State of the web: NARAL as the new Ralph Nader

NARAL is the new Ralph Nader. Or that's the myth working its way around the net. What NARAL actually is the new scapegoat (something many would argue Nader was as well).

Sammy Alito got confirmed to the Supreme Court (a nightmare) and as some look around, they point not to anything that could have made a difference, but to NARAL.

No one involved in writing this feature is a fan or supporter of NARAL. We think they've become a very weak organization in the last few years. What they are is a single-issue group and there's nothing wrong with that.

But we're not sure that most of the people following the trashing of NARAL going on online get that this is about abortion and other single-issues. There is a place for single-issues. NARAL has a place. It still has a place even after the Alito disaster. They don't have to stop supporting Republicans if they don't want to. That's their business. Their support for Republicans and their refusal to challenge any politicians (Democrats or Republicans) is the reason we don't give to that organization or make it a permalink at any site.

To say that they've made them useless is not to say anything controversial. To suggest that, if they want to have influence, they seriously rethink their leadership and goals is not to say anything controversial. To make the obvious comment that their efforts failed is not controversial.

But something more is involved for some of the people. Let's be clear, this isn't a "tone" argument. Trash NARAL if you want, in any way that you want.

But don't pretend like your abortion rights advocates if you're not. And don't pretend that NARAL is the issue if the real issue is your war on single-issues. This is a war fought mainly by white males and largely in the nineties (or that's when it really took root for the left) before the net was flourshing the way it does today. Which is why we think what's going on needs to be noted. Many readers being whipped into a frenzy have no idea of the subtext involved.

So let's be clear here, NARAL did a lousy job of attempting to achieve their goals. No question at all. NARAL is not the reason Alito was confirmed.

It's a nice little spin, the scapegoating, that lets the Democratic Party off the hook. Instead of directing justified rage at Party leaders who refused to filibuster, suddenly NARAL, with no voting rights in the Senate, is responsible.

If the Democrats had stuck together, they could have had a filibuster. They didn't stick together. That has nothing to do with NARAL. It does have to do with ineffective leadership in the Senate, it does have to do with a lot of Dem-lites holding seats in the Senate.

But let's drop back to the hearings. Joe Biden's been rightly called on his pontificating. But at least he was fighting. Dianne Feinstein was an embarrassment. She needs to step off the Judiciary Committee immediately. With her late appearances (and the 'cute' commentary by Specter on that), her silly questions, her lack of directness, her inability to step up, we'd argue she was far worse than Joe Biden. And we'd argue that her repeated statements, ahead of the Alito and Roberts' hearings, about how she understood her importance on the committee were nothing but empty words.

Despite the now much noted summit, the Dems utilized no strategy for the hearings. They were all over the place and making nice. After the hearings, they were throwing in the towel collectively. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy called for a filibuster. The fact that there wasn't one has nothing to do with NARAL. If the Democrats could have kept their party in line, the nomination would have been filibustered. That's a failure on the part of the Party.

But now the spawn of Joe Lieberman and Henry Hyde appear all over the net, claiming to be lefty supportes of abortion, while trashing NARAL for a vote in which they cast no vote -- they have no voting rights. The attacks by the spawn have nothing to do with Alito being confirmed.
They do have to do with a desire on the part of some to strip abortion rights from the party.

"B-b-but, the party supports abortion!"

Whether it's abortion, gay rights, the environment or any other issue that doesn't play well to the white male subgroup, it's on the chopping block. It's been that way for some time. Martin Duberman pointed out what was going on in 1996 (in The Nation) when he took on one of the leading proponents of the "drop the issues!" crowd. You may know his name even if you're not aware that he's connected with that movement: Michael Tomasky.

The American Prospect? We don't link to it. Never have, never will. Because we realize the United States is a multi-cultural society and we have more serious concerns than pushing a myth that affirmative action created an "unfair" balance. Now Tomasky and his crowd have learned not to be as vocal these days as they were in the past, but make no mistake, this is what the issue is.

"How do we win elections?" We do that by fighting. But some people aren't fighters. Some people always want to cut corners and cheat. That's why the Party's turned its back on unions, that's why the Party supported NAFTA. That's why, to hear the Party leaders speak, all African-Americans care about is church. (Or gay marriage.)

