats sure haven't helped their cause. In 2000, Chafee's democratic opponent was former congressman Robert Weygand, who was anti-choice. In 2006, they threatened to run the anti-choice Langevin (who still has time to turn around and join the race). So the RI Democrats screwed themselves here, as far as I'm concerned.

If Chafee votes for Roberts, then I hope NARAL reconsiders and revokes their endorsement. But Chafee's current voting record fit NARAL's standards, and for them to not endorse him just because he's a Republican would be hypocritical.

Posted by: tas on 08/12/05 at 9:36 PM

Posted by: Halo on 11/25/06 at 6:42 AM

.red hot chillie pepper

Posted by: Kir on 11/25/06 at 12:27 PM

Posted by: Jane on 11/25/06 at 3:54 PM