In a surprising display of collective amnesia, the Democrats seem to stubbornly ignore discussing the catastrophic implications of the divisive stance they took on the issue of abortion in the last elections. Desperate for a victory, they bet all their chips on the Supreme Court’s reversal of the landmark Roe v. Wade case. This gamble was grounded in what appeared to be a comforting statistic for them – periodic polls indicating that a majority of Americans disapproved of the legal ruling.
However, the Democrats’ strategy proved to be cringingly faulty as they experienced a regrettable erosion of their support base among women despite having placed abortion rights at the forefront of their campaign. A majority of critiques place the blame on the ailing economy; however, this overlooks the possibility that the Democrats’ unwavering focus on abortion rights could have sabotaged the public resonance of their economic agenda.
Achieving an upsetting statistic, nearly 80% of voters whose primary concern was the economy turned their backs on the Democrats, while a meager 23% identified abortion as a top priority issue. This underwhelming performance was not merely due to the focus but also the unpalatable tone adopted by the Democrats. In an infuriating evolution, the party’s discourse on abortion has soured in its divisiveness over the past decade.
The rhetoric adopted by the party in discussing those who oppose or advocate for abortion restrictions has assumed an incendiary and alienating approach suggesting a ‘control of women’s bodies’ by those who ‘don’t trust women’, quickly reducing them to ‘weird’. A less bellicose approach towards this sensitive issue, as adopted by previous administrations, may have played a significant role in their relative success.
Case in point, consider a former president who maintained a largely apolitical approach towards abortion, tactfully avoiding any mention of it during his convention speech. A telling instance was the propagation of an objective to keep abortion ‘safe, legal, and rare’, a phrase that has now become taboo amongst the party activists who object to the term ‘rare’.
An illustrative episode unfolded when a pro-life doctor resolved to change his voting pattern owing to the polarizing comments made by the Democrats. He pled for a more balanced dialog on abortion without demonizing those with opposing views into a caricature, adding that it was possible to respectfully argue differing viewpoints and still strive for common ground on issues like reducing unintended pregnancies, promoting adoptions, and improving maternal care.
Tragically, the Democratic party seems to have lost sight of this harmonizing approach. It is worth noting that approximately one-quarter of moderate or conservative Democrats or independents leaning Democrat believe abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. Sadly, these dissenters are not being heard as the party is pursuing an unscrupulous drive of homogeneous thinking or ‘litmus tests’ for issues such as abortion, guns, and health care.
These actions stand in stark contrast to former Representative’s remarks, ‘We’ve always been a party with a big tent and diversity.’ Yet, the reality today paints a disturbing picture of this tent decreasing in size and diversity. An instance that underlines this fact is the cold shoulder turned towards a group titled ‘Democrats for Life’ who were part of an event.
Even when the leader of this sidelined group is vying for a high-ranking position within the party, there is an unfortunate lack of enthusiasm shown by delegates to endorse her bid. The leader highlighted the struggle faced by those who don’t fully align with the party’s rigid stances, stating that ‘I represent the people who don’t have a 100% scorecard, but we still want to be part of the party because there’s a lot we agree with — on paid parental leave, the child tax credit’ and other pro-family issues.
The Democratic party is advised to listen to these neglected voices who propose a middle-path consensus instead of ridiculing their standpoint. The party’s refusal to entertain a diverse range of views, especially on abortion, might be one of the reasons for its worsening popularity in regions that have flipped from blue to red.
This fact is underscored by the recent significant success of ‘Democrats for Life’s’ political action committee, which backed 39 candidates, with an astounding 37 emerging victorious. Such results lend credence to the argument that the party’s obstinate rejection of a unifying spirit might be digging its own grave.
Finally, if the Democrats hope to regain their lost territories, they need to radically change their stance and foster an environment that promotes unity rather than division. Only then will the Democratic party be able to present a formidable challenge to their opponents and reclaim the districts they once ruled.