Grassroots Commentary
Republicans Can Lose Because of Abortion
Those that are interested in politics often read broadly and follow a lot of the detail on issues affecting the country and in many cases are familiar with the platforms of the two major parties. There are, however, many people that will vote that are not as well informed and will make their choice of candidate from major news media pieces, or on a few or even single issues that are of paramount importance to them. That single issue for many people is abortion, and it has the potential to lose elections for the Republican Party.
In recent years polling for political ideology shows that voters self-identify at approximately 42% Conservative, 35% Moderate, about 20% Liberal. Pew research shows Republicans are 28%, Independents are 37% and Democrats are 34% of all voters. The difference between Conservative and Republican is that 12% consider themselves Conservative rather than Republican. Likewise 14% more identify as Democrats than as Liberals. The difference in the middle is that only 2-3% identify themselves as Independent versus Moderate. The result is that about 12% of Conservatives are likely Independent and 14% percent of Moderates are likely Democrat. That means that of the 34-37% of the voting public considered Moderate or Independent, about 22-25% truly in the middle is having a significant effect on the elections.
Given those numbers, it is impossible for either the Democrat Party or the Republican Party to gain a majority in an election without a significant portion of the Independent voters and particularly of the 22-25% in the true middle. In order for Republicans to win an election they need to get about half of the Independents over and above those that consider themselves Conservative. While it is not news that the success of either Party necessitates the votes of Independents, it shows that the margin for error is thin, hence not only the need to move toward the center for National Elections, but the need to not alienate or drive away any significant segment of the voting public.
Assuming that the true believers in either party are unlikely to cross party lines and will normally support their identified Party platform, the question remains how to not antagonize the middle.
For middle of the road Conservatives and right leaning Moderates, that antagonization is likely the tendency for the Democratic Party to interpret the Constitution as a living and hence malleable document subject to judicial diktat and personal belief. Additionally, candidates supporting policies that emphasize income redistribution and equal outcomes versus personal accomplishment and equal opportunity, and you have the making of a Republican victory. President Obama's comment to "Joe the Plummer" let the people see that he supported such policies and no doubt cost him votes. The fact that he is of mixed race and offered a new vision about the possibility of change in how an Administration might run the country no doubt appealed to the middle of the voting populace and probably made the difference in his winning the election. By the same token, his performance on the job appears to have alienated that same segment and is going to make it difficult to get reelected.
For middle of the road Democrats and the Moderates on the left, involvement in foreign conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the possibility of conflict in such places as Iran or Syria are motivators to identify with Democratic policies. Candidates that advocate Domestic and Social Policies supporting Gay Rights, narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment, relatively open borders, abortion rights, and free healthcare, and you'll have the Democratic Party in the White House.
In districts that have fairly equally balanced party voters, candidates need to stay off certain topics. Democrats in tight elections will not espouse anti-gun policies or income redistribution, and Republican candidates may try to avoid discussions on abortion or Gay Rights.
A case could be made that there are one or two issues that are determinant factors for Independents voting for or against Democratic candidates who are honest in their campaigns as to their positions on the issues, and they would most likely be supporting Gay Rights and opposing the Second Amendment. For Republicans the singular most glaring issue and possible the most divisive in the Country today, is abortion.
There are probably three primary positions on abortion that most people fall into. Those that are complete supporters, and will rarely if ever change that position, those that adamantly oppose it, also unlikely to change their position, and those open to debate.
The middle ground is the deciding area. Many people that are considered conservative on other political issues like Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, and even Domestic and Social Policies like Gay Rights, Homosexual Marriage, and Gun ownership, still support the right to have an abortion. The threat of overturning Roe v. Wade will cause these voters to abandon their conservative leanings and vote Democratic. While changing the law would likely reduce the overall number of abortions in this country, the price would be very high. The argument that abortion is morally wrong is a debate worth having, but a coercive law is not the answer, and is unlikely to pass.
No matter the argument, those that support the right to have an abortion will use the possibility of losing that right to vote Democratic. Republicans should stop trying to legislate morality and accept the fact that abortion will continue, even if illegal and the only position to take is that it is a personal decision, no matter how abhorrent. The battle for abortion is the limit as to when it can occur, not if it can occur. Personal preferences aside, any policy beyond that will fail, and if that is not obvious, just ask your friends and family, you may be surprised by their answers.
10 Comments
sunforester in left coast
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 8:35 PM
I completely agree with Eugene. The very same visceral reaction against being told that I must pay my fair share (because my government tells me to) is what I feel when I am told that I cannot decide what is good for me and my family (because my government tells me to). Given the choice between liberal tyrants and Christian tyrants, I will always choose the one that makes me poor but lets me be free.
If you want my vote, always give me freedom. If you are happy to help me keep both my freedom AND my money, I'll tell my friends to vote for you, too.
M Rick Timms, MD in Georgia
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM
The choice of having an abortion is indeed perhaps the most important personal decision a woman can face. While I believe in our rights to personal freedom and choice, the religious issues make the choice different things to different people, and to different groups of people. While I believe that abortion is a very poor method of birth control, I am as certain that many women will seek it wether legal or not. I support a strong program of education on alternatives to abortion, and efforts to encourgae adoption as an alternative. However, I have always felt that this is a personal choice - to take the life of the unborn, and the Republican party platform has always ( in my lifetime ) suffered from it's strict anti-abortion rights plank. I believe that a slightly more inclusive plan that decries abortion without threateneing to remove abortion "rights" from those that would have it done at any cost, legal or not - and at the same time refusing to pay for abortion with public funds, would strike a chord of reason.
