HOW TO BE A SMART
PRO-LIFE VOTER IN 1998
We are living in interesting times, politically at least. Bill Clinton is in seriousand much deservedtrouble, his enablers in the White House look like dishonest fools, and the pro-abortion leaders of the Democratic Party are worried.
In other words, there is hope that things will get better in America. The country is facing not a political crisis but an opportunityprovided by the Constitution to purge itself of its first "abortion president."
Whatever action Congress will take about the future of Bill Clinton's presidency, there is another step necessary for the political renewal of the country: In the upcoming election, voters must render judgement on Congress. And that is an opportunity for pro-life voters to set things right.
Pro-lifers have the sacred obligation to rid Congress of pro-abortionists and anti-lifers, increase the number of pro-life senators and representatives in Congress, and reward the pro-life incumbents.
In order to succeed, pro-life voters must act according to the following principles and practical considerations.
THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS THE CORE ISSUE OF THE ELECTION
The right to life is the core fabric of any "seamless garment" of social justicenot a hem or a sleeve or a decoration. Without the right to life, the seamless garment of social justice is in shreds. When the lives of the innocent can be taken, all lives are in danger. The first duty of the state is to live up to the promise of the Declaration of Independence and protect the " unalienable" right to life that is "endowed by the Creator."
Voters and candidates may honestly disagree about "lesser" issues, such as how high taxes ought to be and how states or cities should be administered. But on a fundamental issue, like the right to life, it is morally justified and required to be a single-issue pro-life voter. Pro-lifers should firmly reject all attempts to force them out of the political contest simply because they are single-issue voters.
VOTING TO ADVANCE THE RIGHT TO LIFE
Pro-lifer voters have a grave moral obligation to advance, with their vote, the right to life cause. In practice, this means the following.
Pro-life voters must reward pro-life incumbents. If pro-lifers want officeholders who reliably vote for pro-life legislation and actively support and implement it, then they, in turn, must be reliable supporters of such incumbents at election time. Loyalty goes both ways.
In order to discern which incumbents to reward and which to send packing, pro-lifers should look at the voting records compiled by NRLC.
So far in the 105th Congress, the Republican leadershipSenators Trent Lott and Don Nickles and Congressmen Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and Tom DeLayhas a 100% pro-life voting record. The Democratic leadership has not.
The attitudes of the party leaders are reflected in the voting records of the members in Congress:While 180 Republican senators and congressmen have a 100% pro-life voting record, there are only seven brave Democrats who voted so. These differences also reflect the official party platforms: The Republican platform is pro-life, the Democratic platform is pro- abortion.
Pro-lifers should vote for pro-life candidates who can win. To waste a pro-life vote on a candidate who has no reasonable chance to win in preference over an electable pro-life candidate is morally indefensibleespecially if the practical effect is the election of a pro-abortionist. By the same token, pro-lifers should not vote for a third-party candidate if such a vote contributes to the victory of a pro-abortionist.
The reason for this is straightforward. Currently, single-issue pro-life voters are not a majority in the country. That is, by themselves they can notin most instanceselect pro-life officeholders. They can, however, provide the margin of victory in close races. What is at play here is the pro-life advantage.
Polls by the Wirthlin organization immediately after the elections in 1994 revealed that 26% of the voters said that the abortion issues affected their vote. Of this fraction of the total vote, 67% voted pro-life and 33% pro-abortion. In this group then, the pro-life candidate had a 2:1 advantage over the pro-abortion candidate. After the 1996 election, 30% of voters said that the abortion issue affected their vote. Of these, 57% voted pro-life and 43% voted pro-abortion. Again, there was a " pro-life advantage." Figures for other election years also demonstrate a persistent advantage for pro-life candidates.
As in 1994, we shall soon have an "off-year" election. Such elections typically have a low voter turnout. Since pro-life voters are highly motivated voters, the "pro-life advantage" is particularly significant. Let me illustrate the situation.
Take a typical congressional district with 100,000 voters. If the figures are similar to 1994, about 26,000 voters (26%) will consider abortion an overriding issue. For a "close" race, the rest of the voters (74,000) would be roughly split between the two major parties; that is, the Republican and Democratic candidates would each expect to receive about 37,000 "party" votes. Of the 26,000 votes affected by abortion, 67% (17,420 votes) would go to the pro-life candidate and 33% (8,580 votes) to the pro-abortion candidatethe pro-life candidate would win by 8,840 votes.
If the 17,420 pro-life votes, however, go to a third-party candidate, the pro-abortion candidate would win by 8,580 votes! In this case, pro-life voters have not just "wasted" their vote on an unelectable third-party candidate, they have actually helped the pro-abortion candidate win. To do such a thing hurts the right to life cause; it is morally indefensible.
Remember, in 1992 Bill Clinton won the presidency with 43% (!) of the total vote. Those who voted for the third-party candidate, Ross Perot, in effect elected Bill Clinton. They bear a good share of the responsibility for the mess in the White House today.
Pro-life voters must go to the polls. On last Saturday's PBS show Washington Week in Review, moderator Ken Bode observed that, in 1996, 11 congressional races were decided by a combined vote total of 9,700 votes (or about 882 votes per race). Just think, what a difference the "pro-life advantage" can make in such races and how wasted a third-party vote would be!
The lesson for pro-life voters is clear: Go to the polls, vote for the pro-life candidates who can win, and ensure the defeat of the pro-abortionists.