Weddinton's brief letter to the NYT from 3 years ago confirms at least that what WND claims he said in the letter to Clinton is all of a piece with and the same worldview
as the historic eugenics, basically racist prescriptions/proscriptions of the TRUE right wing in American politics, ( and 20th Century World Politics, for that matter.) I therefore have no reason NOT to believe what is quoted in the WND. They rationalize abortion with the same kind of brutally practical reasoning they ascribe to the bigoted Right's DENIAL of abortion rights to women.
It is assumed that the primary motivation behind the pro-lifers is that they don't want to pay for other people's stupidity and fecklessness in a kind of paroxysm of selfish self-righteousness---- the Left however, only wants to pay for it TO A DEGREE, and of course, only with other people's money---their bottom line is always
"How much can we get away with, and who do we have to pander to to get away with it? And in the case of Weddington's Clinton letter "How much just might prove to be TOO MUCH, at what point could we get hurt politically?" Think about it--they, as we have always known, are the true racists, always putting the most angelic, altruistic, idealistic spin on their social policy, when basically all they wanted to do was to CONTROL the numbers of their beloved Underclass, because they assumed that all "those people" could ever do was require more and more benefits and programs from the socialist utopia the Left dreams about, more perhaps than the Left could ever deliver, if things got out of hand, right?, and then there would be a tipping point, and everything would implode on them and their entitlement constituency, and their image would be ruined, and take a generation or two to recover. The closer you look at Left thinking, the uglier it looks--real Progressive "hope for the future", huh?
Two surprises:
First, that Bill would have left the thing unburned, to be swept-up into archives...guess it was never delivered by the intern.
Second, that the NYT would publish more of the same....it's so hurtful to their cause....ammo for the moral....but, then again, how would one with no morals know what is and is not....moral.
Your analysis of the socialists...pandering....assessing degrees....is, I think, spot-on. I sort of came to the same conclusion after ruminating on the matter ....a lot. Another poster mentioned 'killing their constituents...'; but your model addresses the paradox. TX