ALEXANDRIA, Va., Aug. 3 (UPI) -- This new twist on an old phrase could well serve as the call-to-arms for modern liberal Democrats.
Of course, for decades now, the left has touted "choice" as its paradigm for good public policy. We've all heard their slogans: "An individual's right to choose." "Freedom of choice." "My body, my choice."
Listening to this sloganeering, one would automatically believe that the individual's right to choose for oneself what is best is the overriding principle of modern leftist thinking in all cases.
Think again.
When a Democrat says they are "pro-choice," even the most politically ill informed among us knows they are speaking about abortion. Why? Because pro-choice this has become the catchall phrase for the left's stance on abortion?
Perhaps.
More likely though it is because when one says they are pro-choice and considers the Democratic stance on any number of issues, there is little doubt left as to what that "choice" can be about.
A quick look at the three most important issues facing Americans today illustrates that most liberals are far from OK with Americans having any meaningful "choice."
Consider education. Healthcare. Social Security.
In each area, there is a legitimate, well-grounded argument for introducing elements of choice into those systems. Both those making use of these systems and the systems themselves would be strengthened if consumers were accorded choice, variety, options in each.
Why then do liberals refuse to leverage the apparent success of its "pro-choice" abortion campaign in the fight for education, social security and healthcare reform? After all, the have, according to most smart political commentators, seized control of the political landscape with this argument.
It is because "choice," it appears, is only available to some, and only in certain cases.
Democrats are incensed by the Supreme Court's recent decision on school choice, Zellman v. Simmons-Harris. Granted, this was a SCOTUS snoozer if ever there was one. A ruling that Cleveland's voucher program is unconstitutional would also make the G.I. Bill unconstitutional. Good luck on that one.
The ruling itself wasn't the only thing devoid of suspense. The way the opposite political sides faced off against each other was about as thrilling as the latest Williams sisters tennis title match-up.
Aside from parents who audaciously want to choose where their children go to school, the only organizations gathered outside the court taking the "pro-choice" position were conservative. The Democrats and the liberals -- those hearty advocates of choice -- were nowhere to be found as the assembled parents celebrated the right to choose their children's futures.
Back in March, The Wall Street Journal's John Fund reported that pro-(school) choice parents gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court had adopted an old protest song to suit their needs: "All we are saying is give choice a chance."
Although that verbiage is no stranger to the Supreme Court's open-air protests, it's probably the first time it was sung by advocates of a policy vilified by Democrats. Maybe they only support choice in terms of Americans' own bodies? In that case, their healthcare policies should endorse freedom of choice in terms of medical plans and prescription drugs. After all, if health care is a private matter, then shouldn't people have the right to choose the doctor in whom they intend to confide?
How naïve does that sound?
Even if one were to completely ignore the debacle that was then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's healthcare "overhaul," the Democrats' recent attempts at reforming the U.S. healthcare system have been long on restrictions and short on "choice."
Perhaps they are at least consistent where retirement savings are concerned.
Unfortunately, they are not. The Democrats have compared President George W. Bush's plan to allow American workers to voluntarily invest a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts to a ride at gunpoint on the express train to bankruptcy and ruin.
Democrats have derided "Social Security choice" -- which is exactly what it says it is -- because 1) they have no alternative plan and 2) their opinion of the American worker is pretty darn poor. The oddest part of their attack -- it can hardly be called an "argument" -- is that it would unfairly hurt Hispanics, because they have little financial expertise.
This would be simply offensive -- and it surely is that -- were it not for the bewildering fact that the President's plan was inspired by the successful privatization initiatives in Latin America.
So, it looks like the only "choice" Democrats are willing to allow Americans is whether or not to terminate their own offspring. Well, for women anyway. Gee, thanks.
William Shakespeare wrote "There's small choice in rotten apples."
Well, America, how do you like them apples?
-- Raul Damas is director of operations at Opiniones Latinas, a polling and communications strategy firm specializing in Hispanic-American voters and consumers.
-- "Outside View" commentaries are written for UPI by outside writers who specialize in a variety of important global issues.
