This is an outgrowth of a different thread that I’ll link to if necessary, but my position has become this:
Republican politicians cannot afford to make abortion illegal, as it is this issue that earns them more votes than any other single issue. Republican politicians will try to avoid solving this “problem” for as long as possible, as it gives them the best of both worlds–credit (with pro-life voters) for being on the right side while avoiding the backlash of actually doing anything.
My analysis agrees with yours, what’s more, I think some of the Christian Coalition leadership realizes that banning abortion would destroy their base. However, by regularly inflaming their memberships’ sensibilties with strong anti-abortion rhetoric, the Pubbies and the Coalition are both riding a tiger in a sense. They are going to have to answer some tough questions from their membership if they aren’t able to make any progress in banning abortion with control of the White House and both Houses of Congress. People will be asking, “If not now, when?”
But…but, didn’t it ever occur to you liberals that the Republican leadership might have a truly sincere desire to protect the sacred life of the unborn, who have no voice of their own to plea for their human rights?
Yeah, me neither.
Anyhoo, on the one hand, the Pubbies lose a key national wedge issue if they actually get their way. On the other, abortion gets punted to the states on an individual basis. It’s interesting to think what connotation “Northeast Liberal” might take on if that’s one of the only parts of the country where the Babykillers can go about their mass slaughter unhindered by the love of Jesus.
I disagree.
Your argument appears to be:
(1) Legal abortion creates a potential political advantage,
(2) Republicans have no genuine convictions that would transcend political advantage, or, at least, no convictions on this issue,
so
(3) They want to keep abortion legal.
If that were so, I’d invite Democratic politicians of every stripe to stop resisting efforts to strengthen or eliminate anti-abortion laws. I’d especially suggest that the Senate stop trying to scuttle the judicial nominations of pro-life jurists. Then you’ll really screw the Republicans, by forcing them to drop the issue or lose huge amounts of support!
When Casey was being decided, it sure seemed like every effort from the right was being made to overturn Roe - and every effort from the left being made to keep and strengthen it.
Your argument essentially boils down to: despite every appearance to the contrary, my analysis of GOP motivation is correct.
In what way is your theory falsifiable?
In fact, many Republican leaders honestly believe that life begins at conception and have a desire to protect the interests of the unborn, insulting assertions to the contrary aside.
But no. It would not be in the best interests of the Republican Party, at least from an electoral perspective, for there to be a successful abortion ban. The country is mostly pro-choice, at least during the early stages of pregnancy, and a successful (as opposed to threatened) change in the status quo would doubtless cause many pro-choice people who currently vote for Republicans to vote for Democrats (or to cause the party to change its platform, with different but potentially equally bad electoral consequences).
Likewise, the Democrats are sometimes acting against their electoral interests on this subject. I think that about the best possible thing that could happen for the prospects of Democratic officeseekers would be for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. That would return early-term abortion to the electorate and, again, pro-chioce people would be more inclined to vote for Democrats than they are under a system where a vote for a pro-life candidate can be cast safely, with little or no consequences on that issue. However, it might be against the ideological interests of Democratic leaders as many of these pro-choice people coming into the party would also favor common-sense restrictions such as parental notification, restrictions on intact D&E and the like.
So in both cases we have party leaders taking principled stands which, by at least some measures, are against their electoral interests. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
While it’s possible to imagine the Pubs being political winners or losers depending on whether abortion is preserved as a wedge issue, those who are pro-choice are losers in any eventuality.
While I’m sure that there are individuals in the GOP and related groups cynical enough to have the views the OP assigns to them it is far more likely that the bulk of those calling for illegalizing abortion actually want it to be illegal.
I can respect those who disagree with me on the issue of abortion. To believe that “pro-life” is limited to fanatics being exploited by cynical politicians is to propose that we live under the rule of a game whose players need to be forcibly removed from the playing field.
Luckily, it looks as if there is actual sincerity on the part of the GOP for these sort of issues. I find it unlikely they’ll make much progress and if the current political attitude persists this will be good for them. While predicting the future of politics is iffy I’ll extend my neck and say that the current attitude cannot persist for ever. I also predict that tomorrow the sun will rise.
If abortion became illegal then they’d simply run on keeping it illegal and protecting the unborn from those liberals who want to go back to “killing babies”.
The only time abortion (or any other issue) doesn’t become a wedge issue is when the overwhelming majority agree on one side. Whichever side happens to have the law on their side is inconsequential.
I really don’t understand this assertion. Given their track record, especially in this administration, why wouldn’t anyone suspect they’re a pack of sophists?
Because politics doesn’t allowa perfect reflection of what the people or elected officials want. There is enough debate, enough factions on the same side, and general confusion to make it hard for someone to present a piece of legislation that will actually get something done and pass. Proposing legislation that fails is a bad thing. Your opponents in primaries will point to such failures as being ineffective. Likewise passing ineffective legislation hurts your political future. There is currently no perfect political solution to the problem, and this is what keeps those who want abortion illegal from making it illegal. It is not a lack of desire or even work, it is a lack of an environment conducive to a simple method of doing so. Should there be a shift in the supreme court I believe it will be a simpler task.
Now clearly this means that they are not running on pure conviction, that politics enters into their decisions. This should be obvious, they’ve entered politics after all. I don’t believe that they are running purely on politics and feigning conviction. I could be wrong, but I don’t see anything besides claims that they are cynical to contradict me.
