There is quite the discussion about NARAL’s decision to back a pro-choice Republican in RI to forestall an anti-choice Democratic from running to replace him. Brad Plumber, Digby and Echinde of the Snakes come down on NARAL’s side. Ezra and Kos come down against NARAL. The debate has gotten quite heated, even among people who are generally at least civil. As long as the Democrats are in the minority, these kinds of fights are going to be commonplace. As rights and policies Democrats value are under attack, the natural reaction of groups dedicated to a single issue is to defend as best as they are able. That is going to cause friction. To, say, union members, people who insist that abortion rights should take precedence are telling them that they put protecting choice above the union member’s ability to feed his family. To choice advocates, telling them that abortion rights should be subservient to the greater coalition is telling them that you are fine with removing a central component of their liberty as long as you get a good job. People always have priorities, and being in the minority forces people to prioritize. The only way to end these kids of fights is to get the majority back.

The question then becomes, is what NARAL did good for the long term health of the progressive position or bad? I have to come down on the side of good. NARAL’s endorsement of Chaffee was probably good tactics in a couple of ways. First, control of the Senate is probably not going to change this cycle. Given that, choice is better protected by having a pro-choice person representing Rhode Island in the chamber. NARAL’s decision has guaranteed that (the only remaining Democrats in the race are both pro-choice).

Second, defending choice is good for the progressive coalition in general in two ways. By supporting pro-choice Republicans over anti-choice Democrats, NARAL cements the fortunes of choice, in much the same way that the NRA cemented anti-gun control’s position in the country. Obviously, vocal support for choice helps Democrats attract women form all economic and cultural strata. Less obviously, standing up for choice everywhere helps counter the notion of Democrats as wishy-washy and weak. Everyone associates choice with the Democrats. Constantly apologizing for that, or refusing to support choice vigorously, plays into the Republican talking point of Democrats being weak and indecisive. Standing up for choice rebuts that notion.

Think of NARAL as engaging in a kind of fifty state strategy. Defending every element of the progressive coalition is like defending all 435 House seats. In the short term, it can cause problems and may not yield rewards right away. In the long run, it gets our message out. strengthens our image, turns areas a deeper shade of blue, and expands the volunteer and donation base. In the long run, what NARAL has done is good both for the issue of choice and good for the progressive coalition, however problematic it might appear in the short term.