THINKING CLEARLY ABOUT THE ELECTION IN 2000

Although the primaries and the fall election in the year 2000 are still many months away, it is not too early for pro-lifers to think about sound strategy. Strategy must serve the long-term goal of establishing the right to life, putting an end to abortion, and eliminating the threat of euthanasia and infanticide. In pursuing that strategy, pro-lifers must guard against actions that may appear "principled" on the surface but are--through unintended consequences--advancing the pro-abortionists' agenda.

THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS THE CORE ISSUE

As I have stated many times before, the right to life is the core fabric of any "seamless garment" of social justice--not a hem or sleeve or mere decoration. There is no social justice without the right to life. The first principle of public policy must be to follow the Declaration of Independence and protect the " unalienable" right to life as "endowed by the Creator."

From the fundamental nature of the right to life follows our moral obligation to be single-issue pro-life voters. But remember, being an effective single-issue pro-life voter requires clear thinking and emotional discipline: the point is not to make a "statement" and "send a message" but to advance the right to life cause--and send the pro-abortionists packing.

FOR WHOM TO VOTE AND NOT TO VOTE

Our vote shouldn't just go to anyone who is pro-life (or professes to be so) but to the candidate whose election will serve our goals. Here are the points to keep in mind.

* Reward pro-life incumbents. Loyalty goes both ways. Pro-life officeholders who regularly vote for effective pro-life legislation and actively support its implementation must be able to count on pro-life support at election time. Without that support they may waver in their commitment to the right to life cause. And if they are defeated, the cause will surely suffer.

In general, among congressmen, many more Republicans have 100% pro-life voting records than do Democrats. But the actual voting record of each incumbent is best discerned in the accurate tallies compiled by NRLC. The point is to advance the right to life and not just be partisan. (Let's remember, under the current leadership in the Democratic Party--Clinton, Gore, Daschle, and Gephardt--it's difficult to be a pro-life Democrat.)

NRLC members seeking guidance and an effective way to make their financial contributions count need look no further than NRL PAC, the political action committee of NRLC.

* Vote only for pro-life candidates who can win. This is particularly important during primaries. One of the most frustrating experiences is to see a pro-abortion candidate squeak through because pro-lifers split their votes among two or more pro-life candidates. The sensible strategy is to concentrate support on the one pro-life candidate most likely to win.

It is a mistake to withhold support from such a candidate and give it instead to a candidate with better pro-life rhetoric but no realistic chance to win. This not only wastes pro-life money and votes, it provides unintended support for the "squeak-through" pro-abortionistwho appreciates any advantage he gets, intended or not. Actually, this is more than a mere mistake; it is a self- defeating act and a violation of principle.

* Don't vote for third-party candidates who can't win. Voters are sometimes tempted to "send a message" to the major parties by voting for a third-party candidate in order to express their frustration over this or that. If the third-party candidate can't win, the rule of unintended consequences may produce even more frustration for the voter.

In 1992, Bill Clinton won decisively with a mere 43% of the popular vote because a large "protest" vote went to the third- party candidate. Are the Perot voters ready to accept responsibility for Bill Clinton's election and what it did to the country?

In 1996, Bill Clinton won re-election in an electoral "landslide" without a popular majority (he got 48.4%), benefiting once again from a misguided protest vote for the third-party candidate. There was lots of talk about "sending a message" to the Republicans by voting for the third party. The Bill Clintons of this world love it when voters keep sending such "messages"; it keeps them in power.

Pro-life voters must keep in mind that, at this time, abortion is an overriding issue only for about 12-15% of voters. Fortunately, among those who care about the issue, pro-lifers outnumber the pro-abortionists. The resulting pro-life swing vote is the "pro-life advantage."

The "pro-life advantage" makes a big difference in close races. In a close race between a pro-abortionist and a "not-quite-perfect pro-life" candidate, the "pro-life advantage" will probably result in the election of the pro-lifer. However, if the pro-life votes go to a losing third-party candidate, the pro-abortionist will get elected. And that is inexcusable.

If there are only bad choices, pro-lifers may, for tactical reasons, mute their criticism of a particular pro-abortion candidate in order to defeat an even worse candidate. In that situation, keeping the more radical pro-abortionist from gaining access to power becomes a worthy goal because it weakens the pro- abortion cause.

AVOIDING "FRIENDLY FIRE"

You can be certain of one thing: If there is any controversy about pro-life party platforms or the purity of the candidates' pro-life stances, the media will cover it in great detail. Controversies among pro-abortionists will be reported far less extensively.

It would be farfetched to see a massive conspiracy here (well, maybe there is a little one). Most in the media and opinion- maker elite simply consider a pro-abortion stance the normal thing. For them there was no news to report and no extensive commentary to offer when the Clinton operatives prevented Pennsylvania's pro-life Governor Bob Casey from speaking at the 1992 Democratic convention.

In contrast, every pro-abortionist objecting to the pro-life platform of the Republican Party is given sympathetic coverage. And any disagreement among pro-lifers, especially during an election year, is covered in excruciating detail and delivered with furrowed brow. Don't let that furrowed brow fool you. They are not concerned about the pro-life cause. They love the controversy because it divides us and makes the job of the pro-abortionists easier--much easier.

Our job is not creating controversy among ourselves. The job is working and voting for pro-life candidates who can win and defeat the pro-abortionists. It saves lives.