Abortion: where the politically obvious gets murky
In today’s Washington Times, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, describes a maddening political phenomenon:
Imagine you are the Karl Rove for your very own Republican candidate. Say you have stumbled upon a position your candidate holds that garners 68%+ support in public opinion polls. The issue polls best among women and young people – often tough nuts for the GOP to crack. Say you noticed Democrats getting wise to the popularity of the issue and are running and winning campaigns that include it in their election platforms. You notice that your candidate’s own Democrat opponent, however, takes the 32%- stance….
Further, you learn that the election your guy is running in will be decisive in determining the fate of the popular issue. Happy Day! You’ve got contrast. You’ve got a salient, winning issue around which you can organize a part of a winning coalition of voters.
What do you do? Communicate enthusiastically about it to that 70% majority that shares your view? Then encourage them to vote for your guy so to advance the cause?
Or pray that the issue would just go away? Proclaim it “dead” or lacking in intensity, hoping that it is so far from “top of mind” that your potential like-minded voters forget the issue is in play?
Inside the Washington D.C. beltway, the obvious gets murky when the unsettling abortion issue comes up. When the issue is the resounding consensus that exists on abortion and the decisive role that the make-up of the Senate and Supreme Court will play in the future of it, Republican advisers favor the latter line of thinking. Ignore or bury the consensus that consists of vast majorities in favor of parental notification for minors’ abortions, and bans on sex selection, late-term, taxpayer-funded and partial-birth abortions. The advice of most: make and keep it back-burner.
Take the conservative Republican Study Committee’s release of its 8-point agenda this month. Buried in a subsection under Parental Rights, the abortion issue gets one mention on the subject of parental notification. “Top strategists” say, this issue may have been a burning one in 2004 that helped usher in a conservative president, Senate and House, but this year those folks aren’t concerned about it.
The Reagan Revolution was launched off the proverbial strong defense, traditional values and fiscal conservative “three-legged-stool.” Reagan and then George Bush in 2004 helped all those factions come together and respect each other enough to build a winning coalition.
Where did those values voters go? Did they stop caring? Did they suddenly change their views? No, they have not. And “they” have grown in number. However, if you will the winning issue to go away, bury it and refrain from speaking of it, the issue certainly will fade in intensity and in voters’ minds. If you continually say it is a back-burner issue and fail to raise it as a legislative priority, it might die. My question is, why would you want to?
The Supreme Court created an untenable position for the millions of American citizens who are increasingly troubled over the morality of unrestricted abortion. It took away their ability to enact reasonable restrictions on acts they find deeply objectionable. The court created social tension. Unwittingly, it created the civil rights movement for its youngest citizens. The marching in the streets will not stop until the courts allow legislators to enact their constituents’ will into law. This year’s election results will determine the balance of the Supreme Court. This balance will determine the fate of the 68%+ support for abortion issues.
Further, for the voters who support such common-ground measures and who also grieve over the deaths of the rest of the almost 4,000 unborn children of all stages dying before birth every single day, intensity exists. Sonograms tell the story: It is a matter of life and death. So it trumps every other issue. And for those who only support the 68%+ common ground abortion issues, intensity could exist. Effective and responsible communication can create it. Then, like in 2004, voters will respond to the fact that an issue about which they care deeply is on the line.
In the debate over restrictions on abortion, Americans have arrived at a consensus. Included in this is majority support for bans on abortions without parental consent, taxpayer-funded abortions, partial-birth abortions and late-term abortions. Within some states, the consensus would restrict it further.
Democratic strategists have leveraged this consensus in key races in congressional districts across the nation in PA, NC, IN, and most recently, LA and MS. If some Republican insiders lack in agreement or comfort level on the abortion issue, they should at least see and encourage the issue’s Machiavellian advantage with voters from the district to the presidential level.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
A lot can change, of course.
Jill: Where did those values voters go?
Some tend to go away when the message strays from merely being against D & X abortions, late-term abortions, etc., and enters the zone of “incrementalism” and general antiabortion feeling.
It’s much more of a “freedom of the pregnant woman or not” deal, then, and this is with the Bush Jr. administration as a backdrop, one which (whether you agree with the fact of it or not) is frequently seen as being among the worst on individual rights, privacy, etc.
In no way does abortion “trump every other issue,” and McCain’s people know this. If it was the one, they’d be trumpeting it at every call. The economy, declining standard of living due to energy and food costs, etc., the Iraq war and other issues far outweigh abortion in the minds of the average American voter.
McCain needs some moderate votes, and he doesn’t want to appear to be kowtowing too much to the fringe Right on what is a minor issue, versus focusing on what most people are concerned about.
Doug, to answer your questions, “Where did all the values voters go?”, they’re suppressed, unenthusiastic about McCain, willing to vote for him at most. Whose fault is it they’re suppressed? The candidate’s and the party’s.
