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.
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.