Beware litmus tests

by | May 2, 2017 | Editor's Blog | 10 comments

Back in 2005, I went to work for a woman running as an independent for the House of Delegates in Virginia. She had been a lifelong Republican and had a wall of fame in her house with photos of her and every major Republican figure since Richard Nixon. She was running in a district that included suburban parts of Richmond and had been effectively kicked out of the Republican Party for heading the Virginia affiliate of a GOP pro-choice organization.

Back then, my candidate was outraged that her party would shun her for a single position. Otherwise, she supported traditional GOP positions. She believed in limited government, low taxes and a strong national defense. She had worked hard to elect Republicans most of her life. She just disagreed on abortion rights and, to a lesser degree, on LGBT rights. She won by 42 votes by painting the Republican incumbent as too extreme for the district.

Today, Democrats are wading into that territory. In a race for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, abortion rights groups are up in arms over Bernie Sanders and DNC Chair Tom Perez endorsing a pro-life candidate. They argue that Democrats shouldn’t support pro-life candidates because reproductive rights are key to economic justice for women. That’s a fine argument to make in a Democratic primary, not so much in a race against a Republican, especially since the candidate pledged not to further restrict access to abortion services.

These litmus tests are dangerous for the party. The Omaha mayor’s candidate, Heath Mello, holds progressive views on most other issues. If pro-choice organizations want to oppose him in a primary, or even in a general election, they should. They shouldn’t define who is and who is not a Democrat. Nor should they dictate who can endorse whom. While Mello voted for abortion restrictions six years ago, he’s voted with Planned Parenthood consistently since 2012.

We have a two-party system in this country. Both parties are loose coalitions of people along a spectrum, not people walking in lock step. They’re successful when they build big tents, not small ones.

The biggest threats to reproductive rights, marriage equality, climate change, a progressive tax system, a robust social safety net, a higher minimum wage and fair elections are Republican majorities in state legislatures and Congress, not the minority of Democrats who hold dissenting opinions on one or more of these issues. At a time when Democrats need to figure out how to reach more voters especially in more traditionally conservative areas, they don’t need to be defining the party by a checklist. Purity tests will drive people away instead of bringing people together.

Big tents cause problems governing. Republicans are finding that out right now. However, they also control the White House, both houses of Congress, more than two-thirds of the country’s legislative chambers and 33 governorships. Democrats won’t make progress by excluding people from their party.

The party is in danger of being defined by the interest groups that represent the various parts of the Democratic coalition. If the party is perceived as being an exclusive group of special interests they’ll continue to be a minority party. They can have internal debates about what’s best for the party. That’s what primaries are for. But if they go down a path of exclusion, they will have those debates on the sidelines, not in the halls of Congress or state legislatures.

10 Comments

  1. Thomas Hill

    We brag that we are the party of the “big tent”. But as soon as one of our candidates states a view based on a personal belief that disagrees with one of our pet agendas, we attack him or her as “immoral” and/or ignorant, and we “stay home” rather than vote for him or her. Similarly, the Republicans attack each other viciously during their primaries, but show up religiously at the polls on election day. Guess who is winning the elections?

    • Stephen Lewis, Sr.

      If you are in a successful marriage you learn not to have to be right all the time. You will be sleeping on the couch a lot if you don’t learn this. If you are successful in your work you learn that you can win the argument and lose the sale. You miss out on promotions and raises if you don’t figure this out. If you are a Christian and are pursing the better your road toward Christ you learn to look at your own faults first. You can not fix someone else until you see how broken you are. When it comes ones political life the same rules apply. But for some reason there is a group of Democrats or progressive voter who think the party should always do as they say, This formula will not lead to success, but if lead to a small group of self righteous folks leading it into minority status.

  2. Walt de Vries, Ph.D.

    Ah, but saying you are a one-issue person (e.g., abortion) requires no research, no reading, no discussion, no effort, no time, no money, no thought, no stress and most important–no work. It is the easiest course, is it not? And, others will assert that you are 100% correct.
    You never have to examine your beliefs, attitudes, perceptions and behavior.
    Indeed, who was it that said a life unexamined is no life at all?

    • David Scott

      Socrates

  3. Stephen Lewis, Sr.

    Being a pro life Democrat I am happy what you have written. I have from time to time held party I have been a precinct chairman and first vice chairman of the county in the past when the party has come to me and asked me to. Just as when Heath Shuler ran for office I explained that my abortion views would not change. What I have found is most of the time some of the party cringes when I speak my views but if the party wants to regain majority status they need to look beyond and outside of this progressive group but the is up to them If they would rather be in the minority then so be it. And at this point in my life I would rather not hold a chairman seat. But I do hope the party will stop being so narrow minded they will benefit in so many ways if they do.

  4. Randell Hersom

    I can agree, with reservations, while still hoping for more progressive alternatives to Wasserman-Schultz, Manchin, McCaskill and Pelosi.

  5. willard cottrell

    Like it or not, the biggest ‘trouble makers’ in this area are the religious hypocrites of the right. Frankly, when I hear christian coming out of the mouth of a politician, I stop listening. The idea of the litmus test rests clearly with the christian right. Until we deal with that problem, both parties will suffer the consequences.

  6. Norma Munn

    You are, of course, correct politically. However, you would never suggest that a candidate who was anti-Semitic, but not racist on issues of color, and generally in line with the other Democratic Party issues outlined, be so easily welcomed. Would you ask a person of color to ignore racist beliefs, if a candidate was fine on all other points? I think not.

    Choice, and that is what abortion options are about, is central to all of our lives. I am tired of hearing that reproductive rights are “special interests.” Some rights are basic. Except for marriage equality and reproductive choice, I would not, despite their importance, put any of the other items on your list in that category. Health care, food, shelter, education and citizenship rights along with marriage equality and reproductive choice are basics to me.

    It is rational to believe that a political party may include people a range of beliefs. One can also take the position that Senator Kaine has on reproductive rights, but as far as I can discern that is not where Heath Mello stands. (Voting for Planned Parenthood does not suffice.) I may be forced to vote for a Mello type candidate from time to time, but that does not mean I accept the designation of “special interests” for choice on reproductive issues.
    .

  7. David Scott

    EXCELLENT point! Nothing makes me crazier as a liberal Democrat than someone telling me that he/she voted for or against a Democratic candidate due to the candidate’s stand on one issue. I’m sure Republicans feel the same way. They might support that same candidate on all other issues except one. Abortion is a shining example of this phenomenon. I don’t know a single other person whom I agree with on ALL issues, but that does not mean we cannot have a constructive and meaningful relationship. This “one issue” approach is anathema to civil discourse and to democracy itself. When a political party, corporation, civic group, or religious group adopts it, they commit organizational suicide and we all suffer. This goes a long way in explaining the crippling polarization gripping our country. And, it might indicate a way out.

    • TY Thompson

      Nothing also makes grass roots activists crazier than working to elect people who change once they’re elected. From that perspective, litmus tests make sense because they remind the pols that their base expects them to stay the course, ideologically.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!