Why the abortion war within the Democratic Party of Missouri is just one example of how political parties are overly concerned with maintaining order, and may just be the worst thing to ever happen to American politics.
But do we try to fix them, or do we need them at all? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
Listening to The Daily podcast over the last few days, I heard a featured story which illustrates a rift within the Democratic Party, and how that rift has been playing out in the state of Missouri.
This rift is over abortion.
The reporter, New York Times journalist Sabrina Tavernise, framed the story in this way:
Democrats used to have a strong political presence in states like Missouri. Long-time Democrats like Joan Barry (who has been a member of the Democratic Party of Missouri for 53 years and who served as a state legislator) supported their party for years by fighting for “big democratic” principles like labor issues, education, programs for the poor, etc.
Tavernise suggests, however, that a rift occurred within the party when the issue of abortion (and especially the super-controversial “partial birth abortions”) became a national debate, and the Democratic Party cemented their pro-choice stance on the issue.
Given the emotional and moral nature of this complicated topic, it’s not surprising that many “pro-life” Democrats couldn’t stomach staying with the party.
According to one former Democrat interviewed in the podcast, “We didn’t change [our] core beliefs. The Democratic Party did. [Being a Democrat] was the tradition I grew up in, politically. But I couldn’t do that anymore.”
Tavernise states that in the years that passed since the split over abortion “Democrats have lost every single statewide office but one, including the governor.”
Pro-life Democrats still exist in Missouri though, and Tavernise centers her story around Joan Barry, mentioned above, and current Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) who (though pro-choice) offered support of Barry’s desire to have pro-life Democrats re-included in the party.
Recently, Joan Barry decided that her party needed to become more inclusive if it was ever going to heal the rift. She submitted a revision to charter of the Democratic Party of Missouri which included language acknowledging, inviting, and accepting pro-life Democrats. The revision passed.
Shortly thereafter, however, there was a major backlash against the revision from progressives within the party.
“I think a woman should be in charge of her own uterus – nobody else,” a progressive Democrat woman was recorded as saying.
“Women will continue to do what they need to do, only it won’t be safe,” said another.
Most won’t be surprised at the examples of pro-choice rhetoric. The story, however, seemed to illustrate the surprise at the Democratic Party of Missouri’s unwillingness to be inclusive.
Tavernise described the atmosphere as follows: many progressives felt like Joan Barry’s proposal had betrayed women, that she was a sellout, and that a Democratic Party which included pro-life members was “a slap in the face.”
While Joan Barry received support from Senator Claire McCaskill, the revision was ultimately revoked and the updated verbiage that included pro-life Democrats was removed.
Tavernise concludes her piece with the following reluctant revelation:
“In our age of extremes, it’s impossible to be a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Politics demands purity, and any deviation turns you into an enemy.”
“[This age of extremes] has made the middle disappear [and] made pro-life Democrats like Joan Barry obsolete.”
Ok.
I relayed the above story because I wanted to given an example that showcases the friction (and feelings of betrayal) that can occur within parties themselves when there is a philosophical disagreement between members of that party, but a desire on the part of all members to still “be part of the group.”
This friction isn’t new; many of us feel that sense of “betrayal” when our elected candidates “sell out” (when they don’t follow through on their promises, or vote in ways that are counter to their campaign platforms). Whether our representatives “waffle” because they withheld their true beliefs to get elected, or because, after gaining office, they were presented with information that caused them to change their mind, OR because the entrenched and murky mechanisms of politics (the money, the strategy) were simply overwhelming… we may never know.
That said, if we aligned ourselves with that candidate (as we so often do with a political party), each of us loses a little “faith” in the system when another politician seemingly “sells out.”
But what about us? What even drives us to join a political party, given the mess, the drama, the internal conflicts, and the potential feelings of betrayal that come with it?
Let’s start from the beginning: The concept of democracy.
The idea of democracy is this:
The best forms of government are ones in which the people themselves decide the rules under which they agree to live. That while not all people will agree, controversial issues will be decided by vote, and that a majority vote of “yea” or “nay” to any issue will determine if that rule is adopted into the governmental structure. We agree to play this game because a) we have buy in, and b) because democracies seems to allow incremental changes in government (that continue to reflect evolving desires and beliefs of the populace) while avoiding the violence that so often accompanies regime change.
A “representative democracy” (as opposed to a strict democracy) simply means that the people vote for a person who they think best exemplifies their own personal belief system. That person then goes to work, full time, at the state or national level, to work with other representatives to draft and present ideas for new laws, or changes to the government. That representative is trusted to vote in a manner consistent with how they presented themselves to the voters who elected them.
There’s a level of trust involved, but if that elected person doesn’t vote the way you like (or isn’t capable of causing the reform or change you desire), you get a chance to vote them out of office next time around.
Ok. All of that makes sense, and seems sensible. But how-in-the-hell do political parties factor into all this? And could they be more of a detriment than a benefit?
On one extreme, I can understand the need to “band together” when contemplating the physical (and likely violent) overthrow of a tyrannical regime. You need a group of people who believe, to such a degree that they’d be willing to die, that a new system of government is necessary. Those like-minded revolutionaries work together to make that happen.
But once a system of government (like our representative democracy) is instated, why have parties at all?
Our constitution has, built into it, ways to change it, amend it, and to cycle out the old and elect the new. Once a system like ours becomes the norm, why, oh why, do we desire anything other than an educated voting public to vote for what each believes, individually?
In my mind, political parties are nothing more than the consequence of an individual succumbing to his or her tribal proclivities.
