Windmillin'

Icon

Where politics and faith dance in the shadow of the windmill.

The Future of Pro Life

Marcie Wheeler raises some interesting questions about the status of anti-choice in the Democratic constellation here in Kent County. The short version: is pro-life the dominant, requisite force that it once was, one that requires women to take it and say nothing?

There is a right way and a wrong way, IMO, to run an anti-choice candidate. Telling voters–particularly the women voters being impacted by anti-choice Dems of late–they can’t talk about it bc they don’t know enough is not the way to do it.

Particularly in the context of a run for the Third by Steve Pestka, the question of the pro-life Dems again rises up. The pro-life stance (or “anti-choice”) has been seen as a prerequisite for competitive candidates since the Clinton election, in part because recruiting drew from the Catholic west side community and the Christian Reformed — both distinctly pro-life. Their victories and general growth in the number of elected officials seemed to confirm the stance. Wheeler’s challenge (and others) invites a reconsideration of this political axiom. The question of abortion may not be the deal breaker that it was 10 or 15 years ago.

One sign of change has been the growing political leadership in the City, on the school board (Tony Baker, Wendy Falb), and especially in the Second Ward with Ruth Kelley and Rosalynn Bliss.

A second sigh of change has been the diminishing of the cultural drivers for anti-choice over the past 10 years. It’s traditional electoral base has been in the Catholic and Dutch Reformed communities, the latter especially weakening demographically and broadening over this time. The interesting aspect about the redistricting of the Third has been the removal of some of these traditional bastions for the anti-choice side in the cities of Wyoming and Kentwood.

A third change is generational. The Life/Choice battle is a Boomer/Gen X issues. Anecdotally and by surveys, young evangelicals are not as wrapped up in the cultural war aspects — other issues, e.g. sex slavery or development, carry greater weight. This broadening of concern allows Dems to frame other compelling moral arguments away from the Life/Choice arena. While most young evangelicals will continue to vote R, the wider, more holistic range offers opportunity to pick up votes, perhaps moving from 25 percent D to 30 percent.

And finally,  there are the efforts of the Republican Party itself. Turning Life into a voting issue certainly assisted them in the 90s; it clearly motivates their base.  However, the very scope of their victory has capped their votes; once you have the significant plurality of pro-life votes, how many more are there? The pool of voters for whom Life is a voting issue has shrunk, most are Republican already. Moreover the radicalization of the GOP on this and general women’s health issues also functions to confirm present voters but push away moderates.  Internal victory and radicalization has reduced the penalty for being Choice, in fact may render it moot.

Something like this can be seen in Justin Amash, himself. While in a nominal way pro-life, his own libertarian tendencies push him away from a (self) definition as pro-life. (Consider that in two years he has issued four news releases related to abortion).

If the Life/Choice battle is no longer the deal breaker it once was, what should Dems do? Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: Democratic Party, Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Visceral Reaction

This past Thursday not only marked the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, but also the turning of an important page restoring constitutional government.

On the Mall in Washington, hundreds of thousands gathered for the annual March for Life.  And in the Oval Office—really within earshot—President Obama put his signature on Executive Orders closing Guantanamo CIA prisons and prohibiting “intensive interrogations” (that’s torture, as even government prosecutors concede).

Politically, the two actions seem to be going in opposite directions.  One pitched itself as a  rallying of the opposition — the vehemence of opposition made all the sharper by the actions and statements of then Senator Obama supporting the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).

For the others, the closing of Guantanamo and the barring of torture fulfills a promise. Each side celebrated with their partisans: new winners, old losers.

Yet the emotional intensity of the both positions belie the straightforward political approach.

As speakers at the rally and commentary around the web make clear, abortion remains one of the first of the major political battle lines.  But for many the position is one of over-riding moral weight.  In conversation, it is impossible to see the other side.

It’s pretty much the same when it comes to the issues surrounding “aggressive interrogation” and detention at Guantanamo.  For them the issue of torture has the same prima facie moral status.  And that’s something new.

This moral outrage, this sense of moral stain gives the left something that it has been missing in political discussion.  Morally charged politics. The other (conservative) side is not simply wrong as a matter of politics or policy, but wrong as a matter of morality.  The rejection is every bit as visceral for left as abortion is for the right.

The question for the conservative and especially the pro-life crowd will be whether they pick up on this fundamental moral positioning.  For those who see it, there is the opportunity for real bridge building: the concern for detainee rights and freedom from torture is of one piece with pro-life concern, part of what Joseph Cardinal Bernadin advanced as a consistent life ethic.

But of course, the temptation to play the partisan card instead of the pro-life one.

So we get comments from Representative Pete Hoekstra and Rep. Vern Ehlers that dodge any awareness of  the moral dimension and go straight for the policy and the political. Hoekstra becomes the security hawk, and Ehlers puts forth a vague pragmatic concern.  And Democrats smile.  Answering moral concerns with this assertiveness or worse, with a wishy-washiness simply concedes the moral high ground. Worse for Republicans, it is an obliviousness which fastens the torture label to all their candidates and pushes them further into the wilderness.

Filed under: Faith, National, , , ,

Archives

February 2020
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272829