In an astonishing moment of insight, former Sen. Eugene McCarthy once likened the behavior of reporters to blackbirds sitting on a telephone wire. One flies off, they all fly off, he quipped. One flies back, they all fly back. Never were reporters more like blackbirds than when they all rushed to "independently" reach the same overarching conclusion. "Conservatives" had not only lost the November 3 elections, they had been so hammered by an impatient electorate they were practically on life support. This media caricature - - which was everywhere - - was light on substance and heavy on "free-at-last" wish fulfillment. Of course, such blatherings were not intended to begin discussion but to end it. As one-dimensional analysis this reductionist portrait lumped together the fortunes of disparate groups, grossly exaggerated the magnitude of the setback, and happily crowned " moderates" the successors to those "mean-spirited" conservatives who finally got their comeuppance.
Of course, an explanation that leans as much to starboard as most media pundits do to port would be equally invalid. More to the point, for pro-lifers, it would also be grossly misleading. This Movement proudly sails under no partisan or ideological sails: right to lifers simply support pro-life candidates. (By the way, how many times do you recall hearing that four new pro- life Democrats were elected to the House of Representatives?) A truthful answer will take a while to go through, for what happened the first Tuesday in November defies easy explanations. Long term, what transpired is also wrapped up in something far more pernicious: the ever-more-aggressive attempts to stifle the ability of pro-lifers to espouse our views in the marketplace of ideas.
To begin with, Democratsprimarily but not exclusively pro- abortiondid better than all but a handful of analysts had predicted. Why? One strategist put it this way: Democrats largely fought a ground war (basic get-out-the-vote stuff, with particular emphasis on African Americans and members of union households) while Republicans largely strafed from the air (television ads). Combine this with a less-than-robust turnout by many groups who've lately voted Republican and it's no surprise that Democrats won many, many of the close races. But according to Tod Lindberg, the [now outgoing] editorial page editor for the Washington Times, another change in voting behavior came among voters who make over $75,000 a year, a category which has grown 7% since 1994. Lindberg claims their support for Republicans dropped 9% from what it was in 1994.
(For an analysis of what issues worked for the Democrats, see David N. O'Steen's article on page 1.)
Before going further it's critical for you to know that single- issue pro-lifers among whose ranks are Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, and atheists were there to pull the levers (see page one and back cover). You fanned out around the nation to vote for men and women who will defend unborn babies.
Did your labors benefit our candidates? Absolutely! Read NRLC Executive Director Dr. David N. O'Steen's insightful article; PAC Director Carol Long Tobias's thoughtful overview, which begins on page one; and President Dr. Wanda Franz's "reality check" column on page three and they will deepen your appreciation for what your fellow pro-lifers routinely did against impossible odds.
Two important issues overlap here which cry out for clarity: the increasingly brazen attempt to stifle any speech the major media chooses to deign "extremist," and the way most media outlets handled the murder of abortionist Barnett Slepian.
As Laura Echevarria explains on page 11, with a few honorable exceptions, news outlets were so anxious to tar the entire pro- life movement following the murder of Dr. Slepian in his home in the suburbs of Buffalo, New York, that many early stories would only quote someone claiming to be "pro-life," who not only refused to condemn the violence but actually defended the execution- style murder of Slepian.
Let me, for the record, reiterate yet again that, like all genuine pro-lifers, NRLC recoils from violence. From the beginning, non-violence has been our lingua franca, the universal language that pro-lifers all speak whether we call the U.S. home or Russia. No ifs, ands, or buts, it is wrong to kill abortionists. Why?
Most importantly, we are in the business of ending violence, not spreading it. Our solemn task is to peacefully, legally persuade both individual mothers and the nation that taking the life of an unborn child is not a "solution." Murdering abortionists does nothing to "solve" the fact that abortion is legal and that tens of millions of women have allowed abortionists to invade the sanctuary of their wombs to take a little one's life. Only legislation and alternatives can do that.
Taking the life of an abortionist is morally wrong. Period! Second, violence (mis)shapes the way our message is received. Once upon a time it seemed that whenever the topic of abortion would come up, the first comment from a more-or-less neutral observer would be to ask our positions on pregnancies that result from the "hard cases." Nowadays the initial response is not a question but an angry assertion: "you guys are all crazy hypocrites." People simply are not interested in talking with nutsos who shoot abortionists in cold blood in front of their families. Not much chance of changing hearts and minds.
Acts of violence also give our opposite numbers the opportunity to talk about anything but what happens in an abortion and to whom. Having claimed the moral high ground, they use the opportunity to make two bizarre but rhetorically effective arguments. First, these killings are really only the end point of a continuum. Pro-lifers begin by enacting women's right to know and parental involvement laws and this supposedly results in abortionists being shot. Not exactly air-tight logic but emotionally compelling.
Second, an elaboration of the first point, pro-abortionists claim that all pro-lifers are really at fault. By refusing to shut up, by insisting that abortion is the unjust taking of innocent human life, we are accused of creating a "climate" in which "hate" can flourish. For people listening to the debate with only one ear, this may sound plausible.
If pro-abortionists can delegitimize us by smearing us as violence-prone crazies, they will have won with inflammatory rhetoric what they have not been able to win by any other means.
This brings us full circle, back to politics. Most newspapers and most television networks despise us. They take great comfort in the fact that it is very difficult for pro-lifers to be members of the Democratic Party's family. If they can orphan us twice - - persuade the Republican Party to turn its back on us - - they will have carried the day.
That is the light in which you must understand the fascination of publications such as the New York Times with GOP "moderates." The thread that runs through their determination to anoint " moderates" to lead the GOP is that for them "moderate" and "pro- abortion" are synonymous. Never mind that there are moderates who are pro-life. Never mind that there are officeholders the Times insists are moderates who are, in fact, conservatives.
Doesn't matter what color of the conservative-moderate spectrum a given politician may in reality inhabit. The game is to sunder the coalition that put an end to what seemed to be the Republican Party's role in lifethat of a permanent minority. That is why the party's commitment to a pro-life platform and a pro- lifer at the head of the 2000 presidential ticket will come under furious assault.
Non-violence, love for mother and child, a peaceful commitment to educational, legislative, and electoral involvementthose are the ingredients of our prescription for convincing America there is a better way. And, regardless of how the New York Times may demonize us and what we stand for, these are also the components of a winning platform for all political parties.
dha