ChrisWeigant.com

Cafeteria Democrats Welcome?

[ Posted Wednesday, November 20th, 2024 – 16:30 UTC ]

Do Democrats still have a "big tent" party, or have they now morphed to being a "small tent" party by insisting on too many must-pass litmus tests? That is a question Democrats should really be asking themselves now, after suffering a humiliating election defeat. That's the traditional way to put it, but at the risk of using an offensive term, what they really need to decide is whether they're going to allow what might be called "Cafeteria Democrats" to exist peacefully within their party or not.

The term is borrowed from one in the religious realm, and the hesitation stems from it mostly being used as a term of disrespect. "Cafeteria Catholics" (also known as à la carte Catholics) are people mostly raised in the Catholic Church who personally disagree with some of its tenets -- many having to do with sexuality. There are many Catholics, for instance, who disagree about the morality of using birth control. Catholic doctrine on masturbation, sex before marriage, gay relationships, abortion, and divorce are also not strictly followed by plenty of practicing (and lapsed) Catholics. There are other teachings that some Catholics disagree with as well (things like the death penalty) that have nothing to do with sex. But the term comes from the image of someone standing in line in a cafeteria picking and choosing which religious doctrines to follow and which they don't subscribe to. Wikipedia has a quote showing the origins of the term (from 1971): a "cafeteria Catholic" is someone who decides "a little of this and none of that." But, as mentioned, Wikipedia also states: "The term is most often used by conservative Catholics critical of progressive Catholics." What I've found personally is that most progressive Catholics I've talked to are just fine using the term to describe themselves, but I suppose it could still be considered offensive to some.

Getting back to politics, though, the Democratic Party has become more and more unforgiving of Democratic politicians who can't pass every single litmus test on their list. Just to give one notable example, there used to be a fair number of anti-abortion (or "pro-life" as they would prefer) Democrats in the party. These days, not so much. Being insufficiently supportive of a woman's right to choose is enough to be a deal-breaker for many Democrats these days, no matter where the politician hails from (what his or her district's makeup is, to put it slightly differently). And that's certainly not the only litmus test Democratic politicians are now expected (if not required) to pass.

As I said, Democrats used to pride themselves on being welcoming to lots of different points of view. They used to brag about their big tent. But you don't hear that sort of thing these days, or rarely. Instead, after what Republicans deride as "cancel culture" took hold, some Democrats are just fine with drumming Democrats out of the party for holding even one differing ideological viewpoint from what the general party consensus says it should be.

Republicans, of course, are absolute masters at using this against Democrats -- and they have been for a long time. They will latch onto one specific issue where they feel Democrats are taking a position that is out of the mainstream of what most voters believe, and they will use that as an absolute bludgeon to beat up Democrats out on the campaign trail. They've been successfully doing so for decades, in fact. And, just like with Catholics, a lot of it has to do with sex.

But not all of it. Three decades ago, it was the horrific spectre of flag-burning. Republicans dug out an older Supreme Court decision that equated burning an American flag in protest with constitutionally-protected free speech -- free political speech. But, obviously, most Americans don't like seeing their country's flag burned by radicals in the street, so Republicans tried to pass a constitutional amendment banning the practice entirely. Which backed Democrats into an ideological corner -- defend the First Amendment and free speech (even the most odious examples), or join Republicans in denouncing flag-burning? It split the party, and forced some Democrats into defending their stance (either way) during election season. Which was exactly what Republicans were trying to do (note: there was no rash of flag-burnings during this period at all -- the debate was almost entirely hypothetical).

But since then, a lot of the wedge issues Republicans have exploited have been sexual in nature. Gay marriage was the most prominent example of this. Republicans again split the Democratic Party on the issue of supporting marriage equality, to great effect (remember, even Barack Obama had to "evolve" on the issue). Gay marriage shifted on the political spectrum from being wildly unpopular to being very contentious to being wildly popular, and it was the strength of those who supported it that turned this all around in the public's mind. Ask yourself: what Republican today would advocate banning gay marriage nationwide (as yet another proposed constitutional amendment from two decades ago would have done)? The concept of gay marriage went from being unacceptible to being so ordinary it's not even worth commenting on.

These days, it's not the "L.G." part of the "L.G.B.T.Q." acronym Republicans are zooming in on, it is the instead the "T." Donald Trump aired anti-trans ads during his campaign (with a rather memorable slogan: "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.") and Kamala Harris didn't even respond to it (mostly because of disagreements over how to respond within her campaign team). And now Republicans seem to be doubling down on highlighting trans issues, since they think it is a political winner for them.

To a certain extent, at this juncture in time, they are right. As usual, Republicans have put the spotlight on the specifics which are the least popular about transgender rights, specifically to make Democrats either defend unpopular positions or break with their own party line. In fact, the entire issue is so complex and sensitive that it really deserves a separate column here (perhaps tomorrow...).

