Again, the fear of the media and the leftist spinmeisters. They succeed only if pro-lifers let them. I've told you how this should be spun. To be against informed choice is to be against choice. But, yes it has to be argued aggressively that way -- the left won't automatically agree (surprise!).
Here, you're less right. It is an attempt at political indoctrination. That's the whole point and the whole reason you'd like to see it happen. You want to "change the culture" by "mandating" from the governor's chair that students be taught certain things. Right? That's the definition of political indoctrination.
Nonsense. It is human development education that serves the purpose of informing people about matters which are extremely relevant to their lives, since so many of them have, or procure, abortions. Whether someone is pro-life or pro-choice, they can easily see the value of it. If you see political indoctrination here, it's only because you have been convinced by the pro-abortion press that discouraging abortion is automatically equated with wanting to ban it. I will remind you that there are many pro-choicers who believe abortion is wrong and would be receptive to the idea of discouraging it through education. Many of them are right here on FR.
"We" will lose whether or not we are cowards, if we engage in campaign strategies which do not acknowledge reality.
Prescisely, Dr. Frank! And the political reality is that the majority of people, even in your state, are not rabidly pro-abortion. The fact is that, despite your assurances, we don't know how the public would respond to a pro-life agenda of this sort -- one that concentrates on cultural change, instead of first trimester abortion bans. Polls indicate that, at least nationally, the general concept of informed choice is very strongly supported by the people (upwards of 75%), and it can't be that much different in California (if it is, please cite the poll -- not a Field poll, please). Now, you have made it clear that you "could be wrong" about this, but we'll never know until we try, will we? All I'm asking is that we be a little open minded and show some spine.
You keep implicitly accusing me of "wanting" pro-life ideas to fail. This is very funny. Based on what (other than paranoia) can you possibly be saying such things?
Perhaps you're right. It's just that you don't seem terribly confident about pro-life issues. I hope that you're not a passive pro-lifer, because they really aren't of any more use than the "personally opposed" pro-choicers. But, I apologize if I've offended you.
I guess I'm not as pessimistic as you are. I still think there's hope if we are patient and adopt pragmatic strategies.
Ok, now this is good. What "pragmatic strategies" are you referring to, Dr. Frank? Would one of these strategies be to "change the subject" and run from the abortion issue? Tell me, how exactly are we to expect pro-life victories in the future if we never talk about abortion? You have insisted that the cultural efforts I've suggested will be politically impossible, so how can we possibly expect that any restrictions of any meaning will ever be achievable? If you are not "politically unsophisticated," then you know that cultural change is necessary before any lasting enforceable law can be put into place. Is it just going to happen? Is California and the rest of the country just going to awaken one morning and realize that we're right about abortion? I've actually suggested the policies that are needed to build the ultimate victory for the pro-life movement by changing the culture. You claim optimism, but show no plan that would call for it.
This is to deny reality. Media demonization can succeed even if pro-lifers don't "let" them. And again, it's not just the media. The voting population of California is not all that receptive to pro-life messages. That is the political reality which you advocate ignoring, as if one can simply pretend the voting public's beliefs are other than what they are.
[It is an attempt at political indoctrination. ] Nonsense.
Now you are just arguing the meaning of words. Saying that you wish to "change the culture" is just a softer way of saying you want to politically indoctrinate people in a certain way. Why not just admit it? There's nothing inherently wrong with political "indoctrination" per se. This is a democracy and persuasion is perfectly valid. You have advocated teaching children certain things and your stated goal is persuasion - to "change the culture" - for a certain political goal (reducing, ultimately ending abortions).
That is "an attempt at political indoctrination", by the raw plain meaning of those terms. Again, why not just admit it?
It is human development education that serves the purpose of informing people about matters which are extremely relevant to their lives
Fine, but it also serves the purpose of "changing the culture". That was your stated goal in the first place. Of course I agree that "we're just trying to give them facts we need" is a better way to spin it, but that's not your actual goal per se. You know it and I know it. (And there's nothing wrong with that! So why not admit it?)
If you see political indoctrination here, it's only because you have been convinced by the pro-abortion press that discouraging abortion is automatically equated with wanting to ban it.
No, I see political indoctrination here because the term fits. Keep in mind, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do.
Anyway, in your case, you do want to ban abortion, right? So it's a little disingenuous to argue this way, "just because I want to discourage abortion doesn't mean I want to ban it". But you do!
And the political reality is that the majority of people, even in your state, are not rabidly pro-abortion.
I think I'd agree with that. However, (my take is that) neither is a majority rabidly pro-life or even all that receptive to pro-life measures and programs. My take is that the population is largely skittish about this matter: instinctively they recognize something is wrong with abortion, however politicians who talk about it too much scare them. That's my take. I COULD BE WRONG. However, it leads me to believe that Simon's apparent strategy is the correct one from a campaign point of view. I COULD BE WRONG. SIMON COULD BE WRONG.
But it doesn't mean any of us are "not pro-life". It just means we have a different take on the political situation than, evidently, you do. Got it?
Now, you have made it clear that you "could be wrong" about this, but we'll never know until we try, will we?
Perhaps not. And you are right, Simon is not "trying". Personally I don't fault him for it (because I would do the same, if I wanted to be governor). I understand that you do, and respect this opinion on your part. I don't happen to share it (I still prefer a Governor Simon to Governor Davis, thank you very much :)
All I'm asking is that we be a little open minded and show some spine.
I understand that from your point of view, that's all you're asking. However, my take of the political climate is that what you're asking would lead to defeat, pure and simple. That's my take. IT COULD BE WRONG. But it's my take. And presumably Simon's.
I'm sorry that candidates who take such an approach disappoint you so much. You are probably disappointed by many many candidates. I'm not sure what else there is to say.
