The lesson which some people have understandably drawn from this is that President Bush’s promises about being pro-life have been betrayed. Some Democrats proclaim triumphantly that, once again, pro-lifers have been taken in by a Republican Party, which wants their votes but does not want to enact their agenda.
There are some obvious fallacies in that argument, such as the fact that the Bush administration has once again forbidden the use of American money to promote abortion around the world and the fact that the man appointed to oversee the ethics of stem cell research is a strong pro-lifer, Dr. Leon Kass.
But there is just enough truth in the Democratic jibe to give pro-lifers pause. The President’s actions are a textbook example of an axiom of contemporary politics, which is that every politician must remain in good standing with his “base” — the hard core of people who support him because of his policies — while reaching out to those who are not so committed.
Conventional wisdom has it that only a fairly small minority of voters are strongly committed one way or the other, therefore no politician can win an election without showing himself “moderate” in certain ways.
Where the “base” is concerned, it comes down to the formula offered by an only modestly successful Yale football coach of 50 years ago: “The trick is to keep the alumni sullen but not mutinous.” For most of the past two decades the Republicans have done that rather successfully with regard to the pro-life movement.
Thus, in its relationship with Republicans, the pro-life movement suffers from the inevitable disadvantage of being a constituency that can be taken for granted. The movement has no political alternative, hence must continue to support Republicans even in the face of disappointment — half a loaf, and all that. Given the realities of American politics, waffling by politicians is inevitable. The question is what to do about it.
Ideally the answer lies in persuading more Democrats also to take a pro-life position. Although pro-lifers are often accused of embracing the Republican Party blindly, I find that many of them are disillusioned Democrats who say in effect “I didn’t leave the party; it left me.” They are eager to vote for the occasional pro-life Democrat.
Probably the single politician most admired in pro-life circles over the past 20 years was the late Governor Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, a Democrat whom many people hoped would make his way to the White House, until he was struck down by cancer. If there are two candidates, or two parties, both vying for the support of a particular constituency, both must try to satisfy that constituency.
Pro-life Democrats who think the movement is altogether too Republican have the solution in their own hands, which is to push their own party, or at least individual politicians within it, closer to the pro-life position.
(This article courtesy of the Arlington Catholic Herald.)
