The White House, Washington DC Larry Donnelly
At a recent town hall forum sponsored by Fox News, likely Democratic primary voters had a chance to interact with the 38-year-old Mayor of South Bend, Indiana and then a candidate for his party’s presidential nomination, Pete Buttigieg.
One possibly unexpected and trying question came from Kristen Day, head of the Democrats for Life organisation which advocates for “more moderate platform language [on abortion] to ensure that the party of diversity, of inclusion really does include everybody”.
Language
Ms Day rather modestly asked if ‘Mayor Pete’ could back “language…that said that we understand that people have very differing views on this issue, but we are a big tent party?”
Mr Buttigieg’s long-winded and circuitous reply was nonetheless crystal clear: No. The town hall moderator, Chris Wallace, didn’t let go. He said: “So what do you say to Democrats who are pro-life…on an issue of such conscience, that they should overlook this particular issue and look at the whole sum of views, or go find another party?”
While Mr Buttigieg declined to answer the final part of the question in the affirmative, his subsequent comment – “that’s just where I am on the issue” – was a telling response. This is quite a hard-line position for one deliberately portrayed by himself and thereafter by media organs in the United States as a moderate.
Earlier on in the campaign, when asked at a debate if the anti-abortion Democratic Governor of Louisiana, John Bel Edwards, who had shortly before been re-elected against the odds, was welcome in the party, not one of the candidates on stage had either the guts or the political nous to speak warmly of Governor Edwards or to congratulate him on his triumph.
***
Louisiana is one of the reddest states in America and ordinarily hostile territory for Democrats. Mr Edwards’ victory actually demonstrates that it is entirely sensible and politically astute for the Democrats to be, as Kristen Day urges, a “big tent party”. But what was the loftiest praise any of the debaters could muster for Governor Edwards? It was Elizabeth Warren’s tepid assertion that she’s “not here to drive anyone out of this party”.
At a lower level of electoral politics stateside, the Democratic Attorney General Association announced last year that it would not endorse or provide financial and strategic backing for anyone who “does not support reproductive rights and expanding access to abortion services”.
In sum, it is clear that there is no room at the inn for putative Democratic political candidates with objections to or reservations about abortion. It didn’t used to be this way.
In fact, one very prominent Democrat opined at the start of his political career that “when it comes to issues like abortion…I’m about as liberal as your grandmother. I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion (Roe vs Wade). I think it went too far. I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body”.
While his perspective definitely changed over the years, in 2007, he wrote that “I still vote against partial birth abortion and federal funding, and I’d like to make it easier for scared young mothers to choose not to have an abortion”.
The author of those words is Joe Biden, former vice-president and current presidential candidate, who now refuses to say whether John Bel Edwards is wanted in the Democratic Party.
Not so long ago, there were dozens of Democratic members of the US Congress who thought as Joe Biden once did. This writer’s uncle, Brian Donnelly, was one of them when he served seven terms in the House of Representatives from 1979-1993 and, memorably for many Irish people, was the driving force behind the bill that became known as the Donnelly Visa.
Even then, despite his being among the most powerful behind the scenes operators on Capitol Hill and his enjoying very close personal relationships with Speaker Tom Foley and Ways and Means Committee Chair Dan Rostenkowski, Brian was made to understand that, as long as he voted against liberal abortion legislation, a formal leadership position lay beyond his reach because of how big money donors and left-wing lobby groups would react.
And they have certainly won the war. There are a mere handful of Democrats in Washington, DC left who oppose abortion. Two of them are facing serious and well-funded ardently pro-choice primary challengers at present.
How did the party become so vehemently and, indeed, proudly intolerant of variations in outlook on abortion? Well, a considerable amount has correctly been made of the polarisation of American politics. Two factors have been central to this.
First is the role of the almighty dollar and special interest groups. Put bluntly, there isn’t much money to be found in moderation or in nuance. Extremism is where it’s at. The pro-choice lobby invested all of its resources in the Democrats; the pro-life movement flocked to the Republicans. Second is the highly partisan, but simultaneously mutually beneficial, gerrymandering of congressional districts to ensure that they are ‘safe’ for one party or the other. Hence, the more trenchantly the standard bearer espouses the party line, the better her cash raising and electoral prospects.
Analysis of political polarisation in the US typically dwells on the pronounced drift to the right of the GOP. And that is manifest. Less emphasised, though, is the Democrats’ undeniable collective lurch to the left, and to the cultural left in particular.
For a number of complicated reasons, the latter grouping has probably paid a heavier price for repudiating centrism. This has opened a chasm between a not insignificant swathe of its traditional voters and those who aspire to lead them.
***
Writing in this winter’s edition of National Affairs magazine, John Murdock notes that, while the Democratic presidential candidates literally struggle to identify any specific restrictions on abortion they favour, 34% of ordinary, registered Democrats described themselves as pro-life in an opinion poll taken in 2019 by Marist College. And looking across numerous surveys and allowing for myriad variables, it is virtually impossible to dispute the finding that one in five Democrats is against abortion in most circumstances. Crucially, African American and Latino Democrats are generally far more anti-abortion.
Irish readers might retort that political parties must take positions on issues and, if individual members can’t accept what is adopted, they should leave. That ignores the unfortunate, peculiar, systemic reality that there are only two viable parties (thanks to their collusive efforts to perpetuate this arrangement) in a country of approximately 325 million people who are diverse in every conceivable fashion. Theirs ought to be large, accommodating, malleable tents.
That said, there are genuine differences between Democrats and Republicans. Anti-abortion Democrats, especially those with a strong religious faith and just as those on the left who have a divergent view on when life begins, often oppose Republican policies which they think treat immigrants and poor people badly. They believe in human rights.
In a similar vein, they lament the gross excesses of the unfettered capitalism that is a sine qua non of political conservatism and that has made the US an astonishingly unequal and unfair society in 2020. For lots of these Democrats who are committed to staying in a shrinking tent as a result, casting a ballot for Donald Trump is not an option. Others are persuadable, however.
As such, it is more the pity that Democrats who disagree with abortion are deemed second class citizens by candidates who desperately need their votes to deny this abhorrent president a second term. Leaving aside what’s right and what’s wrong, it’s dumb politics. D-U-M-B.
Larry Donnelly is a Boston attorney, a Law Lecturer at NUI Galway and a regular media commentator on politics, law and current affairs in Ireland and the US.
Twitter: @LarryPDonnelly