Abortion is a personal, private issue, that is , untill someone asks for me, you, and John Q public to pay for it. The Republicans should stake thier ground at prohibiting public funding for abortion, but hold off on the talk of repealling Roe V Wade. I know it is hard to find reasonable people, an you can't please everybody, but we need to elect conservatives so that we can do more good in many more areas, and
Jim in Alabama
Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM
While I don't personally condone euthanasia of the old and useless, I can't justify standing in way of other people's choice in the matter. There was a time when their children most often had to care for the elderly and certainly many of them could have had a better quality of life, not to mention an earlier inheritance, by helping their dear old parents slip painlessly away. Gosh, they'd probably aborted who knows how many brothers and sisters anyway! But now, in our modern and enlightened times, these burdens have largely been lifted, from the old fashioned family model, to more efficient and compassionate Government programs. And, in this light, though again and again and again I chant, "It's not something I personally prefer", we certainly shouldn't stand in the way of progress, as government policy begins this socially healthy process of thinning the herds. May any of the advanced thinkers above find their way to the head of that line. 50 million dead and you want to calculate how we might save our morality.
P. Long in Texas
Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 9:47 AM
Sanity. How refreshing.
M Rick Timms, MD in Georgia
Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 12:42 PM
There was a time when people died when it was thier time to die. Doctors did all they could to save lives but the choices available at the end of life were few. Now medical technology has made it possible for us to keep people alive, in some fashion, for long periods of time, with ventilation, nutrition, cardiac support, dialysis, advance physiologic monitoring, etc. The purpose of all this is well intended, to help the patient survive a critical period and make it make to a well state with normal independent functioning-- living. The problem of course is that we have no definate way to predict which folks are at the end, and will die regardless of extended efforts at life support, and those who will survive with some temporary help. Even if we could predict, many Americans will still insist that "everything be done for mom". That is why 90% of your health care costs will occur in the last two weeks of your life.
Physicians and families alike, need to understand that simply because we have the technological means to try to keep you alive at 85 with early dementia, renal failure, CHF, diabetes and sepsis-- that does not mean that we should. We encourage folks to understand these end of life issues and have a "living will" to express thier wishes in order to help physicians and families provide the proper care at the end of life. The problem is - we do not have a crystal ball... how do we know when we are at the last two weeks? There is a scoring system - APACHE II - that was designed as a research tool in the 80's, which uses a patient's admission lab and demographics factors to predict the probability of survivial from an ICU stay. That tool was useful to physicians and families in discussions of difficult issues, such as the apllication, or removal of life support technology. It is not a crystal ball, but it was helpful in the personal discussions between doctors, pateints and families on the difficult issues of determining appropriate care for loved ones.
The problem is that now the APACHE-II system and other "metrics" are used by governmnet to decide who gets care and who does not. What was initial a useful tool for families is now a Government "triage tool".
M Rick Timms, MD in Georgia
Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 12:43 PM
cont- In the UK, it is widely used to determine who gets access to the limited number of ICU beds. As our medical infrastructure disappears in the US under ObamaCare's evolving single payer system these "metrics" will decide if you get ICU care , not you, your family and your doctor.
None us us know all of the answers to the beginning and end of life issues. It can be argued that if we want personal control at the end of life, we should have control at the begining as well. But there is a difference between a fetus and an elderly demented septic grandfather.
As a matter of politics however, I believe the Republicans should support personal decision making and reject government control of end of life issues. Similarly, they should base their abortion policy on stopping the use use of public funds for abortion.
sunforester in left coast
Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 2:05 PM
Our government should not be paying for our personal needs, such as healthcare, housing, food or energy. Our government should keep itself to providing us only with things that we cannot buy for ourselves, such as our national defense, our system of justice, our public health service. Our political elite is there to serve us for the common good, not inflict their personal ideology or theology on us free Americans.
There should be NO tax dollars spent on abortion, birth control or anything that we should buy for ourselves. Whatever is happening in my family is my responsibility to take care of, not your opportunity to force your simplistic version of morality on me that is profoundly offensive in its arrogance and presumption without my input or consent. Keep your preachy, prying noses OUT of my life, and we'll get along just fine with our mutual economic support that is only for our common good.
Jim in Alabama
Monday, July 9, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Where'd you get that life "Sunforester", that needs such protection from "preachy, prying noses"? Did you invent it? Did you just whip it it up out of the void and speak it into being? Do you have a patent to prove your genius? Or is it just an accident, the result of a hundred million one in a trillion coincidences, and as such, unowned, and free to your personal usurpation? It takes odds of one in 3.6 million to pull 10 pennies from your pocket in the same order. Do the math...ten times nine times eight, etc. How many molecules in your DNA double helix? How atoms in each molecule? The idea that there is no greater organizing principal is the result of dishonest thinking by insolent adolescents. You can do what you will with your own life. The question of abortion rights has to do with society's regard for human life as a whole. So don't be a petulant Nazi. No one has the right to take a human life. Nations have risen and fallen, millions have been slaughtered, for the failure to honor God in this matter. There's a good deal more to the question than the busybody "Church Lady" excuse.
L.L. Smith in Savannah, Tn
Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 10:44 PM
If I must abandon my Christian faith to win an election then I will lose the election. I had rather lose a race than my soul. "You know that no murderer has eternal life". There is no doubt that life starts at conception. If there is no life then there will never be a life there.
One of the big reason we are in such a sad shape now is because professing Christians have sold Christ, not for 30 pieces of silver but for food stamps and welfare programs, etc. I will stick with Christ. If I lose the election I will lose being faithful to the commandment, "Thou shall not murder".
wjm in Colorado
Monday, July 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM
Abortion is not the issue this time around, it is between liberty, the salvation of the Republic and slavery to marxist statist tyranny and the end of the Republic. The end of America as a free land is in the balance, this may well be the last election not only for Obamao, but for America.