I suppose I'm inclined to agree. However, even Courageous Newt didn't do a whole lot about abortion that I can recall. Keep in mind that we are talking about a very specific issue here (abortion). I reckon if Newt and his revolution has a legacy for which he deserves credit, it's welfare reform.
We are not talking about welfare reform. My views on the electability of candidates advocating strong welfare reform positions are much different, you realize.
I don't think that Simon's strategy, articulated by Dr. Frank, of letting many issues remain silent, and then trying to move policy on them without a mandate once in office, is the way to carry one's argument with the people.
Actually I'll go you one further. I didn't mean to imply (and don't really think) that Simon will, after remaining silent, spring helmsman's ideas on the state after winning. I essentially agreed with helmsman that a Governor Simon would have little tangible pro-life impact on the policy of the state (except perhaps by comparison with the Davis alternative). My argument with him was more focused on (1) rebutting the notion of a Simon "reversal", and (2) slightly more generally, the idea that a Simon failure to live up to helmsman's prescriptions for changing the culture to a pro-life position means he's "not pro-life".
Please, just try to imagine a gubernatorial candidate saying in a debate "I think it should be mandated that every public school student be taught that life begins at conception, and I will make this mandate my first priority as governor." This is not welfare reform we're talking about.
You may get what you want, but you'll never be able to claim a mandate.
The presumption here seems to be that such a mandate exists, or can exist after a few months of a campaign by a vigorous pro-lifer. I guess I don't think so. Now before you accuse me of believing media lies, No, I don't think the state (not even California) is so monolithically pro-abortion as the media would like us to believe. Maybe the ratio of strong pro-aborts to strong pro-lifers here is something relatively modest: 45-35 or 42-38 or 37-31 or 37-35 or even 35-37 for all I know. But the idea that a candidate could find a mandate to call upon, or create one, by advocating such things as tax money being spent on pro-life commercial advertisements strikes me as completely out of touch with reality. (Of course I could be wrong, as I've said many times on this thread :)
Nevertheless, it is necessary to engage them, even to lose, to show the world how abysmal their values are, and to provoke them to mighty lies that will undo their cause later
I guess what I like about Simon's (apparent) position is the following: 1. he is consistent and sincere in saying that his personal beliefs are pro-life. 2. he is pragmatic and in touch with reality by acknowledging that a state governor, under our current governmental setup, lacks the power to outlaw abortions. The conclusion is clear, his personal beliefs are what they are but he has no intention of violating the power of his position. Those who would argue with him have an uphill climb - they have to argue that no decent person should even privately hold a pro-life opinion (which will expose them, which is what you want, right?), or they have to scare people into thinking that he will indeed abuse and overreach his power once in office (which is an untenable claim to be making as long as Simon remains consistent), or both.
On the contrary, Newt Gingrich's revolutionaries were the ones who had the nerve to introduce the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which set off a national debate over late abortions and their consequences to the child. This, in turn, created cultural change. Not only did it grow pro-life public support generally and solidify the social consensus against late abortions, but it also made the pro-life agenda politically easier to accomplish by showing those in this country who are not pro-life exactly why pro-lifers are. All of a sudden, we weren't a bunch of woman-hating neanderthals, we were possibly a group of humanitarians legitimately concerned about the suffering of children. We were "on to something," as the liberal columnist Richard Cohen put it. But, I suppose you also disapproved of taking the political risks involved in pushing this ban, didn't you?
Please, just try to imagine a gubernatorial candidate saying in a debate "I think it should be mandated that every public school student be taught that life begins at conception, and I will make this mandate my first priority as governor." This is not welfare reform we're talking about.
I wouldn't expect a pro-life candidate to put it in those terms, anymore than I would expect a pro-abortion candidate to say "I think it should be mandated that every public school student be taught that life begins at birth, and that abortion is therefore morally justifiable." The pro-abortion candidate would not say this, even though that is essentially what he supports and what is already going on in many schools. A more sophisticated way to sell this pro-life policy would be to turn the concept of choice back on the pro-abortionists by saying "There can be no choice in abortion if the decision is made by a woman without a full understanding of the developmental issues concerning the unborn child. While abortion is currently legal in this state, it should never be practiced in ignorance. I, therefore, support a full range of common sense policies designed to educate the public about fetal development and abortion alternatives so that we may insure that women, and those who counsel them, are making an educated and informed choice they can live with." There, you see, doesn't that sound a lot better? Now, tell me, are you this politically unsophisticated on all issues, or just abortion? Perhaps you're better at welfare reform?
The conclusion is clear, his [Simon's] personal beliefs are what they are but he has no intention of violating the power of his position
And he would not be violating his position as governor at all by aggressively advocating informed consent, a partial-birth abortion ban, and cultural initiatives to reduce abortions. And what does it matter if his "personal beliefs" are pro-life if he won't act on them? I hear that Richard Riordan is also supposedly "personally opposed" to abortion. And, of course, he too would have done nothing as governor to stop or reduce the practice. So, we agree then that, as it stands, there really is no serious difference between Riordan and Simon on this issue, right?
Good point. It reminds me of a passage in Vance Packard's book, The Opinion Makers, in which he described how The New York Times ran Nelson Rockefeller for president in 1963 and early 1964, booming up his excursions into Stickland into auguries of a successful candidacies, when many of the people who turned out to see him were just mildly curious about what a centimillionaire looked like. At that time, something like 70% of the likely delegates to the GOP Convention wanted Barry Goldwater as their candidate. This advantage reflected the organizing work of F. Clifton White and his band of conservative heroes, and the bent of the Main Street Republican who'd been bathing in Camelot rhetoric and liberal journalism for four years. But when asked who they thought would be the actual nominee of the party, a majority of these selfsame delegates named Nelson Rockefeller. This divergence, Packard concluded, was entirely the result of the East Coast press campaign.
Elsewhere in his book, btw, Packard noted how the Columbia J-school's annual student poll already showed in the 1950's and 1960's the strong climb in the proportion of students who responded that their attraction to journalism had sprung from a desire to change society. It was already past the halfway mark, and of course since then that proportion has risen above 80%. All liberals, all trying to use the power of the press to determine outcomes, bless their ashy-black little hearts.