Change the Platform

I should say as I begin today's essay that my topic is touchy and my position at odds with the rest of the columnists of the Nuke Free Zone. In order to promote the most productive discussion, I will try to restrict myself to a narrow thesis and its associated call to action.

Beginning to take a high place in the long internal discussion that characterizes the efforts at growth of today's Democratic Party is the question of whether the Democrats should change their strongly-voiced position on abortion and, if so, what form that change ought to take. Options have ranged from, of course, making no change, to complete embrace of the pro-life position, to re-prioritization of the issue from a signature question to one of lesser prominence. The party should make a change, and this change ought to be re-prioritization, by removal of the pro-choice plank from the official platform of the Democratic Party, accompanied by a reformulation of the philosophical framework underlying the new platform.

The twin concerns of any political party are achieving its ideological agenda and attracting voters. At times, these concerns conflict; in this case, the two happily coincide.

I consider myself a pro-life Democrat. On nearly every issue other than the qualifier, the policies of the Democratic Party make real sense to me. Their reluctance to pursue hawkish foreign policy, their prudent approach to the nation's finances, their anti-death-penalty contingent, their dedication to civil liberties, their stewardship of the environment, and many of their ideas on education and social service appeal deeply to my personal views on making the world a better place, which center on the value and quality of human life. On abortion alone do we drastically part ways. The significance of this personal example is that switching a single position among the array of Democratic planks makes of the whole a unified philosophical statement with a clear moral center: "The positions of this platform spring from a fundamental respect for human life. This platform values the individual and offers our ideas for increasing the quality of life for every human being."

In a time when the Democratic Party is repeatedly addressed with criticism that its message is unclear and its basic ideals disorganized, the value of such a concise and positive core philosophy cannot be understated. Why does the party oppose the death penalty? We reason that the risk of executing an innocent person is too great to condone any execution -- human life is too precious. Why do you express reluctance to make war? The killing and suffering of war are not lightly dismissed when considering war's power to effect change -- human life must not be threatened casually. Why do you exercise yourself on behalf of plants and animals? They are necessary -- the continued existence of high-quality human life requires a biosphere capable of sustaining it. Though not every issue is so blithely addressed by invoking a deep respect for the worth of every person, the most important questions often are, and the others are still informed productively by such a starting point.

Of course, the same rationales are available to Democrats now without any change in the platform. On the question of abortion, virtually alone among the party's positions, does the easy formulation fail (that is, any such formulation opens itself to quick rejoinder from a pro-life voter). If the Democrats installed an absentee plank of institutional neutrality, all remaining official positions in the party platform would be able to avail themselves of this philosophical core. More aggressively, Democrats would have firmer ground from which to hurl a charge already much made, that a fundamental disconnect of principle exists in voters who call themselves pro-life but who support the death penalty and warmongering foreign policies.

The question of interacting with pro-life voters brings up the second concern of a party, numerical strength.

In 2004 I volunteered with, donated to, and voted for John Kerry. Considering him against the alternative, there was little question in my mind as to who more closely resembled my ideas of a good President. The only concern I had was abortion, and the other issues outweighed this to such an extent that I took to my duties with a will. The significance of this personal example is that it would have been an easy choice not to volunteer, or even to abstain from voting entirely, if my pro-life beliefs had weighed more heavily in the balance, as they do for many voters.

Consider the effect of removing the pro-choice plank from the Democratic Party platform. What voters will migrate, especially if more pro-life Democrats (like the oft-cited Senator Harry Reid, of Nevada) are encouraged to run for office?

Migration away would occur to the right, left, or "down", that is, into apathy. Voters moving right would have agreed with most of the principles of the Republican Party, but been so strongly pro-choice that they had to not just abstain but bite the bullet and vote Democratic; they would, say, oppose gay marriage and support the war in Iraq but be strongly pro-choice. Those moving left would be so pro-choice that they would find one of the third parties more to their taste were it not for the abortion-issue, and would have had no reason to be Democrats in the first place. Those who would drop from politics would do so because they felt that the Democratic Party was losing rather than gaining ideological coherence or could not vote for any party that did not positively endorse a pro-choice stance. All of these groups have strained, unusual philosophies and would not be likely to be numerous.

Migration toward the Democratic Party would occur in three similar groups. Moving "up" from apathy to voting would be voters who were too much in agreement with the Democratic party to vote Republican, but were hesitant to vote for a party with a pro-choice plank. As I could easily have been such a voter, I suggest that this group is sizable, consisting mostly of secular pro-life voters whose motivation for being pro-life is not founded in a sectarian philosophy with significant additional baggage. Moving left would be people whose support for pro-life politicians was strong enough to cause them to vote Republican, despite significant agreement on other issues with the Democratic Party. This group would probably not vote straight-ticket Democratic, but a pro-life Democratic politician encouraged by the platform change would be an attractive fit to their ideas. Again, from my contact with Republican voters I suggest that this group is non-negligible. Such voters simply feel very strongly about this one issue. If it were neutralized in an election, they would be amenable to persuasion on other issues. Finally, there would be migration from pre-existing minor parties similar to the Democrats but pro-life. If any exist, I don't know about them.

Net migration, therefore, would appear to be positive for the Democratic Party, based on the most commonsense reading of the political landscape. A more precisely enlightening poll might clarify the issue, but I think the basic analysis is difficult to refute.

There are benefits that are broader than politics as well: Senator Hillary Clinton, addressing pro-choice activists on the occasion of the March for Life, noted that, for voters motivated by a desire to preserve life, a pro-life philosophy would be well served by bipartisan cooperation to educate schoolchildren about safe sex, including promotion of abstinence (or celibacy, as she termed it) as the best of choices available, and to make sure sexually active people under any circumstances had access to effective contraception. Many pro-life voters are, indeed, motivated by sectarian concerns that forbid this, but giving a forum to secular pro-life voters gives empirical reasoning another chance to make its case, leading directly to improvement in the quality of lives among the affected population. Both the Senator and President Bush (the President speaking to the marchers for life themselves) used the phrase "common ground" in describing their goals on the issue -- somehow I doubt that their speechwriters coordinated on their addresses to these disparate groups, so the coincidence may be promising.

In this vein it is also interesting to note, for both political and communication purposes, that the phrase "culture of life" which Republicans often use to speak about abortion was first used rhetorically within the Catholic Church. There it spoke not only to the abortion debate but also to the Church's traditional opposition to the death penalty and discouragement of war-making, as well as other issues. To speak to voters whose faith is important to their political life, the Democratic Party needs only let its pro-life members speak up to uphold all three of these primary positions and authoritatively make the claim that they represent the platform more closely aligned with mainstream religious values.

Removing the abortion plank from the Democratic Party platform would strengthen the Democratic Party. It would cohere the philosophy of the remaining positions; it would create a positive, easily-broadcast message; it would most likely attract voters, in some cases at the expense of the Republican Party. It would lead to measurable positive results on the ground among schoolchildren now exposed to "abstinence-only" education and lacking access to condoms and other contraception. It would tap into a stream of American religious expression not previously associated closely to Democrats. All of these considerations would encourage a new generation of Democratic politicians and voters, both pro-life Democrats who would feel more welcome in their party and pro-choice pro-choice Democrats who would find their party's philosophy clearer and more useful. I can think of no obvious, easily-implementable change that has so much potential to give the Democratic party a boost of energy and direction as it moves forward.

Posted by William at January 31, 2005 09:00 PM