For now, though, the question is whether debating the subject is even allowable within the Democratic Party. Which was expressed, right after the election, by Democratic House member Seth Moulton, who said:

Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls, I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I'm supposed to be afraid to say that.

Here's what has happened, in reaction to his comments:

Representative Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts, is facing a barrage of criticism and protest in his deep-blue state for suggesting that his party's struggles in this month's election could be traced to its support for allowing transgender girls to play in girls' sports.

Mr. Moulton's campaign manager resigned in protest. The Democratic governor of Massachusetts rebuked him. And the chair of the political science department at Tufts University threatened to block his students from interning in Mr. Moulton's office.

A rally has been scheduled for Sunday in Salem, Mass., Mr. Moulton's hometown, aimed at standing with the transgender community, said Kyle Davis, a Democrat and a Salem city councilor who has called on the congressman to resign.

Moulton, as the article goes on to point out, has felt free to buck his party's leadership previously: "He unseated an incumbent Democrat a decade ago, tried to topple Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, from the House speakership and mounted a quixotic run for president in 2019." And he's not backing down from his stance that demanding absolute orthodoxy from all Democrats is the wrong way for the party to go:

Mr. Moulton has since defended his remarks, arguing that he is giving voice to a popular but rarely expressed view among elected Democrats -- and that the backlash to those remarks had proved his larger point.

"I've never had more people, parents and, by the way, a lot of L.G.B.T.Q. community members, reach out to me and say, 'Thank you for saying this,'" he said in an interview on Friday. "Some of them are just speaking authentically as parents. Some of them believe the trans movement has gone too far. It is imperiling the progress we've made."

Mr. Moulton specifically said Gov. Maura Healey, Democrat of Massachusetts, was "out of step" with most Americans.

Ms. Healey, a former athlete at Harvard and one of the country's first openly lesbian governors, had told reporters on Tuesday that she was disappointed to see people "pick on particularly vulnerable children," adding that Mr. Moulton was "playing politics with people."

Mr. Moulton responded on Friday that "playing politics with vulnerable people is refusing to even debate their issues."

So who is right, here? Should the subject be completely verboten, even for discussion? Must every Democrat hew closely to supporting every cause by every constituent group within its "tent," or will Democratic politicians be allowed to pick and choose from the cafeteria line?

Those advocating for absolute fealty to trans rights (or just the general principle of purity for all Democratic politicians on all issues the party holds dear) should really consider whether this is a winning strategy or not. Because if that truly is the party's position now then Barack Obama never would have become president. He was very reluctant to support full marriage equality for all -- he equivocated and wasn't convinced until after he was elected president, after all. His journey was shared by a whole bunch of voters as well -- initially they were against the idea of gay marriage, then after a while, they tried to have it both ways (see: "civil unions"), then eventually they offered their full-hearted support. But nobody suggested kicking Obama out of the party for how he felt.

So while Republicans gleefully contemplate painting Democrats into the corner over the issue in many elections to come, Democrats are going to have to struggle with how big a tent their party is going to be, going forward. The wedge issue of gay marriage worked for Republicans, right up until it didn't.

So I end with where I began. Will "Cafeteria Democrats" be welcome within the party from now on or not? If a politician agrees with Democrats on 90 percent of the issues but holds a differing stance on one or two of them, should they be shunned or tolerated? As I said, the issue of transgender rights is a complex one (that deserves a future column) and it is in the spotlight right now (with House Republicans banning an incoming trans woman from using the bathroom of her choice in the Capitol) precisely because Republicans believe it gives them a campaign advantage over Democrats. If a Democrat holds a different stance on the issue than the rest of the party (as Democrats previously did over flag-burning, gay marriage, and many other hot-button issues), should they still be welcome or not?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

6 Comments on “Cafeteria Democrats Welcome?”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ?These days, not so much. Being insufficiently supportive of a woman's right to choose is enough to be a deal-breaker for many Democrats these days, no matter where the politician hails from (what his or her district's makeup is, to put it slightly differently). And that's certainly not the only litmus test Democratic politicians are now expected (if not required) to pass.

    Is this really best described as a 'litmus test' that Democratic pols need to pass?

    If you're a person who is against a woman's reproductive rights and who doesn't believe that the decision to have an abortion should rest SOLELY with a pregnant woman and her doctor, then you haven't just failed a silly political litmus test, you have failed at what it means to be a human being.

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls, I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I'm supposed to be afraid to say that.

    Quick question: How many Americans are actually experiencing these “challenges”?

    Also, what sports do your daughters participate in where they are being “run over” by opposing players? Rugby? Bareknuckle fighting? Seriously, where in the real world is this type of situation occurring? Nowhere!

