Today I checked my snail mail and saw that I got a
mailer from
NARAL NY endorsing Republican Nick Spano over pro-choice Democrat
Andrea Stewart-Cousins in my New York State Senate district of the 35th. The
Westchester Coalition of Legal Abortion (WCLA) has also done the same; echoing a move they made two years ago. While I respect what both groups do; I have come to agree with others that when single-issue progressive groups of the left endorse Republicans they eventually end up doing more harm in the long run. I tossed this back and forth for quite some time but I now realize the truth.
What has happened in NY is the exact same thing that happened with the Senator from Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee receiving the endorsement of NARAL over a Democrat which clearly had an impact on the race when this happened.
One of the strongest arguments I've read against single-issue progressive groups of the left endorsing Republicans was made by Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas in their book Crashing the Gate.
Basically the argument comes down to this; by endorsing (or just staying neutral between a Democrat and Republican) a Democrat who's not 100% in lock step with your issues you need not worry. Why? Because you should have faith in the entire party, the majority (or eventual majority) and it's platform. This goes for matters of choice as well as for many other progressive causes and issues that the left champions. The Democratic Party will do far more for your cause in the long run than will the Republicans. Even with a pro-life US Senator leading the Democrats i'm more confident that they will always stand by issues of choice. If single-issue progressive groups of the left like WCLA and NARAL feel so badly about endorsing the Democrat then a possible alternative could be to not endorse anyone and simply stay out of those races.
A colleague of mine made an argument of why single-issue progressive groups of the left do what they do, which I'd like to bring up. She compared what WCLA had done in 2004 to what the Working Families Party had done in endorsing Spano in 2004 here in New York. For some time I saw her point. In endorsing Spano the WFP was able to get the minimum wage increased for all New Yorkers. I do consider the WFP a progressive group of the left as well; and it's not a single issue group either; though they do come up with a single issue to make their focus each year it seems. Others made the opposite argument of had they endorsed the Republican's opponent the Democrat Andrea Stewart-Cousins they would have eventually gotten the minimum wage increase later on but with much more. They would have been closer to having a Democratic Senate majority in the state which would have been tremendously friendly to all of their causes. As time has passed I've begun to lean more towards this thinking.
This year the WFP chose to stay out of it which I think was very wise on their part. If they could not endorse Andrea then stay out by all means. But even this comparison made by my colleague is flawed. The WFP had real things to gain with what they did in 2004 though I terribly dreaded them doing it. What does WCLA and NARAL NY have to gain with endorsing a Repubican let alone Nick Spano? He's capable of changing on the drop of a dime and he's done so before. Futhermore, if the NY GOP and the GOP state senate majority were to become staunchly anti-choice and Nick Spano was the one pro-choice Republican where would that leave you?
As a Democrat who has newly returned to the party (I was registered in the progressive WFP Party and I still pay dues to them!) I agree that we cannot condone the endoresment of Republicans. The times are too serious to sow the seeds of disunion. It's time we realize that not only must Democrats stick together, but all groups of the left must do so as well. We are in a two party winner take all system; meaning only two parties can be effective whether they be Democratic-Republicans and Federalists, Democrats and Whigs or Democrats and Republicans (it would be different if we had a proportional system like in Europe or instant runoff voting then a third party could work!). The only party in which progressive groups of the left can hope to see their issues fought for is with the Democratic Party. Like it or not this is what we progressives are stuck with and we must work and change it for the better.
This is the argument that all single-issue progressive groups of the left must understand. The single-issue conservative groups of the right have gotten this message crystal clear. The Christian Coalition or the NRA are more likely to endorse a Republican over a Democrat even if the Republican may not even get a 50% rating from them and why? They know that the GOP as a whole has their issues in the forefront when making policy.