Tags
2022 election, 2024 election, freedom, GOP, misfits, Nikki Haley, SCOTUS, U.S. Supreme Court, Wall Street Journal
For my whole life, I’ve watched the abortion debate. I would not have been politically aware when Roe v. Wade was decided – I had yet to leave elementary school. My context is all post-Roe. As a young man, I was buffeted back and forth by the cultural messaging and have thus settled into any number of, often contradictory, opinions. I’d like to think it leaves me, these days, somewhat objective on the subject. I guess your opinion on that depends on how much you agree with me about the underlying issues.
I started writing this post right after the 2022 election. As you may recall, I said that I wanted to consider some of the factors that led to what, for many (and I include myself here), was a surprise reversal of fortune for America’s two political parties. My intention, at the time, was to visit some of the major electoral factors that left the Democrats mostly, and unexpectedly, in power. I haven’t been very diligent in getting that done.
Today, as I am finally finishing a write-up on what was perhaps THE key election factor, nary a day goes by that there isn’t one or several editorials on the abortion issue. I say that having just put down yesterday’s paper without noticing an articles on the subject. But the day before had at least three.
For much of the time after the election, the critique was for the “Republican Party” which was unable to flog a “coherent message” on the topic. While this is basically true, this line-of-reasoning bothers me for several reasons. The first is it assumes that the “Republican Party” is a group of a dozen-or-so old men who, meeting with a PR specialist and a lawyer, determine their direction for the nation before carefully messaging it to the populace. That image may even sound accurate to you but it is in stark contrast to my experience, such as it is. More so than even America’s Democrats, and very different than the parliamentary systems of Europe, there isn’t a top down hierarchy under which the Republican party is organized and directed. Maybe there used to be, generations ago; but not now.
It is easy and popular for conservatives to blame the party apparatus, particularly for electoral failures or failures in policy. How many of those conservative voters, putative Republicans, could even pick out the names of the paid professionals who “run” the GOP? We normies certainly don’t take our election-day marching orders from a Washington beltway office. Moreover, where Republicans hold the majority and the top elected seats in a government (these days, locally, or maybe thinking in terms of the federal House), those ranking members have some role in party leadership. However, that “authority” is often completely unconnected to other centers of party power, and particularly the official party organizations. I also have, flirting with the limits of my memory, several examples of one element of the Republican party sanctioning another over political deviations.
The philosophical meat of the GOP organization lies in its platform documents, themselves a diffuse, varied, and often inconsistent element. Especially at the State level, these are under the control of unpaid activists and other volunteers, each individual having his or her own ideal of conservative thinking and a unique agenda regarding what is important. Even the platforms, though, can’t define a party’s soul. Most voters don’t read them and fewer are fully on board with what’s written in them. This is true even when the citizens in question consider themselves “solid Republicans” – many do not.
The real proof of the electoral pudding is in the voting. Voting, in primaries, is done by whomever shows up and asks for a Republican ballot. Many states allow for same-day switching of parties and no state, as far as I know, has any kind of test* for party loyalty. For example, and to my figuring (obviously), the election of Donald Trump as the 2016 Republican nominee had more to do with independents pulling Republican ballots than the preference of long-time, core Republicans.
Thus it is frustrating to read that “Republicans” shouldn’t nominate Trump or “Republicans” should shift the position on abortion. “Republicans” aren’t an organization that is capable of making such a choice.
And yet, not making a choice appears to be a recipe for electoral disaster. The Republicans I know, last October, figured they were in a reasonable place on the issue of abortion. Where I live, the removal of the Roe v. Wade precedent had little-to-no legal ramifications. State law was well within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court, all those years ago, and political reality says that it cannot move any further to the “right” than it already was. Republicans figured that the message “this is not an issue, not here or now” would focus voters on what was thought to be the more important issues – the economy, world affairs, and a Presidential administration was moving far to the left from the message which had gotten it elected.
So most Republicans kept quiet or said “not a big deal.” Not all, though. There are no small number of Republicans who are primarily Republicans because of their staunch opposition to abortion – and these folks didn’t change their tune. If these same people were running for reelection in 2022, they tended to lose, along with no small number of the more “moderate” voices.
So it would seem that a good chunk of the population does NOT want to make abortion illegal. Not only that but they feel strongly enough about it that even the hint that someone might do something sometime in the future is enough to get them to vote for the party that swears the opposite.
It would seem that as much as I don’t like the “Republicans need to…” line of analysis, this fact remains… Republicans (collectively, coordinately, or just one-at-a-time) need to do something different if they don’t plan to see 2020’s failures repeated every two years. And let’s be honest – what needs to be different is really is a matter of messaging, marketing, and public relations.
Let me explain from my own perspective.
I am recalling a meeting I happened to be attending – way back, long ago (in 2009 or so). The election of Barack Obama had given rise to the “Tea Party” and folks were pretty riled up. Within this environment, a usually-reliable Democratic seat had come open and a special election was to be held. Given the agitated state of the electorate, Republicans had a fair shot at the win.
