The Pro-Choice Litmus Test
From a feminist perspective, the 2008 presidential election has been incredibly heartening. Not perfect, to be sure, but the historic candidacy of Hillary Clinton and the pick of Sarah Palin as vice-presidential nominee for the Republicans testify to the ability of women to be politically viable on the national stage and the perceived importance of women voters.
Yet in the homestretch of the election, with PUMAs and the political significance of the Palin choice dominating news coverage, we are left with one overwhelming myth about the Democratic woman; that she does and should vote based on a very limited slate of issues, the most important of which is abortion rights. Left-wing bloggers and pundits have decried the Palin choice as a mere pander, which it may be. But the form these attacks take is more telling. They say PUMA women won't support her, first and foremost, because she is anti-abortion. The differences between Clinton and Palin is legion; one is a liberal Democrat and the other a conservative Republican. Yet the difference that gets the lion's share of the attention is their difference on abortion, supported by cameos from her opposition to gay marriage, and her support for abstinence-only sex ed.
In focusing all this attention on Palin's record on a limited range of issues, the media make an assumption that women don't vote for candidates based on issues of character, foreign policy, or the economy. In saying that the Palin choice is a pander to women based on gender, these bloggers are assuming that pro-choice women want a pander to them based on abortion rights. Ann Friedman, a liberal blogger, wrote, “Why is this a pander? Because Palin is not a woman who has a record of representing women's interests. She is beloved by extremely right-wing conservatives for her anti-choice record...”
This quote in three sentences dismisses any claim Palin might have had to the moniker feminist, while at the same time putting support for abortion at the center of any claim to be a feminist. What it really says is, Palin is selling out because she's anti-abortion. You'll be selling out, too, if you vote for anti-abortion candidate, even if you agree with her in other areas.
I don't mean to diminish the standing of pro-choice concerns. A candidate's standing on the abortion debate is important and should definitely be considered when casting one's vote. And perhaps women, having more personal stake in the abortion debate, will always weigh the issue more than men when casting a vote. But women have a personal stake in the economy, in foreign policy, in energy policy. To think that a woman would vote for a candidate based solely on abortion is a hasty judgment. To think that a woman should vote for a candidate based solely on abortion is demeaning. In our bipartisan system, it's inevitable that we will disagree with our candidates of choice on some issues. It's all right for a pro-choice woman to disagree with her candidate of choice on abortion.
(Hoping to get this published in The Review. They're always on the lookout to fill empty space with "dissenting views.")