Because it is not political indoctrination! If we teach children to respect life, is that political? If we teach them not to steal or to have generally good values, there is nothing political in that. It just happens that the legality of abortion is currently a political issue. Please try and separate the act from the political debate over it's legality.
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!
I am not hiding the fact that I am pro-life, and neither would a candidate supporting this policy. If moderates wish to support this policy, not because they wish to ultimately ban abortion, but because they wish to see the numbers go down, that is just fine. They will know that the pro-life candidate agrees with their desire to reduce abortions, but would go further in terms of legal restrictions. There is nothing at all wrong with people supporting the same policy for different reasons. If it ever gets to the point where abortion is finally banned, that will occur only after a consensus has been formed -- and the pro-life candidate is free to remind voters of that. But the "slippery slope" argument hasn't kept masses of pro-choicers from supporting the ban on partial-birth abortion, and it shouldn't interfere here either.
"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!)
Now you're just being silly. Confidence in the pro-life message means that you believe that when people know the truth, they will ultimately turn against abortion. This is the confidence that congressional pro-lifers demonstrated in their attempt to ban partial-birth abortion. They knew that when the public became aware of this atrocity, even the pro-choicers would respond. Similarly, we must be confident that abortion can be defeated through spreading the truth of exactly what it is and what it does to children. Without this confidence, we are paralyzed and impotent -- which just so happens to be the current state of the California pro-life movement, unfortunately.
Now, regarding your strategy, I can't see how an elected politician who never mentions abortion is going to inspire the public to be against it (???). Ronald Reagan, you're right, didn't achieve much legislatively. He did, however, run for president both times fully embracing his pro-life position. He articulated it eloquently and won in landslides, even in California and other liberal states. Now, as much as I respect Ronald Reagan, he did not accomplish anything at all lasting for the pro-life movement. Indeed, the abortion rate continued to grow under Reagan and pro-choice public support reached a peak only a couple of years after he left office (interestingly, the abortion rate declined and pro-life support increased under Clinton). That just proves that leaders setting "examples" is not enough, and may actually be irrelevant. We need concrete programs and policies designed to create change. Electing pro-life politicians is not an end in itself. I don't see how you can possibly believe that the mere fact that a pro-lifer sits in some high office is going to compel the people to not have abortions, but fine.
Look, I think it's clear that you don't believe that the pro-life position is a winner politically, or even can be a winner politically. I disagree profoundly. I believe that, if handled correctly, this issue can actually be used to elect Republicans in most parts of the country. You also clearly believe that Simon is being shrewd in his "dodge and run" strategy on the issue (I know you won't like to call it that, but that's exactly what it is). I happen to believe that will only turn off precisely the people who got him the nomination. Pro-lifers don't want to vote for someone who creates the impression that he is ashamed to be pro-life, and who clearly wishes the issue would go away. If Simon suffers the same problem that GW Bush (who also ran from the abortion issue) had to deal with in the presidential election (the fact that millions of conservative Christian voters he had counted on didn't show up to vote for him - Source: Rove), then this abortion strategy will be primarily to blame, in my opinion.
If it is seen as "political", it's political. The nature of politics is that your countrymen get to decide what is "political" and what is not. If enough people think something is "political", then it is. Now, you may not think such a proposal is "political" at all. But I reckon that many other people would see it differently.
Which would make it "political" after all, despite your assurances to the contrary.
If we teach them not to steal or to have generally good values, there is nothing political in that.
Look, again, your countrymen decide what is "political", not just you. The facts on the ground are that telling people Don't Steal is far, far less controversial than telling them Life Begins At Conception. It just is. You don't even have to "believe the media" to believe this. Just ask around. Seriously.
Please try and separate the act from the political debate over it's legality.
Okay, I'll try, but I can't guarantee that other voters will do the same.
Confidence in the pro-life message means that you believe that when people know the truth, they will ultimately turn against abortion.
Then I admit that I'm not sure to what extent I believe this. People believe lots of strange things, from my point of view, and I'm not willing to stake my "confidence" on a belief that I can get large poll numbers to agree with me on any given issue.
...ultimately turn against abortion. This is the confidence that congressional pro-lifers demonstrated in their attempt to ban partial-birth abortion.
No, it' s not. Turning against partial-birth abortion is not the same as turning against abortion. I've said several times already that I think banning PBAs would be much less controversial. But it is a smaller step. A good one, but a smaller one.
Now, regarding your strategy, I can't see how an elected politician who never mentions abortion is going to inspire the public to be against it
It simply cannot be true that Simon "never mentions" abortion. The media would never let him get away with that. And even if all he does is answer their questions about his beliefs sincerely and honestly, then that's something in my book.
I don't see how you can possibly believe that the mere fact that a pro-lifer sits in some high office is going to compel the people to not have abortions, but fine.
I don't think that's what I said. I said it would get people used to the idea that pro-lifers are not monsters to be feared. But you knew that.
Look, I think it's clear that you don't believe that the pro-life position is a winner politically, or even can be a winner politically.
I'll clarify. In certain states, I'd think the pro-life position is a winner politically. In other states, not so much. Even in those states, of course, certain semi pro life issues (such as a ban on PBAs) can still be decent winners politically, and I see no problem with advocating them.
I don't happen to count your Mandated Public School Lessons idea among the likely political winners in the great state of CA, at least at present. Call me crazy but that's my take on the body politic here. I do sure hope that's ok with you.
I disagree profoundly.
Noted.
Pro-lifers don't want to vote for someone who creates the impression that he is ashamed to be pro-life
I'm a pro-lifer, and I'll certainly vote for Simon. For one thing, I will enjoy voting for someone smart enough to realize that a freakin' state governor can't ban abortions. Frankly I'm sick of people (both pro-choicers and pro-lifers) acting as if a governor can do just that. This idea is poisonous. It turns every election, no matter how small, into a referendum on abortion.
then this abortion strategy will be primarily to blame, in my opinion.
Perhaps. One way to ameliorate this situation, you know, would be for pro-lifers like yourself to wise up and realize that Simon is better than Davis and that it's self-defeating to stay home for such purist reasons.
But you could be right, maybe large numbers of pro-lifers will indeed do just that, and stay home. Well boo on them. But it could happen. Like I said before I don't stake too many of my opinions on "confidence" that my fellow voters will do the right thing. I've seen too many examples to the contrary, and pro-lifers staying home and electing Davis to 4 more years because Simon is "not pro life enough" would be one of them.