As people, in fighting for policies we like (but about which none of us can truly know the effectiveness), we have a tendency to alleviate our fears of “being wrong” by banding together with others with whom we agree.
And therein lies the problem.
All of the sudden we’re not just voting for a policy, or a new law, or for someone who best represents our political philosophies. Instead we’re voting for this group – this thing that has taken us in, because we thought we needed it – and now it’s become a part of our identity.
I went on Facebook recently (mistake number one, I know).
In response to a distaste for Trump, many of my friends were posting messages like the following:
“Want change? Go vote straight Democrat.”
Don’t worry, to be fair, there’s plenty of sentiment on the right as well to vote straight Republican.
This “party first” mentality is, in my mind, an insult to the ability of any conscious person to make up their own mind. Furthermore, it causes tremendous internal conflict for those who consider themselves to be loyal to any given party, but whose beliefs don’t perfectly align with that party’s current platform.
The Democratic Party of Missouri is experiencing this first hand.
Pro-life democrats are suffering the angst of supporting a party that promotes a different stance than they do on a moral hot-button topic: abortion. Pro-choice democrats feel “betrayed” at the mere notion of allowing pro-lifers into their party.
“What to do? What to do?” seems to be the underlying theme of Tavernise’s story.
One (surprising?) example of levelheadedness is from everyone’s favorite pop star: Taylor Swift. Her Instagram post, in which she espoused some political views drew flack from none other than President Donald Trump. Now, while I may not fully agree with her evaluation of the situation at hand in America (I said “fully agree”), nor do I have to have the same reaction that she had to the voting record of Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) in Tennessee, but.. Miss Swift, I applaud you in doing two things:
A) You listed the issues that were most important to you, and stated that as Rep. Blackburn did not vote in the way you’d have desired in the past, you wouldn’t be voting for her. You did this without name calling. And…
B) You, Taylor encouraged people to educate themselves, stating:
“Please, please educate yourself on the candidates running in your state and vote based on who most closely represents your values. For a lot of us, we may never find a candidate or party with whom we agree 100% on every issue, but we have to vote anyway.”
I admit, I didn’t expect that one of the loudest, and yet most rational, voices in this election would come from Taylor Swift. And while perhaps she’s mentioned political affiliation in posts previous or following, she never mentions the words Republican or Democrat in this post – the one that’s garnered so much (including presidential) attention.
But the wisdom of Swift (to educate oneself and vote for someone who “most closely represents your values” still seems lost on so many. Maybe that internal conflict (between the needs of the group and the intellectual sovereignty of the individual) isn’t something that can be fixed without asking the real question:
Do we need the political parties at all?
Because while we ALL have a desire to be included (it’s part of being human) can anyone honestly argue that the desires to conform and be included are morally superior to the “set of ideals” around which a political group was formed?
Sure, you may not agree with the specific ideals of any given group, but I think I can argue that the act of speaking one’s truth is morally superior to the desire to be part of a group.
And if joining a party was simply a statement of “I agree with this set of beliefs, at this point in time,” maybe political parties would be fine. Unfortunately, though, people find a nebulous, but influential value in being a “part of something,” and far too often they subvert their own ideals in exchange for the strength and cohesion of the party itself.
And what does the party really want? Not ideals. No, those aren’t going anywhere. But the party will vanish if it doesn’t spend time and effort and money in maintaining itself.
Political parties want power.
Even Joan Barry, the frustrated protagonist of the story above, inadvertently revealed her own adherence to the party’s desire for power, in the statement she issued to the Democratic Party of Missouri (a party which had, in essence, abandoned her).
She was quoted as saying the following:
“The beliefs and interests in our great state are vast and diverse, with no two individuals holding the same exact opinion. As we convene today, our focus should be on the effort needed to be successful in our goal: election victories.”
Election victories? That’s the moral of the story? Are “election victories” really the goal of the Democratic party?
Yes.
And of the Republicans too.
And that’s the problem.
And so, if a system of government is in place that allows a person to vote their mind, their heart, and be true to themselves, how can anyone justify the pollution of that system by the power struggles, financial influence, and group mentality that are inherent in the political parties themselves?
I’m going to ruffle some feathers here.
In my mind, by joining a political party, you’re selling out. You’re placing your mind, your time, and your money into the hands of the group, and subjecting yourself to the inherent conflict anyone will eventually feel when loyalties are divided between
A) that which is good: you speaking your truth, and
B) that which is yes, human, but not necessarily praiseworthy: seeking shelter in a group.
Vote your heart. Stop giving money to career politicians. Research and elect people who most closely align with your beliefs: whether they’re concerning taxes, or education, or abortion.
You don’t need a party to show you how to do that.
Lots of controversial topics here, I know. Would love your feedback. Please, consider leaving a comment below – tell me how political parties have been beneficial, or detrimental in your eyes. And maybe even share on social media. This is an important topic.
~Cecil
UPDATE: I’m now a full-time recording artist out of Nashville, TN (Cecil Charles). I’m supporting myself (and releasing one, studio quality song per month for 2019 and, well, as far into the future as I can see), by generous listeners and readers like you.
It’s melodic pop, full and rich and filled with harmonies and layers of sound. Sometimes folky, sometimes funky, and I think you might enjoy. Listen below!
Then check out my Patreon page – a simple $5 pledge gets you free downloads of each monthly song, as well as exclusive content (song ideas I’m working on, updates on shows, news from traveling, and more). It allows me to take you along on this journey I’m on, as a full-time recording artist and essayist. Every little bit helps, so thank you in advance for your consideration!
[instagram-feed id=”8672443920″]
