Let's have those pro-life Democrats
Ms. Sullivan, over at the new Gadflyer online zine, makes a sound argument for Democrats going a little lighter in commitments to divisive ideological issues.
In my own experience, I have wished the Dems did not seems exclusively pro-choice. I am pro-choice. Nor do I think abortion is Wrong. (The abortion discussion, though, must be reserved for another post.) But I do not out-right reject the views of anti-abortion folks. And, while this discussion remains reserved for later, I can quickly say that, were I to think abortion constituted murder of a human being, I most certainly would be likewise against it.
But I get the strong sense, through discussions, that my party does not appear welcoming to a person that disagrees with me on abortion. And we should. Writes Amy Sullivan:

The American Prospect's Michael Tomasky recently wrote about the Democrats' heavy-handed decision to deny then-Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey a speaking slot at the 1992 convention because of his pro-life views. Tomasky rightly criticized the party, noting: "Letting Casey speak would not have entailed changing the party's platform, which is solidly pro-choice and shouldn't change. But it would have signaled an awareness of something that every non-interest-group human being who has given this issue any serious thought or discussed it with friends and relatives knows: that the subject is a morally complicated one; that reasonable people who are otherwise fairly progressive can have serious and honest qualms about abortion; that not everyone who has such qualms is a right-wing nut."

Democrats are not going to -- nor should they -- adopt a pro-life platform. But they would do well to adopt rhetoric that is less stridently pro-abortion. And choice groups would do well to remember that while it is their job to stake out idealistic positions, they need to be patient and tolerant with politicians who recognize the gray areas of this difficult issue, sometimes voting for sensible measures such as parental notification laws.

For the most part, I whole heartedly agree with her entire article...at least the principles she asserts. But, a couple last points need to be raised.

1) I don't think certain ideological issues should rest at the center of the party...or more accurately, should act as fences to the parties. Other ideological positions, however, should. For now, I'm thinking issues relatively untouched by government, issues breaking down to deep personal/morality choices (abortion, gay marriage), and issues that require deliberation and bi-partisanship (vouchers) ought to belong in the former category. But issues that are central to government policy and those that are fairly settled (tax positions, certain positions on affirmative action) may act as party identifiers.

2) For some, a position on abortion represents a deeper sociological position on sex in America. Abortion is not a right to be debated in a vacuum, but is the grotesque and capstone example of where our sexual moral decay leads American society; to wit- Americans would be willing to mass murder infants in order to continue having un-loving and casual sex. For those that have this view, abortion is much more than an issue that can be safely kept to individual choices. It is rather a definitive statement representative of a world view. In that regard, it will always serve as a position prohibiting support for candidates, if not the entire party.