The man who earned the enmity of pro-choicers across America--and
earned himself a primary challenge--with his grandstanding over the
rights of women in health care reform has decided not to run for
reelection, stating as his reason that the bill he did his best to kill
got passed.
Is it time to celebrate? Rep. Stupak, from upper Michigan,
represents a chunk of rural residents who tended, before him, to elect
Republicans. He's now found himself in the unenviable position of being
hated by women's rights advocates AND the criminalization crowd, both.
In terms of gains for Democrats, Michael Moore has noted that Stupak
hasn't been all bad -- he's supported gun control legislation, taking
on the NRA -- Moore calls him a "decent guy." Now he's politically
defunct.
Stupak, in other words, is the most prominent face of a big
problem for progressives within the Democratic party: what to do about
the conservadems? They may snatch a seat from the GOP, but what's the
good, if they spend most of their time in office fighting against the
party and wearing down the supposedly Democratic agenda while they're
at it.
The good news in this case, is there's no longer any reason for
Democrats in Michigan not to support prochoice former schoolteacher
Connie Saltonstall for Stupak's seat.
But the bigger question's this. What's politics? If you're a party
that claims to have beliefs, do you go to where the voters are,
perfecting the art of the easy road to a graspable majority? Or is
politics, rather, the effort to shift opinion towards what you believe
is right? The worst outcome of all is Stupak's -- falling victim to a
bit of both.