What Playing Hardball Really Means

In his response to my last post about the NARAL controversy, Oliver Willis shows himself to be so completely divorced from reality inside the Washington, D.C. bubble that when I read his post I literally burst out laughing and crying at the same time. I laughed because I couldn't believe how out of touch people can become if they spend so much time in the D.C. echo chamber. I cried because Willis usually produces terrific material and I was saddened to see him resort to such regurgitated conventional wisdom and drivel.

The two points that he seems to forget are really very simple. First, a 5 second study of how conservatives (and thus Republicans) went from a minority party in the 1970s to the majority party today shows that they did it by investing in conservative, conviction infrastructure (as opposed to just the Republican Party) - one that wasn't afraid to go after both Democrats and moderate Republicans (this Washington Post article, David Brock's book, and Eric Alterman have all written extensively about this). That's the spirit of what the abortion rights group NARAL did today in its controversial decision that people have been screaming about.

Secondly, and more importantly, his assumption that the Democratic Party will always be pro-choice is really troublingly ignorant. Living out here in the kind of red state that the east/west coast liberals have too often disregarded, I have a good view of how shortsighted a statement like that really is. There is pressure from everywhere for Democrats to abandon their convictions on choice, with the party now running pro-life candidates in their top-tier races. Regardless of your feelings on whether that is a good or bad thing, the point is that, unlike Willis, a group like NARAL knows it can't simply take Democrats pro-choice support for granted. By once in a blue moon supporting a pro-choice Republican as they have done, they inherently put pressure on the national Democratic Party to defend pro-choice policies. And that was, most likely, the point. Whether you agree with their pro-choice agenda or not, NARAL made a hardball move designed to go beyond just helping this one Republican in Rhode Island - they threw a high and tight fastball at the national Democratic Party on their issue. They said to the Democratic Party that if you screw us by putting up pro-life candidates as you have in some high profile races, we will screw you back where we can. That's hardball. It may be painful, and we may not like it - but no one should blame them for that.

Again, I think it is perfectly legitimate to complain about NARAL's endorsement of Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) if you have a problem with Chafee's record on abortion. I even think you can debate whether their tactical move was effective. But claiming that it has no merit and that they are selling out is just plain silly.

And let's be clear - none of this is limited to NARAL or the abortion issue. It is applicable to all progressive issues. For instance, there is a lot of pressure for Democrats to become more corporate. If that happens, does that mean labor should just keep giving all its support to Democrats because the Democratic Party will supposedly forever be good for labor? No, of course not - and one of the most powerful ways labor can prevent that is by once in a blue moon supporting a Republican who is their ideological ally. Doing that sends a message to Democrats that they better stay in line.

Now, I understand that there can be brain rot if you stay in Beltway Democratic circles for too long (I myself am still getting over that disease). But what I've described here is called hardball politics - its the kind of politics Karl Rove and Grover Norquist play - and its why they control all three branches of government. Until progressives are willing to play hardball (sometimes in the way NARAL did on this specific issue), we all better get used to being in the minority for the next few decades.