Democrats love to compare everything to the Civil Rights era. If a gay man wants to use the ladies restroom with children present, refusing him the privilege is compared to the struggles which Martin Luther King Jr. faced, for instance. Sadly, the same facts are holding true as it relates to abortion.
While the arguments about abortion’s morality can go on for whole epochs of time, most people can agree that an abortion is nothing like having to attend a different school because of one’s skin tone. Representative Dan Lipinski (D-IL) isn’t backed fully by his party as he runs because he is pro-life.
His party withdrew their promised support because of this issue. At least one member of his own party feels that abortion is too important of an issue to be disagreed upon, however, and was willing to use a foul analogy to prove it.
He then added that Lipinski was “someone who might support racial segregation.” Perhaps that was his way of stabbing at the G.O.P. who Democrats often accuse of supporting such things (as in, how else is Lipinski like a Republican), but that does not make the accusation any kinder.
Feeling that Lipinski only stands by the pro-choice movement for votes (another unfair assumption), Khanna also said, “It’s too important an issue to consider the electoral politics.”
He then asked, “Would we put up a candidate in a swing district who believed in the Muslim ban, and say, ‘Well, that’s just the politics of the region?’ Absolutely not.”
Khanna sounds as dogmatic as conservative radio host Glen Beck who is said to have fired host Tommy Lahren for being openly pro-choice. As a matter of fact, many on the left attacked Beck for thinking that the party should have only one view on the topic accepted!
“This is a question of what does the party stand for? Do we believe that a women’s right to choose is a fundamental human right that should be a core principle of this party?“, Khanna asked. “I believe it should.”
Like all Democrats of his ilk, what he believes is to be accepted as the word of God, carved in stone, and embraced by everyone.
What all of this means is that the Democrat Party is getting narrower and narrower. Just as Republicans have accepted people under the big tent such as the openly gay Milo Yiannopoulos, the Democrats are starting a “small tent.” They are moving to silence anyone who dares to not bow to every whim on the platform.
That is why Reagan Democrats and others like them are rethinking just how much they wish to support such people.
Such dogma is certainly why so many Americans consider themselves “Independent,” while seeming quite liberal. There is no choice for any voter who is not accepting of 100% of the Democrat Party wants to convey but to identify with another party.
That sounds like a sure fire way to lose votes.