What's "identity politics"? Today, it's abortion, gay rights, go down the list. A few centuries ago, it could have been the abolition of slavery. And that's what the easy wins crowd overlooks. We've only made strides because we've fought these battles.

On the right, they've pretended "big tent" and made Federalists, the NRA, the 'vangical voters and others feel welcome. The easy win crowd thinks they can peel off the Democratic Party -- getting rid of those pesky issues -- and somehow win elections. Elections wins, in and of themselves, are meaningless. What the easy wins crowd fears (especially Todd Gitlin) is that we might return to a dialogue begun in the sixties. As if that were a bad thing.

If you look at the accepted norms and mores of 1960 and compare the wins since then, real wins not election wins, you'll see the country is better off because of it. Women have rights, real rights. They're not the property of their husbands or fathers. Domestic abuse is not a "personal problem." Our society is more integrated racially. Gays and lesbians don't have to hide in the closet. None of those battles are complete but they have had a lot of success compared to the way things were when the sixties began.

Criticism of NARAL is expected from the left. But hiding behind attacks on NARAL to push your own hidden agenda isn't. Some of the "brave" voices should get honest about what's going on. Their following might take a hit because we're sure that some of their audience includes people who would be offended at the prospect of dropping "single-issues."

The thing is, gay rights isn't a "single-issue" if you're gay. If you're straight, it may be. It may not effect you in the least. What this crowd is about is turning their back on the long fight because they don't think it's winnable or worth it. If they got honest with their following, it might get a little uncomfortable for them.

Why is this worth noting? Let's go to Ron (Why Are We Back In Iraq) for this:

Here's AlterNet reviewer Jules Siegel responding to a critic of his critique:

I personally believe that NOW-style feminists and the radical feminists are just as much an American Taliban as the religious right. Some of these people are utter assholes.

If you go to Ron's post, you can find the link for Siegel but we don't link to AlterNet.

So 'women's right advocate' Jules thinks that NOW is "just as much an American Taliban"? That's right up there with other "insights" from Jules. Take this bit of crap on women's numbers in the workforce and why it's a problem:

The atomization of the family reduces the strength of the individual worker by depriving him or her of a base independent of the company.

It's cute that Jules uses "him or her" in his attack on women in "WHY REPUBLICANS SHOULD LOVE FEMINISTS (They Have So Much in Common, They Should be Dating Seriously)." He works himself into a tizzy (doesn't take much apparently) over wives making more than husbands -- a trend only he sees because the facts of women's rate of pay doesn't. See, Jules is another one of the people decrying progress. He cloaks it in false "facts" that are nothing more than conventional "wisdom." (It's made him quite popular at Playboy? Should we expect centerfold spreads from AlterNet next?) Jules muses that "women are less likely to join labor unions" while not noting any facts to back that up. Such as the fact that membership in unions has been down for some time and the fact that for many years the big unions weren't interested in the service sector which is where many women are employed. The division between manufacturing and service sector has been noted in most union commentary but somehow Jules missed it. Just happened to miss the facts that undermine his conventional wisdom commentary.

Among feminists' many crimes, according to Jules, is their advocacy for day care. Apparently that's why Republicans should love them? Two words for Jules: Eleanor Roosevelt.

AlterNet has yet to distance themselves from the attack on NOW. There's been no, "These are the statements of Jules Stein and not a reflection of the views of AlterNet." Until there is, feminists should be wary of AlterNet. NOW's been very clear on where they stand on the war, against it. They didn't see the 2004 election myths as cause to go silent on the war. NOW fights, it doesn't buckle. But you'll see a lot of Jules Stein type remarks as certain people who learned in the nineties that their crap wouldn't play attempt to grab an opening. Think of NARAL as the gateway drug that will lead to attacks on NOW and CODEPINK and a host of other organizations.

The DLC didn't die, it just went underground. The same people who told you in the nineties to basically accept corporations influence (corruption) of politics are ready to present themselves now as the "manly" saviors of the left.

