If George W. Bush misreads his moral values mandate, he may give to the Democrats the issue they need to end the Republican realignment.
It should be fairly obvious to any reasonably astute political observer that the Democratic Party and its constituents seem to have thoroughly misread the meaning of the 2004 elections. Just listen to the recent non sequiturs being shamelessly espoused by Senator Kerry, as well as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, wherein they are now suggesting — with straight faces, mind you — that President Bush won re-election as a result of the surprise Osama bin Laden videotape emerging right before Election Day. Or, if you’ve got the stomach for it, take a peek at all the Democratic bloggers across the country who are still waxing pathetic about Kerry losing due to a — get this — Republican cabal that caused computer-driven voting errors in Bush’s favor throughout crucial Ohio and Florida precincts.
Irrespective of left-wing lamentation, it is critical for Republicans to not make the same errors in judgment or they could end up ceding the momentum they have enjoyed for the past decade. In fact, it is imperative for the administration to fully recognize what the electorate has given them a mandate for, and not overstep such authorization by misinterpreting the public’s intent.
Potentially, one of the areas that is the most gray within this mandate is that involving moral values. Certainly, this has been a huge topic of discussion since November 2, and with good reason. Without reiterating what now should be obvious, it is quite apparent that the electorate perceived a huge chasm between the two candidates with regard to this issue, and that this might have been the difference in the President’s victory. With this in mind, the administration still must accurately divine what was in the hearts of the majority of the populace as they made their choices on Election Day, and not educe conclusions that cross potentially dangerous boundaries.
As we take yet another look at the exit polls, one of the issues that appears to have struck a chord with voters during the campaign was certainly the matter of same-sex marriages. Only 25% of those exit-polled believed that this should be legal. By comparison, 37% said there should be no such recognition, while 35% favored civil unions. Additionally, even though more Republicans are opposed to legalizing such marriages, this is a much more bipartisan position than most Democrats would like to admit. To some degree, this suggests — and is certainly supported by the ballot initiatives that passed to ban same-sex marriages in the eleven states that had them — the President does have a mandate to advance such legislation if he chooses to do so.
By contrast, only 16% of those polled said that abortion should be 100% illegal, while 21% believed that it should be legal under all circumstances. In addition, 34% stated that it should be mostly legal, while 26% felt that it should be mostly illegal. Adding it up, 81% of the electorate maintained that abortion should either be legal, mostly legal, or mostly illegal. What this suggests is that the President does not specifically have a mandate to either advance the appointment of judges that would overturn Roe v. Wade, or propose legislation to effectively ban all abortions.
Now, I am sure that a lot of my Conservative brethren are going to be very uncomfortable with the above assertion, especially those that are devoutly pro-life. However, after 24 years of continued Republican gains in all areas of federal and state government, would it be wise to start acting like Democrats by establishing a litmus test for membership into the GOP over this one issue?
Let’s look at some facts. The Republican Party has been enjoying a fabulous rebirth since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. Without question, this was furthered in 1994 when the Republicans took back the Congress, and has continued right up to this most recent election. Any honest and comprehensive political analysis of what has been transpiring in America during this period would conclude that one of the primary reasons the Republicans have been making such strong gains election after election is due to how far the Democrats have separated themselves ideologically from the ethos of the nation.
As demonstrated by the exit polling data already shared, nowhere is this better exemplified than in the abortion issue, for if you want to be successful running for office as a Democrat today, you had better be pro-choice. Period. By contrast, even though the GOP is labeled as the pro-life party, it has clearly positioned itself as being much more tolerant on this issue. For example, of the approximately 430 Republicans who ran for various Congressional and Gubernatorial positions this year, fully 76 did not consider themselves to be 100% pro-life.
As a result, it is fairly clear that one of the mistakes the Democrats have made in the past 24 years is in headlining this issue as one of their signature platforms, and becoming a party that only accepts folks who believe that abortions should be legal all the time without any federal or state restrictions. Unfortunately, since only 21% of the population shares this view, the Democrats have continually shut themselves off to the 60% of the country that either believes that abortion should be partially legal, or partially illegal. That’s a huge swath of the nation to separate yourself from every two years as it heads to the polls.
By contrast, regardless of leftist protestations to the contrary, the Republicans have not been anywhere near as divisive on this issue. In accepting the pro-choice opinions of some very high-profile members such as Rudy Giuliani, Arlen Specter, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the GOP has actually positioned itself as being a very large tent. Unquestionably, this has been a winning strategy, for with only 16% of the nation wanting to ban abortion, and the President receiving 51% of the votes cast, this means that a lot more people voted for the President who support abortion in some form than want it to be completely illegal.
Coincidentally, as reported in a recently released CBS News/NY Times poll, there isn’t even a majority of registered Republicans who want abortion to be thoroughly banned. In fact, only 37% of GOP members polled felt that abortion should be 100% illegal. This compares to 9% of Democrats and 20% of Independents. By contrast, basically 44% of all three voting groups advocated stricter limits upon abortion — 45% of Republicans and 43% of Democrats and Independents. When added to the November 4 AP-Ipsos poll findings that 61% of the electorate doesn’t want Roe overturned, it quite suggests that the ethos of the nation right now is for stricter abortion limits — not a ban — imposed legislatively, not judicially. Given this, the Bush administration has to be careful not to move so far to the right on this issue that it alienates the majority of Republicans and Independents who don’t advocate a complete abortion ban.
Without question, this becomes even more important with Senator Clinton looming on the horizon. Clearly, since the Roe v. Wade decision, the Democrats have done a fabulous job of convincing the female portion of the electorate that they have to vote for them or the Republicans will take away their uterine rights. However, in the past couple of elections, this strategy appears to not be working as well as it used to given the five-percentage point improvement that Mr. Bush enjoyed at the polls with women this year versus his 2000 performance.
Consequently, if the administration draws such a huge line in the sand over this issue, and goes against roughly 80% of the electorate to placate the roughly 20% who support a total abortion ban, this could give the Democrats — and, in particular, a pro-choice Hillary Clinton — the rallying cry that they have been sorely lacking since the Republicans took back the Congress in 1994. Just imagine the kind of tumult a pro-choice, female, former First Lady-turned senator from ultra-liberal New York can muster with the full support of the ultra-liberal, pro-choice, mainstream media. Now, add in some movies from co-conspirator, Michael Moore, thereby energizing the ultra-liberal, pro-choice, Hollywood elites, with some more millions thrown in from George Soros, and you have the makings of a political sideshow like none of us could possibly imagine.
In the end, such an eventuality would not only jeopardize the administration’s ability to affect other legislation that Mr. Bush actually campaigned for — tort reform, tax simplification, social security reform, and the War on Terror — but also could endanger Republican control of the Congress in 2006, and the White House in 2008. With the electorate clearly not in support of such a drastic measure at this point in our history, does this appear to be a good wager?
If the Republicans should have learned anything from the past 24 years, it is that the Democrats really have no issue to hang their hats on. Misread the tealeaves concerning this moral values mandate, though, and you’ve just given them one that could not only end the Republican realignment that began in 1980, but might also resuscitate a party that currently appears to be gasping for its final breaths.
slep@danvillebc.com
Read more articles by Noel Sheppard