The Republican woman who had chosen to go after that seat was making the rounds among conservative, to try to drum up support. I listened to her speak at one event where she made the case for herself as a candidate that needed the support of the party Statewide – not just within her district. Also in the audience with me that day was the president of one of the major, state-wide pro-life organizations. When it came time for Q&A he asked her, as he did pretty much** everyone, “are you pro-life?”
The candidate hemmed and hawed. As she started trying to give a nuanced explanation, he stopped her and cut to the chase. He asked her several questions, mostly around the issues that were big at that time. Partial birth abortion, taxpayer funding of abortions, and parental notification*** of minor dependent abortions. In fact, she was in full support of the Republican position on these issues, but yet clearly was not in favor of the full abortion ban that was both the keystone of the inquisitor’s organization and a plank of the Republican platform.
“You’re pro life,” he told her. She would go on to win the special election and then return to office as part of the 2010 Republican landslide. While in office, she voted as a Republican, albeit of the more moderate variety on certain issues. Come 2012 and Obama’s reelection, the seat went back to Democrats and has remained theirs ever since.
Some time after the above meeting, probably in 2010, I happened to be talking to another Republican supporter. He was defending his positions, which he felt might not be acceptable to the “true conservatives” among us. He explained his abortion stance fell short of the Republican standard and then went on to explain his beliefs – which were nearly identical to our 2009 candidate. “I’m a pro-choice Republican,” he explained.
Bear with me – there is a point to this.
Over the years, this is what I’ve noticed. The populace tends to side with the more centrist of the two sides in this debate. Many people will even go so far as to label themselves, perhaps transiently, as the more reasonable faction. When the Pro Life contingent was arguing simply for parental notification*** and maybe an end to partial birth abortion, the number of voters who called themselves “pro life” rose into the majority in polling. When the movement went after a total ban, including victims of rape and restrictions for “morning after” drugs, the self-described “pro choice” numbers surged.
Fairly or not, the end of Roe v. Wade has shifted the “reasonable” window to the Pro Choice side of the argument – and it has done so seemingly independent of the issues or the positions currently debated. Yes, some of the big election results of recent months centered on jurisdictions where abortion law was in play**** but for most States the Dobbs decision has had and can have no meaningful effect.
Understand that the power of Roe v. Wade over the years was just a presumption of outcome if the validity of certain State Laws were argued before the Supreme Court. So while Dobbs opens up the possibility for a State passing and enforcing absolutely any restriction on abortion that could be imagined, this is a near impossibility. Far more likely is that the result where State laws will settle in so as to align, more or less, with the sensibility of voters. But what is that?
Back when I was first becoming aware of the issue, there was a sizable contingent of pro-life Democrats – both holding office and at in the election booth. Consistent with Roe‘s parameters, abortion was to remain legal under some circumstances but was, in most cases, to be considered regrettable. Bill Clinton’s “legal, safe, and rare” was the mainstream left’s position in his time. Such a declaration still would resonate, I would think, with much of the liberal demographic today. Yet somehow the position of their party is that abortion be on demand, paid-for (by taxpayers), and encouraged – perhaps even celebrated. How can this be a winning message for that party?
The answer is a combination of politics and perception.
The current political environment, combined with America’s two-party system, creates an incentive for a counterintuitive and probably undesirable political strategy. The key to winning elections for your party is not to craft a coherent message or plan – i.e. if you elect our guys to office, this is what we’ll do for the next four years. Instead, what’s going to work best today is to identify, for the voter, that one issue that is so important that it will determine his vote. Then he must be convinced only one party, your party, will do him right by that issue.
This strategy involves convincing people not to worry about all the other stuff. “I know you don’t really want us to ban your gas stove,” I might say, “but you can’t worry about that now. Your reproductive freedoms are too important!” Recent election results demonstrate that this a very successful strategy even if it has an obvious pitfall. Not every voter has that same “one issue” that’s going to drive his vote. This means the real key to success remains a nuanced message, one that maybe mixes three top issues, each one targeted at a particular segment of voters. It is a subtle but, I think, important difference from, say, a three-point platform. Furthermore, making that one-issue-three-times strategy work becomes really hard when supporters don’t all agree on all three of those issues – a downside to “big tent” politics.
If the “message” for 2024 emphasizes the “compromise on abortion” theme too much, the GOP loses those activists whose primary (if not only) political priority is ending abortion. If they leave a life line to that group, they risk losing all those who really do want to compromise on abortion.
As I was working on this post, The Wall Street Journal printed an editorial praising 2024 presidential candidate Nikki Haley’s speech on the topic. She said that, personally, she is unapologetically pro-life but reminded her audience that this is not the pulse of the nation. She suggested that Republicans should limit their legislative goals to what is reasonably acceptable and achievable to the majority of American voters, at least in the near term. She emphasized that, practically speaking, this may be more in line with the average Republican position that that of the Democratic party.
More importantly, she pointed out that cultural change must precede legislative change if an issue such as this is to have any long term success.