There are mainstream abortion issues appealing to moderates’ sensibilities McCain could and should take on that are winning against Obama: partial birth abortion, parental notification, live birth abortion, taxpayer funded abortions, and sex selection abortions.
Jill, I think McCain knows he’s got the antiabortion voter already, and doesn’t want to alienate any others who as of now are in his camp.
There are mainstream abortion issues appealing to moderates’ sensibilities McCain could and should take on that are winning against Obama: partial birth abortion, parental notification, live birth abortion, taxpayer funded abortions, and sex selection abortions.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 25, 2008 1:30 PM
Jill, you wouldn’t be content with a law outlawing sex selection abortions, or taxpayer funded abortions. You’d see it is a first step in a battle to outlaw all abortions. Right? These “moderate” voters see it the same way. So, although most of us don’t want women having abortions for sex selection, for example, we also don’t want a government ban of the practice. We’ll use our pursasvive powers, but criminal law, to discourage what we don’t like.
Doug, thanks for the recent poll data. Interesting, even at this early stage. I think the persistant smears against Obama have caused a backlash in his favor, that partially explains his advantage of up to 15 %. In the Bloomberg poll, adding Nader and Barr into the mix pushed the Obama advantage from 12% to 15%.
Your observations at 1:20 are right on.
The Montana “personhood” initiative failed to secure even half of the needed signatures, so the anti-choice extremist positions are not doing so well politically.
Jill: Where did those values voters go?
Some tend to go away when the message strays from merely being against D & X abortions, late-term abortions, etc., and enters the zone of “incrementalism” and general antiabortion feeling.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A few months ago on MSNBC, a reporter was asking people on the street about the issue of abortion. The reply “now that they got rid of the bad kind of abortion, I don’t really think about it” was given about a bazzilion times.
Stack that kind of attitude on top of the crazies who want to outlaw invitro, stem cell research and birth control, and “life” becomes a fanatical fringe issue.
Latest polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Laura, good points.
McCain pushing the “life” issue would not convince the right that he’s serious and would completely motivate the rational middle to go to Obama.
Mere unthinking negative opposition to the current of events, clutching in despair at what we still retain, will not suffice in this age. A conservatism of instinct must be reinforced by a conservatism of thought and imagination.
?Russell Kirk
If the Party (GOP) chooses to feed us …
“Political soilant Green” through the mainstream media, the unthinking, will eat it, Eat anything.
We need real food.
We need righteous thought, truth.
We need Alan Keyes
GC Stevenson
Jill —
This is a sincere question: what measures do you use to determine the success of the pro-life movement? (Such as number of reported abortions, legislative outcomes, etc.)
Thank you.
“We need Alan Keyes”
YES, now more than ever. Vote for Keyes! Keyes for VP!
Keyes will be on the ballot in Colorado.
I also would be very happy if McCain chose Alan Keyes for his running mate.
Did you know Keyes is a trained opera singer? A lyric tenor, I think, judging from his speaking voice. I’d expect him to play Mozart roles– Tamino, Belmonte, Don Ottavio.
A choice that would make me even happier would be Former Congressman Robert Dornan (R-Ca). You all should like him too–he’s one of the only politicians who says he would actually use force to prevent his daughter from having an abortion.
The article is so poorly written, that it is hard to understand what the author is trying to convey. She seems to suggest that McCain should press a platform of “reasonable restrictions” on abortion that a majority might support, like parental notification, with a judicial by-pass and limits on late term abortion, and that pushing this “consensus” platform would be to his political advantage.
The irony is that if McCain did so, he would be immediately and viciously attacked by anti-choice extremists, and denounced as a “pro-abort” and “abortion regulator”, and lose the far right he is trying to court.
It is very easy to see why political advisors would put this “consensus” issue on the back burner, since it is a no-win for McCain.
For all the political differences between Keyes and I, he’s got a good sense of humor and I like seeing him speak.
Alan Keyes, echoing what I was saying about “big gov’t”
Bureaucracies are inherently antidemocratic. Bureaucrats derive their power from their position in the structure, not from their relations with the people they are supposed to serve. The people are not masters of the bureaucracy, but its clients.
It’s interesting that conservatives are totally against government regulation of everything, except what goes on TV\radio and what goes on between a woman and her doctor. It’s hypocritical condescending paternalism and its really kinda old.
BTW: Consensus means a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action.
It does not mean the overwhelming opinion of one side pressuring another side into submission. For consensus, everyone has to come to a unified conclusion. And the moment you put abortion up for a vote is the same moment that you should also be willing to put every war up for a vote as well.
It’s interesting that conservatives are totally against government regulation of everything, except….
when they do want government to be in control… ; )