“Every senator, Republican and Democrat, should understand
that women will not stand idle as the right wing attempts to take
control of the Supreme Court and impose government interference on
our most personal decisions. If that happens, I fully expect to see
a political firestorm like the one we saw after the Thomas
confirmation.”
That’s Ellen Malcolm, president of the pro-choice group
Emily’s List and a major figure in Democratic circles, laying down
the law in a press release regarding Sandra Day O’Connor’s
resignation. What’s noteworthy here is that she felt it necessary
to direct her “Fire Next Time” warning to “every senator,
Republican and Democrat.”
Huh? Aren’t the Democrats eager to start a knock-down, drag-out
slugfest to fight off any Bush nominee who might have a question
about Roe v. Wade? Maybe not. While still the pro-choice
party, for the first time in years Democrats are actually nervous
about the issue and how it plays for them politically. They’ve
spent the last few months quietly but unmistakably downplaying the abortion issue in the hopes of
winning over socially conservative “red state” voters.
Thus, turning the John Roberts nomination fight into a
referendum on Roe v. Wade could undermine the Democrats’
hopes of winning over those voters anytime soon. At the heart of
the Democrats’ dilemma are the two things all political parties
need to survive: money and votes. Unfortunately for them, getting
both has lately become a bit tricky.
For years, Democrats were convinced (as was the mainstream
media) that being pro-choice was the popular, winning side of the
abortion issue. To that end Democrats eagerly formed alliances with
pro-choice groups. Today, the pro-choicers hold a
commanding position in the party thanks to their fundraising
prowess. Ellen Malcolm, for example, co-founded America Coming
Together, the pro-Democrat 527 group that spent a staggering $78
million in the last election.
But, as TAS has noted before, the notion — shaky to
begin with — that being pro-choice is always political winner has
taken some serious blows lately. For example, a post-election survey by Democrat
pollster Stan Greenberg found that only 17% of voters cited John
Kerry’s stance on abortion as a reason to vote for him while 19%
cited it as a reason to vote against him, for a net loss of 2%. For
President Bush, 20% cited his abortion stance as a reason to vote
for him, while 12% cited it as a reason to vote against him, for a
net gain of 8%. That and other data, such as Bush winning the
Catholic vote 52%-47%, set off a sudden scramble by party leaders
to demonstrate their inclusiveness toward pro-life voters.
New York’s junior senator got headlines for saying, “I, for one, respect those
who believe with all their hearts and minds that there are no
circumstances under which any abortion should ever be acceptable.”
DNC chief Howard Dean told NBC’s Tim Russert last year, “I
have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life
Democrats…We can have a respectful dialogue, and we have to stop
demagoguing this issue.”
The efforts extended beyond the rhetorical in some cases.
Pro-life Democrats like Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey Jr. and Rhode
Island’s Rep. Jim Langevin were actively recruited
for key Senate races (Langevin declined). Nevada’s Harry Reid, who
has cast pro-life votes in the past, became the Democrats’ new
Senate leader.
Democrats now shy away from mentioning the subject, even when
the subject is the Supreme Court. Still, the Democrats have never said
they would actually rethink their fundamental stance on abortion.
Given the importance of pro-choicers to their fundraising, they
probably couldn’t even if they wanted to. The Democrats’ hope,
rather, was that their overtures would defuse the issue enough that
they could win over pro-life voters in other ways. Democrats were
trying to “reposition” the issue, according to Slate’s
Will
Saletan.
This approach did not sit well with some pro-choicers.
Nation columnist Katha Pollitt said Democrats should “speak
clearly from a moral center” and not “mince words and change the
subject.” Outside the view of most media, the pro-choicers have
used their clout to prevent any further drift rightward.
When Reid and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi recruited
Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer, a pro-lifer, to run for Democratic
National Committee chairman, the pro-choicers mounted a successful
underground campaign to kill his bid.
So Democrats have an interest in not making the fight over
O’Connor’s replacement an out-and-out battle over Roe v.
Wade. To do so would expose their own strategic divisions. At
the very least it could damage their efforts to quietly reframe the
issue, convincing pro-lifers it was all just rhetoric. Of course,
given the fact that pro-choicers are some of the party’s staunchest
activists and control so much of its fundraising, the Democrats may
find that they don’t have much of a choice on the matter. Ironic,
huh?
