Subscribe to comments with RSS
or TrackBack to 'Twitter'.
Mr. Fichter,
I have a question regarding your book “Viability.” I was trying to find a way to e-mail you my question but was unsuccessful. My question is regarding your statement that the Pro-Life movement should refuse to support a Democrat in any election (even a Pro-Life Democrat) because of the party’s platform on abortion, unless the the Democratic candidate either has publicly criticized the party’s platform and is working to change it, or if the Democratic candidate is running against a pro-abortion Republican.
My question is this: Doesn’t this really mean that what you are actually doing is endorsing the candidate is more pro-Life? We say that we will only endorse Republicans unless the Republican candidate is more pro-abortion than the Democrat. Again, what this seems to be saying is that what we’re really doing is endorsing whichever candidate is more Pro-Life. You endorse the Republican authomatically, unless he or she is more pro-abortion than the Democratic opponent, in which you endorse the Democrat. It seems that we’re just endorsing whichever candidate is more Pro-Life.
If this is the case, why risk politically alienating ourselves from half the population by announcing that we will automatically refuse to endorse a Democrat? I agree with you that the party’s platform on abortion is wrong (Also, in the interest of full disclosure I am not a Democrat). It seems that rather than wait for the Democratic party to reform itself from the top down, does it not seem more likely that we can create a culture where more and more Pro-Life Democrats (and not simply nominally Pro-Life but actually Pro-Life) are elected and the Party essentially either becomes only nominally pro-abortion or actually changes from the inside out? You addressed the issue of those who claim that they want to change the party from the inside out, but given the at least practical result that you will end up endorsing whichever candidate is more Pro-Life, than won’t it make more sense to go that route instead of waiting for the entire party to change?
I appreciate your response and the Viability book.
This issue has really gained national attention since the passage of the health care reform bill as the life movement grapples with its relationship with conservative Democrats. My position has somewhat evolved since the release of Viability in January due mainly to the specific concerns you address. To the point, any endorsement consideration of a Democrat – regardless of whether or not the Democrat’s opponent is pro-life — must hinge on two elements:
1. Does the candidate’s election enhance the probability of Democratic control of the body in question. If so, there should be no endorsement since Democrat control will most likely cripple any efforts to pass pro-life legislation. For example, if control of the U.S. House comes down to an ostensibly pro-life Democrat vs. a pro-abortion Republican, the election of the Democrat would mean that Nancy Pelosi remains as Speaker of the House. That is a further assault on the rights of the unborn, so no matter how genuine the Democrat might be in his/her beliefs, if they support Pelosi, they serve to advance an abortion agenda. In this example, I believe no endorsement should be granted.
2. Does the Democrat in question substantively and publicly oppose – and work to change — the party platform, leadership, and policies. This must be an active and vocal opposition. Most Democrats will point to their voting record as evidence of what they consider opposing the party agenda. That’s not good enough. Nor is it good enough to privately say that they oppose the party platform. This also means they must oppose party leadership. In the case of the U.S. House, a candidate would need to publicly declare that he/she will not support Pelosi as Speaker of the House.
One thing is really clear – the Democratic Party platform is indefensible on the issue of abortion. We need to change the discussion from “I disagree with Democrats on abortion but…” to ” I disagree with the Democrats on abortion, therefore….”
I’ve had quite a few folks say it is unrealistic to judge a party based on one plank. I disagree. Consider the Know-Nothing Party in the 1800s. One of its positions was to deny public office to Catholics. Imagine a party adopting such a policy today – no one but an extreme few would give consideration anything else such a party had to say.
I suggest that it’s an unfounded fear that a no-Democrat endorsement policy alienates huge numbers of voters. The majority of Democrats won’t care because they are pro-abortion (they would call themselves ‘pro-choice’.). Those who are more conservative and honest in their evaluation must admit the party’s position and its leadership is extremely wrong. The most vocal opposition will come from those who are Democrat first and pro-life second. No policy will keep everyone happy – it must be established from the viewpoint of what the most effective political means is to pass pro-life legislation.
I’ve also been told by folks that its just bad strategy. In reality, it’s never been tested as the pro-life movement has historically held to bipartisan endorsements all along. The Democratic Party was shrewd enough to use this to its advantage in running just enought conservative candidates in the right districts to win seats.
The life movement has never held an opportunity to exert such strong political leverage. The Democrats are reeling with negative public opinion, and the once touted Blue Dog coalition is rarely mentioned these days. Yet the Party knows it must retain some type of support from its more conservative voters to retain power.
