Abortion Politics IV: The Crazy Left

The recent kerfuffle over the National Abortion Rights Action League’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama put the radically pro-choice organization at the center of the news. They were denounced by several pro-choice feminists, including Ellen Malcolm, the head of EMILY’s List, a group that seeks to elect pro-choice women to public office, saying the endorsement was "disrespectful" to Hillary Clinton. Why did NARAL make their decision now? Throughout the campaign season, women’s groups had been firmly backing Clinton’s bid. Once it became clear that Obama’s lead was insurmountable, NARAL undoubtedly thought it wise to get on board the winning bandwagon. The prospect of a Democratic nominee who is in no way beholden to the most archly pro-choice groups, who does not feel he has to take their phone calls or make their goals his top priority, is a fearsome scenario for an interest group that succeeds by manipulating the levers of power in Washington. "Looks like some higher ups at NARAL are trying to get jobs in the new administration," commented former congresswomen Pat Schroeder and Geraldine Ferraro in a joint letter. Several of their state affiliates rejected the national organization’s decision. A large part of their concern was with the effect the decision would have on donors. Special interest groups like NARAL take on a life of their own. They draw their financial backing from the most ideologically extreme members of the political class. Thus, their staffs have a vested interest in staking out the most aggressive positions, fighting with the most extreme tactics, fighting at the fringes not at the center. Their power wanes the second a nominee moves from the primaries to a general election, so they needed to cash their chips now. But, in this instance, the desire to get on the bandwagon touched a raw nerve among their donor base. New York state’s NARAL chapter said the endorsement was like "throwing a flaming spear into a tinderbox of raw emotion." NARAL’s fight is not Obama’s fight. Voters for whom a pro-abortion stance is the only issue are not about to vote for a Republican. And the group Obama most needs help from as he tries to unite the Democratic party are the more conservative, often Catholic, less affluent blue collar workers who backed Clinton in the primaries. That group does not share NARAL’s priorities to say the least. A thoughtful article in yesterday’s Washington Post Outlook section discussed the cultural conservatives whom Obama must win over, labeling them "Casey Democrats, the sobriquet derived from the name of the pro-life former Governor of Pennsylvania Bob Casey and his son who is now a Senator from the Keystone state." The leadership of NARAL, NOW and Emily’s List have no reason to be moderate on their issue. They have no reason to care about the center of the political spectrum. People who are genuinely ambivalent about abortion do not donate to these groups. But, most Americans are ambivalent about abortion and Obama should consider himself fortunate to have come this far without relying upon these extreme groups. Michael Sean Winters