On Attacking Ezra Klein for Theoretically Supporting a Pro-Life Democrat

About an hour into the conversation between Ezra Klein and Ta-Nehisi Coates we hear about the theoretical Pro-Life Democrat Klein creates in order to talk about how to move the Democratic Party to a better place. It is a rich vein for us all to consider.

(also on any podcast app)

The whole interview is full of well spoken contrary positions. It is a valuable, expansive, and civil conversation. I have no desire to sum it up. I apologize in advance for some necessary capsulizations below.

One interesting repeated point is that they both think of themselves as writers explaining things. Klein feels that he has been put into the position of thinking about political efficacy because of the times we are in. Coates says that his people are accustomed to long running injustice and he will continue to endure it but will say the truth. He acknowledges that the truth will set the conversation back, will set progress and justice and safety for individuals back. He says he is used to that.

This is an issue I think about a lot. I am political and I am a poet. Poetry is not about pretty. It is not about form. It is not about words. It is getting as close to truth as possible and then sharing that with someone else. Right now, as Ezra states, we are facing a situation where a dangerously large amount of our voting populace is willing to support folks that are beyond what Coates and Klein discuss as our “lines” that tempt us to exclude people.

Coates feels that if they cross those lines, he can’t have a productive conversation with them so he will not.

Klein twice used an example that is deliberately hot button to discuss how the Democratic Party could change in a way that would stop fascism. The programmed response of single issue organizations was retaliatory. If he had chosen gun rights, it would have been Sandy Hook Promise and Everytown. Climate change, Sunrise.

Dr. Jen Gunter attacked Klein.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-175024601

This is the proper tactic of issue advocates. Although she is harshly critical of the Democratic party (“The idea that the party that is filled with so much Hollywood talent couldn’t round up some screen writers, acting coaches, and directors to train candidates to speak eloquently, accurately, and confidently about abortion to the public and with the press is an epic fail”) and says Democrats should be more convincing, she is not speaking to convince people on the other side.

I say with confidence her subscribers and the people who make the metrics to gauge the reach of her article are 100% pro-choice. They want to hear support for their side. They want to hear this language. But it is not convincing of someone to change sides. That’s OK. That is not her audience.

Klein has made strategists of the left, including these issue advocates, his audience. It is a hostile one.

In conversation about the direction of the Democratic party, a term has come up: The Groups. The Groups are issue advocates who now use wrecking ball tactics to have massive power within the Democratic Party.

• Palestine

• Israel

• Abortion

• Gun control

• Climate change

• Transgender rights

These all touch my heart.

The directors of these groups must fund raise and garner attention. They are paid to do so. They get electeds to sign and verbally state their complete support of the most extreme version of the issue possible. They paint the opposition as completely vile and unacceptable.

Kamala Harris was asked directly if she would support transgender medical care for prisoners and she said yes. Impossible to prove, but a lot of pundits point to the ads Trump’s campaign built around that clip as decisive in the election. The forced outright support of specific position lost her votes, and lost the transgender community power.

Most of The Groups are glad that Joe Manchin is not in the Senate anymore. I think a lot wish Marie Glusenkamp-Perez would get primaried.

The result is the Democratic party has shrunk. The result is that they have less power for their issues, not more. I believe that these people are faithful and driven by values. However, they now have to fund raise and organize. They get more results from anger and attack than compromise and progress.

The result more broadly is that the nation is farther apart, less trusting of each other, and verging on civil war.

Ezra Klein is looking at the question of how to win. And how to convince people. And how to turn back from civil war.

I am privileged to be engaged in regular dialogue with other normal Americans who want to preserve this country. I expect you are too. It is top of mind for us all.

I learn from both Coates and Gunter. Coates’ seems to acknowledge that he should not directly wield political power, as he addresses in his conversation about Obama’s political positions on gay marriage. He needs to speak a truth more particular to his perception. This touches me as a poet who would much rather not consider the political implications of my writing.

Klein’s question of a pro-life Democrat is a theoretical: we have driven them all out of the party in the last ten years. I know this because in 2016 when I was a newfangled officer in a county party I took a call from a registered Democrat who wanted to get involved. I said great. He said but there is a problem; because of his deeply held religious views he was pro-life. I ignorantly told him that we would welcome him. That was completely untrue.

As Klein says, it was within my lifetime that there were 40 pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives. That was a nation that staunchly protected Roe. There are no (I believe) no pro-life Democrats and Roe has fallen. I don’t think that is pure causation, but it is not mere correlation either.

I am considering our path back, and the path back for individuals who have played some role (voting, perhaps wearing a red hat) in empowering Trump. One of the friends I am in dialogue with is adamant that the first step is acknowledging people’s concerns.

Acknowledging them, rather than dismissing, rejecting, or countering them.

This is not in Gunter’s playbook. At least not in this article. I don’t know if she would acknowledge me, based on how she talks about anyone with a hesitation about supporting abortion:

Every October, I consider a man that is not. He would have been my son but he never became. He would be nearly 30 now. It was the right decision we made then; I do not regret it, but I consider what could have been. It hurts.

It is now part of my habitual process to consider the sane, intelligent reason for someone to have the alternate view of an issue. I try to do that within the boundaries of progressivism as well as in conflict across our entire political geography.

It takes some bravery and confidence in my own positions. I do find myself shirking from it in fear sometimes. Over time it has made me more confident in what I believe. I have also become more trustworthy of a partner to all manner of neighbors, friends, activists, and community members.

Klein raises a theoretical and was attacked for it. I think it is important to note that it is a theoretical. Gunter fleshed them out for her readers as a hateful hypocrit, but imagine the theoretical was the more nuanced existence that all humans are? What else does this theoretical candidate have that you would absolutely love? How would they explain their pro-life stance? In what situations would they wholeheartedly support an abortion? Would they listen to lobbying from other points of view? How about the ability to win a seat that decides the Speaker’s gavel?

The actual will be much more interesting than the theoretical, if we ever get there.

I really appreciated how Coates, later in the conversation, said how hard it was to talk to groups about his support of Kamala Harris; she was both on the verge of being the first Black woman President of the United States and she held a position on Gaza that he found reprehensible. He sat in that tension. He campaigned for her in his own way. That seems in conflict with his statements throughout the conversation with Klein. OK by me. Glad to work with him for the good.

I am here to stop Fascism, and in that I seem to be looking at similar problems as Klein; how to make more people willing to vote against it.

Fascism has given us a problem, and I want us to sit in the tension of it, be curious what is in that tension. I don’t want to be reassured that I am right. I want to win.