Why "Conviction Infrastructure" Matters

There is a debate raging among some bloggers about whether NARAL - the abortion rights group - was out of line in endorsing Republican Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) in his re-election bid. My take is pretty simple: if they have a problem with NARAL endorsing Chafee because of Chafee's record on abortion, or because Chafee's challengers have far better records on abortion, that's perfectly fine. However, if they have a problem with NARAL endorsing Chafee simply because he is a Republican, that is not fine - it means folks still just don't understand how important an ideological (as opposed to partisan) infrastructure really is.

NARAL is a group whose mission is to support candidates who agree with their abortion rights positions. You can have all the debates you want about whether that's a good thing or whether its politically palatable - but they are NOT an arm of any party. In fact, if they behave as a partisan arm, they actually do damage to their credibility, and thus their effectiveness. And, most importantly, that goes for all issue/labor/progressive ideological groups. Why?

Simple - because if an issue/labor/progressive-ideology group reflexively and exclusively backs only one party all the time, they are taken for granted and thus lose their power to move the agenda. Consider, for instance, Democrats, labor and trade. There is a credible argument to be made that more and more Democrats have been permitted to stiff American workers by supporting corporate-written trade deals because labor hasn't been willing to punish them (the SEIU/AFL-CIO fight - however it shakes out - may mean that's changing). There is an argument to be made that if more Democrats felt some sort of pain for screwing over the labor movement, they wouldn't screw over the labor movement as much as some of them do

Conservatives inherently understand this - its why conservative organizations sometimes go after Republicans from the right, and its why groups like the Club for Growth saw the value in having archconservative Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) take on moderate Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). The fact that Toomey lost didn't even matter to them because the message was sent to Republicans: if you don't stick to our conservative agenda, we will make your life difficult with well-funded primaries.

And make no mistake about it - this ends up benefiting the Republican Party far more than if these groups only acted as non-ideological partisan operations. These groups create conviction activists and political leaders who are unified around an ideology/issue, instead of what we have on our side too often: people who are ideologically fluid and don't know exactly what they stand for other than having a "D" after their name. Incidentally, this was one of the reasons why it was good for the Democratic Party to have progressives do something different by going after Democrats who voted for the bankruptcy bill.

The right understands that creating and fostering a conservative conviction/ideology naturally leads to political support for the Republican Party - and that political support is far stronger and more fervent than a blind ideologically-deprived loyalty to a partisan label. That investment in "conviction infrastructure" (aka. ideological/issue organizations) as opposed to investment exclusively in a partisan infrastructure (aka. the RNC, the Young Republicans, etc.) is one of the reasons why Republican politicians always seem to know where they stand - even on bills/issues they don't know much about. It is because they have an ideology (however disgusting) that reflexively guides them. It's unfortunately also why Democrats - who have too often invested in partisan and not conviction infrastructure - regularly fracture off into disunity.

Again, let me repeat: if folks have a problem with NARAL endorsing Chafee because of Chafee's abortion positions, that's completely legitimate. And there is a debate to be had about whether Chafee's overall support for a Republican leadership that is opposed to NARAL's should disqualify him from NARAL support, even if his own abortion record is congruent with NARAL (I'm actually unclear whether it is). But that is more of a political calculation by NARAL's leadership in this specific interest, and doesn't negate the broader, more important point: single-issue/labor/progressive-ideology groups do a disservice to their members, to their credibility, to their cause - and most importantly to their effectiveness - by behaving like wings of a political party.