EDITORIALS

By Dave Andrusko

Post-Election Moaning and Gnashing of Teeth

Let me utilize this opening paragraph to make a pitch for "Today's News & Views," found on NRLC's web page: www.nrlc.org. A first draft of what I am about to discuss appeared over a period of about six days in this daily web column. Please take a second to go there and sign up to have this feature sent to your inbox automatically.

Those who've followed the post-election moaning and gnashing of teeth already know that Democrats in general, and pro-abortion Democrats in particular, have refused "to get over it." Far from healing all wounds, the more time elapses between the President's 51% to 48% victory and their latest musings, the angrier their responses tend to be. Why?

Disappointment that a President they thought they had in their cross-hairs won with more than 50% of the vote (the first time this has happened since 1988) and a 3.5 million vote margin to boot? Sure.

Bitterness that Sen. Kerry may have fumbled away a possible chance to win when the nation is at war and the economy's

performance uneven? Of course, although this vastly underestimates Mr. Bush's strengths and greatly exaggerates how poorly Sen. Kerry ran his campaign.

There are any number of explanations, but many to most of them intersect with the abortion issue in ways that are not often appreciated. We've explored these points of contact at length in "Today's News & Views," but can only touch on them here.

Let's first clear away some rhetorical brush and demolish some strawmen erected by various overwrought columnists and political pundits.

It is quite true that the initial discussion of the now famous "moral values" voter was less than a model of clarity. This refers to the 22% who said "moral values" in response to the question, "Which one issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?"

These voters were not only single-issue pro-life voters or those who were upset by recent highly controversial decisions by activist courts and power-happy mayors, as some early interpretations would have it. It is not entirely clear even now what motivated many of these voters beyond a generalized alarum that our coarse popular culture is sanding down all moral sensibilities.

But because people are complex and motivations are multiple doesn't mean we should jump to the opposite conclusion - - to minimize what pro-life voters, in particular, meant to the President. As explained in the other editorial that begins on page two, they were absolutely critical, providing an overall +4% increment to Mr. Bush.

Pro-abortion Democrats find themselves in a funk and a quandary, and not just because they have a weak bench. Many grasp that they got hammered on, for example, the abortion issue. But only a few are sincere in grappling with what makes pro-lifers tick and revisiting the national party's abortion-now-and-forever public policy stance.

They've responded with various answers both to the specific question of how to address the abortion issue and also to the issue of what to do vis a vis people of faith. Our focus here is on the former.

Some party strategists counsel a more-or-less genuine attempt to find common ground. While it would be unfair to say that there are absolutely no pro-abortionists seeking a "middle position," this is a distinctly minority position.

After all, the Abortion Establishment is embedded in the Democratic Party. It expects the party to say, "How high?" when it says "Jump." "Our platform and the grassroots strength of the party is pro-choice," Elizabeth Cavendish, interim president of Naral Pro-Choice America, told the New York Times. "The party needs more religious language, but not new positions." Indeed, the very next sentence in the Times's story is, "Many Democrats agree."

Others profess a kind of pseudo-piety, a maybe-it's-all-my-fault plaint. Even though the topic was not abortion per se, Roy Peter Clark, writing on the web page of a media think tank, is a perfectly representative figure.

His essay was titled, "Confessions of an Alienated Journalist: How one journalist sees - - or doesn't see - - the world." Clark ostensibly was writing about wanting to learn about this unusual specimen (the "moral values voter") rarely found in Clark's habitat.

Most of his 494 words confirmed his admission that he hadn't a clue about moral values voters. But few suggested he was genuinely sincere in trying to understand who they were as people.

Clark concluded his piece with this phony baloney "confession": "I once was blind - - and still can't see. My blind spots blot out half of America. And that makes me less of a citizen."

A second way of responding to a demoralizing loss is suggested by the lead paragraph from a November 17 New York Times article: "Bested by a Republican campaign emphasizing Christian faith, some Democrats are scrambling to shake off their secular image, stepping up efforts to organize the 'religious left' and debating changes to how they approach the cultural flashpoints of same-sex marriage and abortion."

They are welcome to organize the "religious left" to their hearts' content. What is deeply unsettling, however, is the style-over-substance advice: to "rephrase their positions in more moral and religious language," but leave the policies themselves unchanged.

We must be very, very alert over the next year or two. In an attempt to allay (but not genuinely address) the well-justified fears of pro-lifers and also people of faith, pro-abortion Democrats will try (in the Times's words) to "establish the party's spiritual credentials."

If the national Democratic Party were really to come around on abortion, we would loudly hail that change. Until and unless it does, however, don't be fooled. Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes. Accept no substitutes or imitations. The lives of millions of unborn babies depend on your discernment.

Dave Andrusko can be reached at dandrusko@nrlc.org.