It's just that you don't seem terribly confident about pro-life issues.
What do you mean by "confident"? I happen to think abortion is wrong. It is true that i am not "confident" that a huge majority of my fellow citizens, especially in CA, share this view. Should I be "confident" of such a thing, even if it defies demographic and political reality?
"Confidence" that flies in the face of facts is more properly termed "delusion", I think. (I am "confident" that I can step off this building and fly off into the air!)
I hope that you're not a passive pro-lifer, because they really aren't of any more use than the "personally opposed" pro-choicers. But, I apologize if I've offended you.
I don't see how I could be offended, given that I don't know what a "passive pro-lifer" is. I am what I am. It's too bad if my views go against what you "hope" I am. But, oh well.
What "pragmatic strategies" are you referring to, Dr. Frank? Would one of these strategies be to "change the subject" and run from the abortion issue?
No, not at all. I'll tell you one pragmatic strategy I have in mind.
Currently, it seems to be the case that abortion is so divisive that the media can practically take any pro-life candidate and turn him into a bogeyman in the minds of a significant portion of the electorate. Even if he's the kind of Riordan type quote-unquote pro-lifer who you are complaining about in this thread, the media and leftists can still scare a third of women out of even considering voting for him - for anything (President, Governor, Dog Catcher... ;)
This describes my aunt perfectly. She is not politically astute or all that smart about political issues. She is not that ideological or dogmatic about very much of anything. Except. Abortion. You put a pro-life person in front of her and she will find a reason to hate him and claim that he is "scary"; you put a pro-choice person in front of her and she will come up with all sorts of rationalizations for why the person is good and wonderful. I submit that this describes an unhealthily large component of the electorate, in a nutshell: they are in effect single-issue pro-choice voters, whether or not they know it - and not only that, but they apply this fanaticism to every single public office, whether or not that office has any say over the abortion issue!
This is not good. IMHO it has created a built-in bias not just against pro-lifers but against conservatives and Republicans in general, and it tilts the country artificially to the left (because of the correlation between abortion and leftism).
So, one good first step would be to dissipate this irrational Fear Of Pro-Lifers amongst what could be and should be many potential conservative (and, eventually, given enough time to think about it) pro-life voters. I am thinking of people like soccer moms - who, in general, shouldn't even be that leftist at all, if you think about it.
But, you put a pro-life guy up for, say, state governor. Media machine and Dem spinmeisters get rolling: "He's against women's rights!" (euphemism for, pro-life). Soccer moms get scared. Guy loses. Dem governor. This helps the pro-life cause?
What if we did the following: remind the voters of the basic fact that a freakin' state governor can't outlaw abortions! If we get such dumb voters used to the idea that they can vote in a pro-life governor and he won't overturn Roe v. Wade (because he can't), then we have accomplished a lot. We inoculate these voters against their irrational, overarching fear of all things Pro-Life. We allow them to safely get in the habit of voting for "personally Pro-Life" people (which, currently, many many people are completely afraid to do), even if they themselves are pro-choice. Essentially, we start having a chance of breaking the Single-Issue Pro-Choice juggernaut, which IMHO is corrosive and cancerous not only because of the abortion issue, but for the country in general.
Now fast forward some years. Suppose there are plenty of personally pro-life people in offices that they attained with the help of votes even from some pro-choicers. And suppose that they do a good job and are decent people and set good examples (as, I think, Simon would). I submit that the mere presence of decent leaders who hold pro-life views will help to "change the culture", as you desire. It's called leadership by example. If Governor Simon does a decent job and people respect him, then maybe even some pro-choicers will start to ponder his stance on abortion and have some respect for it - even if Simon doesn't actually do anything from the governor's chair about abortion.
I guess when I think about "changing the culture" and doing so in a patient and pragmatic way, I naturally think of a necessary first step in the process. That first step is to disabuse the soccer moms out there of the silly notion that pro-life people are crazed demonic zealots. But you simply can't do that if they have no respectable examples to look up to, because they all lose every election they enter. Make sense?
Tell me, how exactly are we to expect pro-life victories in the future if we never talk about abortion?
On a more basic level: how exactly are we to expect pro-life victories in the future if we encourage all pro-lifers to sabotage their own elections?
You have insisted that the cultural efforts I've suggested will be politically impossible, so how can we possibly expect that any restrictions of any meaning will ever be achievable?
You know something? Maybe we can't. Maybe abortion will never, ever be outlawed. That is a possibility we have to consider. But in the meantime, the best we can do is to try to get pro-life people elected.
If you are not "politically unsophisticated," then you know that cultural change is necessary before any lasting enforceable law can be put into place.
Right. Exactly. So the cultural change I envision is to get certain people used to the idea that It's OK To Vote For A Pro-Lifer Sometimes, Really! Right now, there is a significant chunk of the electorate (I'm not claiming it's a majority, just that it's significant) which is frightened of ever doing this, for any office. This must change before pro-lifers will get anywhere. Then later on, maybe some laws and programs and such can be passed. In a sense, you want to do things in the reverse order, and I just don't think it would work.
You claim optimism, but show no plan that would call for it.
My plan is very simple: get decent people with pro-life views elected, and out in front of the public, and let them lead by the example of their conscience.
Let's take Reagan. I reckon you'd agree that Reagan was a wonderful pro-life voice. Didn't actually do very much with his government power, did he? But he was a good spokesman, and if he has any lasting effect it's by example - because of his beliefs and what he thought - rather than by any particular "programs" he put into place.
"Programs" are fleeting and you're right, I don't have much confidence that this or that engineeered program can have a huge lasting effect on the culture. Changing the culture requires much more than that. For one thing it requires getting the culture attuned to seeing decent pro-life people in public life. Which can never happen if they never get elected to anything, you see.