The Two Faces of Barack ObamaCan a pro-choice president lead a pro-life majority?
Posted Wednesday, May 20, 2009, at 7:55 AM ET
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon"The views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory," the president observed in his speech. And how. Beliefnet's Steve Waldman points to a recent Third Way survey in which 69 percent of Americans said abortion was the "taking of a human life," but 72 percent nevertheless said it should be legal. This is a long-standing pattern, underscored by a new Gallup poll in which for "the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life." The National Right to Life Committee thinks this poll discredits the notion that the country favors abortion rights. Conversely, NARAL Pro-Choice America thinks the poll numbers are fishy because they "do not square with the voting patterns in the last two elections cycles." But what if, once again, both are true? What if we're more pro-life morally than legally? Look at Gallup's numbers. They show a seven-point increase in the percentage of people calling themselves "pro-life" but only a three-point increase in the percentage who think abortion should be mostly or fully illegal.
I don't find the opposing data hard to square at all. NARAL is right: Voters last year elected a pro-choice president and added eight and 44 seats, respectively, to pro-choice ranks in the U.S. Senate and House. That's why you'd expect the "pro-life" number to go up in this year's Gallup poll. People feel more confident that abortion will stay legal, and therefore they're more willing to focus on their moral discomfort with it. The ups and down of abortion polling have always followed this reactive dynamic. Look again at Gallup's data. The percentage of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" trended up during the Clinton administration and then down during the Bush administration, right up until Democrats captured Congress in 2006.
Smart pro-lifers understand the multidimensionality of public opinion. That's why, in his introduction of Obama, Notre Dame's president, the Rev. John Jenkins, urged fellow pro-lifers to "appeal to ethical principles that might be persuasive to others." Obama understands it, too: He challenged fellow pro-choicers to "open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do." Understanding other perspectives isn't just a courtesy. It's a strategy.
To some pro-lifers, this is just an Obama spin game. His "mellifluous words," they argue, are meaningless cover for a hard-core record of funding abortion and embryo destruction. Even the concession he cited in his address as an example of outreach to pro-lifers was insubstantial. "I didn't change my underlying position," he noted, "but I did tell my staff to change the words on my Web site." What kind of compromise is that?
Still, Obama's acknowledgment of the issue's complexity is important for two reasons. First, he's dropping the pretense of a conclusive answer. "I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away," he conceded. "Each side will continue to make its case to the public." Accepting multidimensionality means accepting that one dimension can't foreclose others. Preserving abortion's legality will never make it moral or, for that reason, politically safe.
Second, as I learned from writing my book, even strategic or symbolic dialogue can bring unforeseen consequences. The seducer can be seduced. When you listen, you hear things. You entertain unfamiliar ideas. You might even change your mind. As my colleague Dahlia Lithwick points out, Obama has already adjusted his positions on military tribunals, indefinite detention, rendition, abuse photos, and state secrets. Is he weak or open-minded? That depends on your perspective. Either way, the guy clearly listens.
The knowledge that God's "wisdom is greater than our own … should humble us," Obama told the graduates. "It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate." That kind of openness is scary. It threatens the primacy of the perspective from which you entered the debate. But maybe that's the point.
The Scariest Thing Gen. McChrystal Told Congress About Afghanistan
Is It Irresponsible To Give Your Kids Cell Phones in the Age of Sexting?
The Obama Administration Finally Gets Serious About Transparency
So Are We Done Cleaning Up the Exxon Valdez Spill Yet?
What, Exactly, Do You Do at a Climate-Change Conference?
The World's Greatest Boxer Is Running for Office. Don't Vote for Him.
Legally pro choice = pro choice.
Saletan points out correctly that just because a slim majority of Americans call themselves pro-life, this does little to change the fact that the vast majority of Americans still think abortion should be legal, at least under certain circumstances.
But the fact is that the abortion debate, (while it is "about" many things), only comes down to one yay-or-nay question which determines everything: is it legal? Can someone have an abortion? The moral, ethical, or what-have-you debates that lead people to support or oppose its legality are many, but this is a legal issue.
This is why I constantly get annoyed when some of my friends say, "Oh I'm pro life, but I think people should be allowed to have abortions."
"Well," I usually reply, doing my best to hide my frustration, "if you think that people, including yourself, should be legally allowed to choose whether or not they have an abortion, then that means you're pro-choice. If you don't think people should be able to have that option available to them, then you are pro-life."
Because that's how making rules in our society plays out. I could care less what you would personally prescribe for yourself; that's your business. It's what you want to prescribe for me, and other people, that matters.
I'm fairly certain this shift in the polls is largely due to the Republican strategy of personalizing the abortion debate. The strategy has been to get individuals to think about how difficult or bad it would be to have an abortion, and then turn that personal opinion into a legal prescription for 300 million other people. When Sarah Palin was asked about her position on abortion, she said "I would council someone to choose life." Well whoop-de-doo Mrs. Palin, that tells us nothing of relevance. Politicians support or oppose laws, they don't council us personally. By using the language of the personal regarding abortion, Republicans have been able to subtly convince undecided people that the abortion debate is just one big solipsist exercise in which their own choice should be made legally mandatory for the whole country.
-- jwschmidt
(To reply, click here)
Saletan asks:
"Is it dishonest to be morally pro-life but legally pro-choice?"
No Will, it isn't. It's merely recognizing that imposing one's own views on others is not a desirable activity. Even if I had the right plumbing for it, I would never have an abortion. But I don't believe criminalizing abortion will do anything but drive the practice underground in the proverbial back alleys once again. If the goal is to actually reduce the number of abortions performed to as low as possible, then the way to achieve that is not through criminalization, but through education.
Likewise, I have no desire to smoke marijuana, but I recognize that our "war on drugs" has done virtually nothing to stem its use among people who want to.
-- Greatbear452
(To reply, click here)