Is Condescension a Core Democratic Value?

I didn’t really have anything to say about the pie-fight at Kos, although there’s no question that his response was a good example of his general antipathy toward feminist politics. But this post really annoyed the hell out of me. What’s most striking is the way he offers the most well-worn banalities as if he had just discovered plutonium by accident. Democrats should say they’re pro-choice, not pro-abortion! Abortion is about a private choice between a woman and her doctor! Did you hear that Ronnie Van Zant just passed away? As with Amy Sullivan, he suggests that maybe Democratic politicians and mainstream activists should start talking about abortion rights they way they have, in fact, been talking about them in public for many, many years. And, of course, to Kos abortion is solely about “privacy”; in other words, we’re getting allegedly cutting-edge political advice from someone who’s still at a point that Harry Blackmun–famous, of course, for articulating the doctor- and privacy- centered abortion right Kos prefers in 1973–moved beyond 20 years ago. But aside from his archaic sense of the issue, what really galls me is the frankly appalling level of condescension that goes along with the ignorance. Do you really think that feminists–even those that work for evil “single issue” organizations–have to be told that abortion rights are connected to larger issues and values? That they’ve never noticed that criminalizing abortion restricted autonomy as was about patriarchal values more broadly? Jeebus. (Another thing that gives away the show is that when he discusses “gender equality”–a subsidiary, not a core value, of course–he specifies “same pay for same work, etc.” In other words, apparently, nothing that Christina Hoff Summers and Steve Pinker couldn’t get behind. And by the way, does Kos ever attack any “single-issue” groups besides NARAL?)

There’s another problem here, which Lance discusses effectively in the post I link to above. Not all progressive politics is party politics. This not to say that progressive groups should not be mindful of the success of the Democratic Party, and certainly does not mean that a third party politics is useful. But not all political activism is about the “party branding” that Kos is obsessed with. It’s not NARAL’s job to do Democratic Party “branding” any more than it’s the Club For Growth’s responsibility to do it for the Republicans. The parties have to knit a more coherent set of themes from diverse coalitions doesn’t mean that groups with more narrow interests should simply become party organs.

…Lance, in comments, is right that Shakespeare’s Sister has been on fire and also has some good links; see here and here.

…Prof B. is right; this post is a gem. See also the inevitably humorless and shrill Amanda.