Jeez, I guess all that stuff about the DOMA, and it’s hideous bastard child, the FMA, being nothing more than cynical political posturing, designed to pick on a sexual minority to score points with the troglodyte right, despite the their lack of practical effect and/or viability, was just another big lefty-whackjob conspiracy theory, then. I stand corrected.
I think exceptions can be made for clearly symbolic gestures, but you are right. Those kind of stances and actions are troublesome for someone like me who wants to believe that the opposition is comprised of individuals engaging in a legitimate attempt to govern the country as opposed to manipulative pseudo-fascist cartoon villians.
I think there’s a fair amount of room between the mythical virtuous-and-pious elected representative who always votes with his conscience and the purest intentions, and the cartoon caricture you describe. How about the career cynic, the smokey-back-room dealer who loves the power and the game of politics? The demagogue?
I’ll think that both parties have become completely identified by their positions on abortion. Or more accurately: by their positions on Roe v Wade. And frankly the official positions I see from both parties strike me as idiocy incarnate. When the Democrats argue that it’s a fetus until, and unless, it is born - I have trouble accepting that definition for a healthy late term pregnancy. Likewise, I’ve never felt that a blastocyst was particularly human.
The speaking towards the Republican position: even if Roe v Wade were overturned tomorrow, it is unlikely, in my mind, that that would have any effect on the rate of abortions, since so many states had laws on the books, or were working for laws on the books to allow it. A more sensible position would be to get together with the liberals and focus on education, and sex-ed in particular. I have no problem with the idea of putting emphasis on abstinance as the best means of birth control and protection from STD’s, however that doesn’t mean that a a good program should ignore other means out there.
At this point: A pox on both your houses.
I would love to see this administration attempt to pass an amendment to make abortion illegal. Would they even have to pass an amendment? Couldn’t they just say it’s murder to begin with?
I would be interested in seeing what the reaction of the country at large would be.
I really really wished that I agreed with those of you who think the Republican leadership is uninterested in actually making abortion illegal.
I don’t think all of them necessarily give two hoots.
I think some of them like it as a voter-attraction issue and otherwise gon’t give two hoots, but if they’re put in a position of offending the pro-life constituency by not making abortion illegal under circumstances where that constituency thinks they’ve got a real opportunity, they’ll do it rather than piss that constituency off.
I think some of them are a genuine part of, or even part of the ancillary leadership of, that very constituency, and as such it’s part of their agenda.
And meanwhile, that constituency itself apparently considers itself to have practically single-handedly won GWB the reelection. No, I’m aware that that doesn’t make them right, but they do seem to be on the roll and demanding change now. You think they are going to go away and take up marigold farming if Roe v. Wade gets overturned, or even if abortion gets absolutely banned in the US? Nope. Next comes access to birth control. And access to birth control information. And equal pay and equal opportunity laws, and of course Title IX and other barriers to sex discrimination and other equal protection laws. And marital rape laws.
I could not be more frightened if the Taliban was openly and legally operating on US soil, was well-funded, and had just seen the candidate that they supported, and who had openly courted their vote, elected President of the United States of America.
I think, on the whole, they’re probably conflicted. There certainly must be some who actually believe with all sincerity in the evil of abortion. Then there’s the rest, who likely just want to get themselves or other party members elected/reelected, so they can do what they want. Abortion is thus an extremely useful rhetorical weapon, if weilded skillfully, much like the War on Drugs; a “cultural and moral battle” that can be waged ad infinitum to no practical end, and with no practical value, is hence inconsequential on the grander scheme of their political interests, and thus costless from a strategic point of view, yet garners them loyal support from a segment of the electorate, thus enabling them to pursue their primary agenda. They know they’re expected to win some day, but if they do, what takes the place of abortion as a potent wedge issue? How can they both deliver, and yet not deliver, to the satisfaction of the voters, and exploit the political capitol that “values” confers?
They can work on campaigning against homosexuals more if they ever need a boost. They could also attempt to give more and more credence to religion (specifically Christianity, and to a lesser extent Judaism) in government, schools, science, etc. They can talk about guarding the homeland and spreading freedom. There’s a lot more things they could do if they finally win and put the debate over abortion to rest (that is, make it illegal). As long as they talk about the subject and show that the opposition is taking the ‘wrong’ stand then that is all the wedging they need, IMO.
Well, that could be. Maybe now is finally the time to let abortion go (meaning replace Rehnquist with a pro-life judge and be done with it) and move on to other things. As I alluded to above, abortion then becomes a States issue, and that still could be useful in certain circumstances, e.g. fighting for an amendment, of the same caliber as the, FMA to ban abortion completely (the Preservation of Life Amendment, (PLA), perhaps). I suppose even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, having the PLA rear its ugly head every election cycle wouldn’t be a bad thing. Given how reach will tend to exceed grasp (or what’s a Heaven for?) when it comes to amending the Constitution, abortion then might be just as insoluble an issue, and hence perpetual, as The War On Drugs.
Certainly not an unlikely scenerio, I must admit.
I’m no going to argue that every politician who’s taken a pro-life stance is faking it. But regardless of the sincerity of their beliefs, as a practical matter abortion will never be generally outlawed in this country. The majority of people support some level of legal abortions (including many people who vote Republican). Many of them feel as strongly about this issue as the pro-life people do, but they’re quieter because their position has won. If the Republican party ever really outlawed abortion or appeared to be serious about doing so, these people would jump ship and vote Democrat. The shift would be big enough to give the Democrats the kind of majority in government that the Republicans currently have and that would be the end of any pro-life legislation.