    Trans females are likely to be taking estrogen-related hormones that aren't going to enhance their athletic performance. They are attempting to look and feel more feminine; not more masculine.

    My issue with this Democrat’s position is that it is entirely based in ignorance regarding situations that do not actually exist. In fact, your daughter is more likely to be crushed if trans males (whose birth certificates identify them as being born “females”) are forced to compete in leagues based on what their birth certificates originally identified their gender as! Your daughter will be forced to share locker rooms with individuals that appear to be male with very masculine features if we go solely by what it says their gender is on their birth certificate. You will be forcing her to shower with hairy chested indiviuals with facial hair whose birth certificate says they were born a female. That’s on you!

    Conservatives love to pose the scary situation of a deviant male dressing up as a female in order to be able to go into a woman’s public restroom and sexually leer at women. They claim that this is what will occur if we allow trans women to use the female bathrooms. That is utter bullshat! No one is allowed to sexually leer at others in public restrooms… it is illegal for either gender to do it!

    Yes, we should stand up to ignorant positions being promoted by individuals regardless of their party affiliation! Moulton is an idiot. He is against common sense policies based on his anti-trans bigotry. CW, I view this anti- trans ignorance to be the same as someone suggesting reintroducing segregation of the races in public schools. I don’t support it and want nothing to do with anyone who does!

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    That is a question Democrats should really be asking themselves now, after suffering a humiliating election defeat.

    Oh, the drama!

    "Humiliating election defeat"? Seriously? Hopefully you haven't bought into the whole right-wingnut spin on the election and how it's an "unprecedented" mandate. Defeat... yes... but humiliating? Not so much.

    Another election and onto the next one.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    Getting back to politics, though, the Democratic Party has become more and more unforgiving of Democratic politicians who can't pass every single litmus test on their list.

    Compared to what, the Republican Party? How many Republicans do you know who are still around that will admit to you or anyone else the simple fact that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election? That's a bona fide Republican Party litmus test coming straight from the top of the Party.

    As for the Democratic Party, what is this "every single litmus test on their list" that you are referring to? Democrats in America are very diverse and hold a wide range of beliefs from one state to the next. If there is a so-called litmus test list in Washington State, I promise you it'll be vastly different than a so-called litmus test list you might find in Nevada or New Mexico.

    Just to give one notable example, there used to be a fair number of anti-abortion (or "pro-life" as they would prefer) Democrats in the party.

    The President of the United States happens to be "pro-life," but it has no bearing on whether or not he believes the United States government should be in the business of making reproductive decisions for all Americans and/or the federal government making health care decisions for Americans who have complications in their very much wanted pregnancies or whether or not an American citizen can receive the necessary reproductive health care based on their zip code of residence.

    You can be "pro-life" for yourself and your family while definitely also believing that your personal faith shouldn't be legislated onto everyone else in America or anyone in a particular state who may or may not share your personal religious beliefs. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

    These days, not so much.

    I don't see the "litmus test" you're describing. Democrats all across America are too widely diverse and divergent. It's like trying to pigeonhole or compartmentalize all "Hispanics" in America into one neat category.

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    So who is right, here?

    Nobody is "right," but everyone is definitely entitled to their opinion, and (although not a MA resident) here's my general opinion: Moulton is a whining bullshit artist who lacks the courage of his convictions regarding his beliefs. He obviously has a First Amendment right to say whatever the hell he wants about the subject, and the voters and the Governor of Massachusetts also have the right to voice their opinion regarding his opinion. If the majority of the voters in his state would rather have someone else represent them, any of them have a right to run against him, and all of them who are citizens of the state 18 years of age and older have a right to vote him out of office. Simple.

    Should the subject be completely verboten, even for discussion?

    It isn't and never has been. If Moulton thinks it is, that's his own personal problem.

    Must every Democrat hew closely to supporting every cause by every constituent group within its "tent,"

    Obviously not.

    or will Democratic politicians be allowed to pick and choose from the cafeteria line?

    Pick and choose from wherever they want. Pull it straight out of their ass for all I care, but if the voters don't like it, they are free to vote your ass out. It's a two-way street on a multilane highway, and you drive as slow or as fast as you want at your own risk because there is no Democratic Party police with a list of nationwide litmus test rules... just voters... and the "deciders" are primarily Independents anyway. #SSDD

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    But nobody suggested kicking Obama out of the party for how he felt.

    Somebody please name me a politician that the Democratic Party has suggested "kicking out of the Party for how they felt." Not a rhetorical question; I genuinely want names.

    Anthony Weiner... for feeling like being a weiner.
    Robert Menendez... for feeling like being a criminal.
    Manchin and Sinema... for feeling like being catered to.

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]