This last bit runs counter to the experience that got us here. Roe v. Wade is one of the better examples of legal change that was forced upon the population ahead of our acceptance of the solution. Once abortion was “legal,” its proponents set about normalizing it – making it not just a necessary evil but a unconditional good. It is hard to see us getting from where we were in 1970 to where we are today outside of the penumbra Roe‘s legal force. The pro-life movement has learned from that lesson and many of them believe that reversing Roe‘s impact would best be achieved by flipping about the same strategy that got us here.
On this point I agree with Ms. Haley. If you are pro-life, your fight needs to be cultural rather than legislative. To insist on legal change, achieved at any cost – even if your position puts you in a substantial minority – that cost will wind up being every other legislative initiative that your party has. If one is truly a absolutist pro-life liberal, that might be fine. But pro-life liberals seem to have become as rare a species as Bill Clinton once prediction abortion would be. That is to say, one assumes that even a pro-life absolutist would be dismayed by a permanent left-wing ruling majority and its implications to policies other than abortion’s legality.
The problem with Ms. Haley’s position, though, became immediately obvious. First of all, she cannot speak for the Republican Party much less all Republicans – and arguably won’t be able to do so even were she to be elected President. Second, I’ve been reading the reactions to her and those who agree with what she said; the letters-to-the-editor section and blogosphere filled with responses. Some pro-life activists argue that there can BE NO compromise – that you’re either 100% pro-life or your are the enemy of us all. Others acknowledged that Nikky Haley was on the right track – that Republicans should only pursue what is reasonable… for now. Pro-life activists must take comfort that her strategy is but a first step in a long-term legislative march towards a total ban on abortion.
The problem is that Democratic voters – even those “safe, legal, and rare” voters – see the same thing. The average liberal may indeed think that abortions performed up to the moment of live birth are inhumane and should be proscribed, but they can plainly read the religious right’s writing on the wall. Those “reasonable” Republicans they agree with today might just turn on them in a month or two once they are granted a solid legislative majority.
If that weren’t enough, it also occurs to me that the left will continue to have the “freedom” argument on their side when talking to anyone who isn’t already aligned on this issue. If you personally feel that abortion is unreasonable after, let’s say, 24 weeks of pregnancy and not before then, that would put you to the left of most of the U.S. population. It would put you to the left of most of Europe, which is held up by American liberals as being most enlightened on this subject. So whom do you vote for? A legislator who is little bit further left than you doesn’t infringe upon your freedoms. A legal ban at, let’s say, 26 weeks might take it a little bit further than you’re comfortable with but, well, you can make your own decisions when it comes to the 24-26 zone. A ban at 20 weeks, however, clearly stomps on your rights as you perceive them.
Your incentive, then, is always to vote for someone at least a little to left of yourself. If there is a lack of candidates a little left to you, then your best choice – the choice that protects your “freedom” as you see it – is to vote for the candidate way, way to the left of you.
Once upon a time, great and controversial matters in this nation were decided by compromise. Not exclusively, mind you, (prohibition I’m looking at you) but I think often enough. In many cases, these were difficult compromises… where neither side got what they wanted but where both agreed to live with result. What makes such political compromise work is the confidence that a deal, once struck, is to be honored well into the future.
Today, that long-term thinking seems to have fallen by the wayside. We can glare at the Republicans who say – OK, I’ll compromise on abortion (only for the moment)- but this trend is evident in both parties. In fact I’d say it is the Democrats who have perfected incrementalism, agreeing to compromise only long enough to shift the status quo just a bit more to their side. How is it possible to come up with a reasonable accommodation if you know that you are only going to be accommodated for a single election cycle, if that?
Is this a no win situation for Republicans? Let’s check back in December of next year and see. In any case it is clear to me that the left has realized that abortion has been a winning issue for them. They are bound to use it as long and as hard as they can.
![](https://ettubluto.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/pexels-photo-7108416.jpeg)
*This isn’t entirely true. Any State (and National Presidential Convention, for that matter) that uses a caucus or delegate system for voting does vet their “Republicans,” at least insofar as their peers have determined that they are such. Iowa, in presidential primaries, famously forgoes a ballot in favor of caucus meetings but other states use delegates to do the real voting but selects those delegates proportionally to a prior-held popular vote.
**I believe one the rules of his organization was that no member could ever support, advocate for, or vote for any political candidate that was not pro-life.
***For those not in the thick of it, ten-to-fifteen years ago the fight centered on abortions performed on minors and whether the minor’s parents had the right to allow or deny the abortion or even be informed after the fact. The former was fairly controversial – many balked at the idea of giving a parent veto power over a daughter’s choice. The latter was considerably less so. Absent a good (adjudicated) reason, a parent should know about significant surgery performed on their charge which was necessitated by the commission of a crime (statutory rape, in many cases).
****Several recent issues involved laws that, during Roe v. Wade, were dormant – unenforced and ignored because the Supreme Court would obviously declare them to be unconstitutional. The reordering of precedent meant that new law might well come into being without the attendant political debate and enactment of new legislation.