Mr. Fichter,
I have a question regarding your book “Viability.” I was trying to find a way to e-mail you my question but was unsuccessful. My question is regarding your statement that the Pro-Life movement should refuse to support a Democrat in any election (even a Pro-Life Democrat) because of the party’s platform on abortion, unless the the Democratic candidate either has publicly criticized the party’s platform and is working to change it, or if the Democratic candidate is running against a pro-abortion Republican.
My question is this: Doesn’t this really mean that what you are actually doing is endorsing the candidate is more pro-Life? We say that we will only endorse Republicans unless the Republican candidate is more pro-abortion than the Democrat. Again, what this seems to be saying is that what we’re really doing is endorsing whichever candidate is more Pro-Life. You endorse the Republican authomatically, unless he or she is more pro-abortion than the Democratic opponent, in which you endorse the Democrat. It seems that we’re just endorsing whichever candidate is more Pro-Life.
If this is the case, why risk politically alienating ourselves from half the population by announcing that we will automatically refuse to endorse a Democrat? I agree with you that the party’s platform on abortion is wrong (Also, in the interest of full disclosure I am not a Democrat). It seems that rather than wait for the Democratic party to reform itself from the top down, does it not seem more likely that we can create a culture where more and more Pro-Life Democrats (and not simply nominally Pro-Life but actually Pro-Life) are elected and the Party essentially either becomes only nominally pro-abortion or actually changes from the inside out? You addressed the issue of those who claim that they want to change the party from the inside out, but given the at least practical result that you will end up endorsing whichever candidate is more Pro-Life, than won’t it make more sense to go that route instead of waiting for the entire party to change?
I appreciate your response and the Viability book.
Sincerely,
John Macias
John Macias
28 Jul 10 at 7:38 am
John, great question.
This issue has really gained national attention since the passage of the health care reform bill as the life movement grapples with its relationship with conservative Democrats. My position has somewhat evolved since the release of Viability in January due mainly to the specific concerns you address. To the point, any endorsement consideration of a Democrat – regardless of whether or not the Democrat’s opponent is pro-life — must hinge on two elements:
1. Does the candidate’s election enhance the probability of Democratic control of the body in question. If so, there should be no endorsement since Democrat control will most likely cripple any efforts to pass pro-life legislation. For example, if control of the U.S. House comes down to an ostensibly pro-life Democrat vs. a pro-abortion Republican, the election of the Democrat would mean that Nancy Pelosi remains as Speaker of the House. That is a further assault on the rights of the unborn, so no matter how genuine the Democrat might be in his/her beliefs, if they support Pelosi, they serve to advance an abortion agenda. In this example, I believe no endorsement should be granted.
2. Does the Democrat in question substantively and publicly oppose – and work to change — the party platform, leadership, and policies. This must be an active and vocal opposition. Most Democrats will point to their voting record as evidence of what they consider opposing the party agenda. That’s not good enough. Nor is it good enough to privately say that they oppose the party platform. This also means they must oppose party leadership. In the case of the U.S. House, a candidate would need to publicly declare that he/she will not support Pelosi as Speaker of the House.
Points one and two really go hand in hand.
As an additional reference, you might check out the Indiana Right to Life endorsement policy which is the only one of its kind in the country so far. That is now posted online at http://www.irtl.org/2010/07/indiana-right-to-life-pacs-2010-endorsement-resolution/
One thing is really clear – the Democratic Party platform is indefensible on the issue of abortion. We need to change the discussion from “I disagree with Democrats on abortion but…” to ” I disagree with the Democrats on abortion, therefore….”
I’ve had quite a few folks say it is unrealistic to judge a party based on one plank. I disagree. Consider the Know-Nothing Party in the 1800s. One of its positions was to deny public office to Catholics. Imagine a party adopting such a policy today – no one but an extreme few would give consideration anything else such a party had to say.
I suggest that it’s an unfounded fear that a no-Democrat endorsement policy alienates huge numbers of voters. The majority of Democrats won’t care because they are pro-abortion (they would call themselves ‘pro-choice’.). Those who are more conservative and honest in their evaluation must admit the party’s position and its leadership is extremely wrong. The most vocal opposition will come from those who are Democrat first and pro-life second. No policy will keep everyone happy – it must be established from the viewpoint of what the most effective political means is to pass pro-life legislation.
I’ve also been told by folks that its just bad strategy. In reality, it’s never been tested as the pro-life movement has historically held to bipartisan endorsements all along. The Democratic Party was shrewd enough to use this to its advantage in running just enought conservative candidates in the right districts to win seats.
The life movement has never held an opportunity to exert such strong political leverage. The Democrats are reeling with negative public opinion, and the once touted Blue Dog coalition is rarely mentioned these days. Yet the Party knows it must retain some type of support from its more conservative voters to retain power.
I hope this is helpful.
Mike
admin
28 Jul 10 at 6:39 pm