|
NRL News
SHELL
GAMES IN ELECTION YEARS AND SHORTSIGHTED THINKING
In the New York gubernatorial election of 1982, the setup for an election disaster was “perfect.” The two major candidates were Mario Cuomo, nominated by the Democratic and Liberal parties of New York, and Lewis Lehrman, the candidate of the Republican and Conservative parties. Mr. Lehrman was pro-life. But part of the pro-life vote could potentially be split off, because both candidates were Catholic. Mr. Cuomo cleverly and intensely exploited this opportunity through large advertisements in Catholic papers. Nicely fudging the issue, Mr. Cuomo claimed to be informed and formed by Catholic teaching on abortion. Of course, he turned out to be of the “personally opposed” type and resolutely unwilling to “impose” his personal views about abortion on others and translate them into pro-life public policy. Although many politicians had resorted to this shell game before him, Mr. Cuomo surely became its most successful and illustrious practitioner. In fact, the “pro-choice” wing of the religious left was (and still is) awed by Mr. Cuomo’s rhetorical dexterity in this regard. In a famous speech at the University of Notre Dame in 1984, Mr. Cuomo demonstrated how to play the shell game: Beyond stating that one is “personally opposed” to abortion, one must lovingly speak of the Catholic Church and vocally profess loyalty to Church teaching on abortion, but then express one’s greatest respect for “our unique pluralistic democracy”—and, ultimately, stand firmly with the pro-abortion crowd for “choice.” Obviously, for the Cuomos and like politicians, the real doctrine on abortion is to be found in Roe and Doe, not in the teachings of the Church. To Cuomo’s imitators—for example, Senators Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, Tom Daschle (former Senator and Majority Leader), and John Kerry—the Notre Dame speech was not only an instruction on how to play the shell game but the very philosophical foundation for the exercise: it’s OK, because the smart Mario Cuomo explained it. At the time of Cuomo’s Notre Dame speech, it was primarily Catholic pro-abortion politicians who were under pressure to play the “personally-opposed-and-in-full-agreement-with-the-Church-BUT…” game. Then, non-Catholic pro-abortion politicians saw with admiration how well the exercise worked and began to imitate their Catholic colleagues. This shell game about abortion is still going on today. In fact, we can currently observe how Senator Barack Obama, the ultra-liberal and more-pro-abortion-than-NARAL co-sponsor of the infernal “Freedom of Choice Act,” is seeking to advance his candidacy for the presidency by speaking of his religious experiences, promoting faith-based initiatives, and of raising reservations about abortions on women who are merely “feeling blue” about the pregnancy—though that would not only be contrary to Doe v. Bolton but also to the “Freedom of Choice Act” promoted by the senator. Senator Obama’s most recent maneuverings on abortion have had all the intended effects: The yelps of protest from the pro-abortion left wing over his musings about abortion give Senator Obama the opportunity to appear thoughtfully “moderate.” Is Obama standing up against the left-wing extremists? Now that the primaries are over, is the Senator “moving to the right” or, at least, the middle of the political spectrum? Is candidate Obama signaling that “values” and religion are important to him? With regard to abortion, this is, of course, just “shell-gaming.” We can be sure of this: A President Obama would rescind all pro-life policies of his pro-life predecessor. A President Obama would fill all vacancies on the Supreme Court and the federal appeals courts only with candidates committed to the preservation of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton—to them it’s the extra-constitutional, pro-abortion law-making from the bench, not the Constitution, that needs to be followed. A President Obama would gladly sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” that is designed to establish abortion rights even more extreme than those expressed in Roe and Doe—and the woman seeking an abortion would not even have to be “feeling blue” about the pregnancy. The “Freedom of Choice Act” would make partial-birth abortion legal again, require taxpayer funding of abortion, and strike down current regulations of abortions, such as parental notice and consent laws. Mr. Cuomo, the eventual winner of the 1982 contest and New York governor for 12 years, had no difficulty imposing his personal views when it came to other hotly debated issues and used his veto power liberally. “Pluralistic democracy” can be respected quite selectively. Mario Cuomo has excellent debating and campaigning skills. Even so, he eked out only a narrow victory in the 1982 race. He won 50.91% of the vote. His pro-life opponent, Lewis Lehrman, got 47.48% of the vote. And Robert Bohner, the no-chance candidate of the New York Right to Life Party, got 1%! A few votes went to other candidates. The election was a clear example of what pro-life voters should NOT do. (1) Some considered Mr. Lehrman, the pro-life candidate, as “insufficiently” pro-life, because Mr. Lehrman had doubts about the advisability of a “Human Life” amendment to the Constitution. Hence, these pure pro-lifers refused to vote for him—out of “principle.” What “principle” possessed them to hand the election to “pro-choice” candidate Cuomo by default? (2) Because of this supposed lack of purity on Mr. Lehrman’s part, some grassroots pro-lifers refused to distribute his literature before the election, leaving significant voter blocks uninformed. I have no doubt that “pro-choice” Cuomo was very indebted to them for this kindness. (3) Others carried “principle” even further. They voted for a third-party right-to-life candidate whose only contribution was to take votes away from pro-life candidate Lehrman and, thus, give “pro-choice” candidate Cuomo an election increment of 1%—significant in as tight a race as this. Non-actions and actions have consequences: Suppressing the pro-life vote for a viable candidate (by refusing to vote for him or distribute his literature) or siphoning votes off to a third-party candidate has the unintended consequence of electing the pro-abortion candidate! It’s high time to internalize this lesson and act with a clear head on behalf of the unborn, now and in every election. |