Those who dream of and fight for a better world shouldn't get taken in by this nonsense. It's gatekeeping pure and simple. "Your issues don't matter" is "You don't matter." The argument will be for the "greater good." But a support of lobbysits and corporations hardly strikes any of us as the "greater good." One of us remembers a magazine publisher* who rallied behind that strategy in the Carter campaign of 1976. He fancied himself a "player" (a mistake many make -- and that some are making today). Though the Carter campaign was happy to use the magazine for its own ends, there was no real relationship there. Following the election, the publisher found himself out in the cold. The 2008 election (we're hoping it will lead to a Democrat in the White House -- barring the emergence of a strong third party), will find quite a few "players" finding out that they were played. The publisher in question helped deliver the vote, helped fundraise, inspired his readers to get out and vote, hooked the campaign up with all sorts of promotion.

It didn't mean anything after the election. People attempting to become insiders (or the "establishment") might want to think about.

Some feel that was NARAL's mistake. That it got too close to politicans to hold them accountable or too comfortable with the access to hold them accountable. Did that happen? That's something for the organization to decide.

There's no question that they botched their own goals throughout 2005. When certain individuals (such as Hillary Clinton) began backing off from abortion, they should have made the organization's voice heard then, not wasted time propping up Hillary. They confused their own goals with those of Hillary Clinton's. Our judgement, right or wrong.

But we've not blamed them for the confirmation of Alito. There's no point in it. Abortion wasn't the only issue that should have troubled people about Alito (disability rights, civil rights, corporate ties . . .). Even had abortion been the only issue, whether Alito was confirmed or not didn't rest with NARAL. It rested with the senators who voted.

To say Lincoln Chafee stabbed NARAL in the back is to state the obvious. To act as though some Democrats didn't stab the Party in the back is to ignore the obvious.

What is "identity politics"? It's anything outside of the issues concerning the people in control. (Or those who want to be in control.) It's limiting the focus and rendering some groups invisible. There are those on the "left" who are okay with that. They were also okay with triangulating. We're not. We're not okay with turning on the base or betraying it. We're not okay with telling people who've been there for the party that they or their issues don't matter.

We're not okay with a "reinvention" of the Party that gets us even closer to corporate America and futher from Americans. Did Nader spoil the 2000 election?

Yes, if you, like Tim Russert, want to repeat "Florida, Florida, Florida" without noting the disenfranchisement that went on there. But a stronger campaign (and a better vice presidential nominee) would have countered Nader. (As would have simply counting the votes.) There's also the issue of the press in 2000.

But blaming Nader in 2000 or pushing the myth of "values voters" in 2004 doesn't address the roots of the problem. The Democratic Party needs to declare loudly and strongly what they stand for and they need to have programs proposed long before the 2008 election rolls around. The 1992 campaign promises by Bill Clinton went beyond the bumper sticker of "It's the economy, stupid." That slogan didn't pull in everyone. No single slogan will. The universal health care proposal did inspire many, the signals of equality did inspire many (which did include lifting the bans on gays in the military). The "strategy" in 2004 was: "Say as little possible so the opposition can't attack." They still attacked. They still invented lies.

Instead of being on the defensive in every campaign, the Democratic Party would benefit by getting out a strong message and getting it out early. In fact, get out many strong messages so that the spinners have to really work overtime to attempt to lie about them.

Blaming NARAL for Alito's confirmation doesn't address the fact that the Democratic Party didn't have a strong message for the hearings and they didn't have one when they took the Sunday chat & chews immediately after. Need it reduced to a simple bumper sticker? "It's the vision, stupid."

NARAL failed NARAL. It didn't fail the Democratic Party. The Dems need to take the lumps they've earned. A "no" vote without supporting a filibuster was worthless but some Democrats chose that route. Those looking to figure out how Alito got confirmed need look no further than that.

As it becomes more and more fashionable to blame NARAL for Alito, some will join in just because it's a "hot" topic. But some are doing it for other reasons. If NARAL's presented as a feminist failure, you'd do well to ask yourself, "Is this person someone who's ever offered any support to feminist causes?" If not, you're probably reading something by someone with issues that go a bit deeper than the Alito vote.


[*Note: This doesn't refer to the magazine noted in this entry.]