Abortion and the run to the center

Matt Yglesias had some interesting things to say, earlier in the week about Chuck Schumer trying to recruit pro-life Democrats to run for Senate in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island:

I can certainly see the case for running pro-life Democrats in, say, Oklahoma. In certain states, you're bound to get a pro-life Senator one way or the other, so it makes sense to take abortion rights off the table and try to fight for other priorities, including perhaps the other issues in the reproductive freedom package. But neither Rhode Island nor Pennsylvania actually seem to fit the bill. Pennsylvania has supported Kerry, Gore, and Clinton in all its recent presidential elections and has a pro-choice Republican Senator. It seems inconceivable that you can't find a pro-choice candidate capable of beating Rick Santorum.

This is a great point.  I'd like to broaden the issue though.

As Democrats, one of the things we pride ourselves on is our attempts to grasp the gray areas of life.  Conservatism seems to me to be a practice in attempting to make things binary, black or white.  There are a few issues, however, that are central to the Democratic Party, and abortion is one of those.

The problem with this issue is that virtually every one of us libs understands the pro-life position.  Abortion isn't something I feel enormously comfortable with.  One of the things Republicans do well is finding their position on the issues and sticking with them to the death (one of the benefits of a black or white ideology).  Of course, we all know the flip-flopping charge that got John Kerry in trouble.

And in the aftermath of that election, so many people have been talking about how we humanize our image on this issue.  It seems to me, however, that by seeking to change our image, we are playing into the other image that we are political opportunists who will bend our will to what we think will get our people elected. 

Running to the center on abortion isn't going to make us more attractive to the conservative-Christian base of the Republican party.  It will, in fact, give them the ammunition they need to view us with more disdain.  This is one issue we should stick to our guns about. 

I don't mind changing the language by which we talk about abortion, but we shouldn't change our ideology about it.

Comments

[eRobin]

We have to consistently remind everyone that we are not a pro-abortion party. We are the party of pre-natal care, real sex-ed, birth control and economic justice that will lead to fewer abortions. Safe, legal and rare. We are the pro-life party.

[Dylan]

This is exactly right. What you've just made is a very succinct and compassionate reasoning that our leaders don't seem very good at conveying.

[Lori]

I think part of the problem is that the binary/black OR white (I wouldn't say the Republicans give you the option of black AND white) mindset pushes the Republicans to define everything. And, of course they do so in their terms. By being more cognizant of the gray areas, we hesitate to try and impose our definitions on an issue and that lag time gives the Republicans the opportunity to set the tone/terms of the debate. A good example is the "Pro-Life" phrase in itself. We've tried to claim "Pro-Choice" and that's a good thing. But when a person is struggling to come to terms with the moral issues surrounding this topic and goes down the line of looking at the opposing factors to each group, which sounds more appealing--Anti-Life or Anti-Choice? Of course that assumes they are clinging to a Black-or-White template. All I know is I find myself "responding to" much more than I want to or probably should. But it's because I have an internal mechanism that says "I shouldn't be so arrogant as to think my opinion is the definitive opinion on this issue."

I think Republicans are gettng a political leg up because they don't have (or use) that internal mechanism and so they are first to arrive at the "setting the tone" party. I used to think it was fanatical fundamental ignorance and fear (fear of admitting that there are no easy answers to some questions). Now I think it's saavy politics. Manipulative, misleading, and exploitative....but it's gotten them the results they want.

[Dylan]

I think the other problem that we run into, Lori, is that when we try to change the language by which we approach issues such as abortion, we appear politically opportunistic. When Bill Clinton said that abortion should be "legal, safe, and rare," he had the ability to seem legitimate about it. His opposition to Partial Birth Abortion bolstered his genuinity among Southern states too.

Since then, we've had two candidates who stammer and studder about abortion, making sure to hit all the DNC talking points, but never really seeming to take into account the real personal crisis that abortion brings into people's lives. It was a passionless, academic stance which de-humanized the issue.

Our ultimate argument is the one that should be made for prostitution as well: by legalizing it, we keep it safe, we regulate it, and we have the ability to educate people about it. And, as eRobin said above, we need to shoehorn it into a greater discussion of sex-education, birth control, and disease prevention.

Plus, I've always believed that if we could connect Abortion with Capital Punishment, we could really make headway into changing our image and being for a culture of life, and proving that the other side isn't always on the higher ground. I think that would resonate.