A Radical Proposal for Dems

By

A radical proposal for Democrats making some headway: Dems should oppose Roe vs. Wade.

The Economist magazine runs some numbers, ponders the complexity of American politics and comes up with a "heretical" proposal that might bolster Democrats: they should stop taking baby steps about making abortion "safe, legal and rare" and come out full—bore and state that they oppose Roe v Wade.

The Economist notes that that the concept of judicial tyranny as exemplified by the Justices who vote to support abortion rights has been a lightning rod for the Republican Party, and has become a powerful recruiting tool for the party. Roe v Wade was the opening salvo for the culture wars which have increasingly beset American politics. The Economist proposes that the Democrats support legislative solutions to the abortion issue; this would be less offensive, in their view, to many who have rallied to the Republican Party.

Count me a bit skeptical. Coincidentally enough, columnist Kathleen Parker (a libertarian) comes out today  and proposes the same tactic for Hillary Clinton, and ponders the prospect that such a radical move by her might be all it takes to win her the White House. Ms. Parker believes such a move by her might would enhance her image as a strong leader and statesman (call it her Sister Soulijah moment).

Ed Lasky   12 14 05

Thomas Lifson adds:

The electoral calculus is probably correct in terms of weakening the Repiblicans. Many religious conservatives have been mobilized by the judicially—imposed permissive abortion policies. But the Democrats are so in thrall to the one issue feminist left, for both money and votes, that they would lose too much by softening on Roe v Wade. Hell hath no fury like a feminist scorned. The perceived betrayal would snatch political viability from them the way Aeneas was denied the feast set before him by the Trojans.

A radical proposal for Democrats making some headway: Dems should oppose Roe vs. Wade.

The Economist magazine runs some numbers, ponders the complexity of American politics and comes up with a "heretical" proposal that might bolster Democrats: they should stop taking baby steps about making abortion "safe, legal and rare" and come out full—bore and state that they oppose Roe v Wade.

The Economist notes that that the concept of judicial tyranny as exemplified by the Justices who vote to support abortion rights has been a lightning rod for the Republican Party, and has become a powerful recruiting tool for the party. Roe v Wade was the opening salvo for the culture wars which have increasingly beset American politics. The Economist proposes that the Democrats support legislative solutions to the abortion issue; this would be less offensive, in their view, to many who have rallied to the Republican Party.

Count me a bit skeptical. Coincidentally enough, columnist Kathleen Parker (a libertarian) comes out today  and proposes the same tactic for Hillary Clinton, and ponders the prospect that such a radical move by her might be all it takes to win her the White House. Ms. Parker believes such a move by her might would enhance her image as a strong leader and statesman (call it her Sister Soulijah moment).

Ed Lasky   12 14 05

Thomas Lifson adds:

The electoral calculus is probably correct in terms of weakening the Repiblicans. Many religious conservatives have been mobilized by the judicially—imposed permissive abortion policies. But the Democrats are so in thrall to the one issue feminist left, for both money and votes, that they would lose too much by softening on Roe v Wade. Hell hath no fury like a feminist scorned. The perceived betrayal would snatch political viability from them the way Aeneas was denied the feast set before him by the Trojans.