The analysis of the Democrats’ downfall in the previous electoral cycle seems to blatantly ignore their overemphasis on abortion. They assumed that the abolition of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court would act as a perfect launchpad for their campaign. Seemingly, they found solace in the false premise supported by surveys showing a majority of Americans disapproved of the judgment. However, this trump card turned out to be a mirage as Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, despite making abortion rights a critical pillar of their campaign, experienced a drop in their vote share among women.
Most are quick to place the blame on the economic conditions, but the real reason might just be the Democratic party’s focal attraction towards the subject of abortion rights. This obsession inadvertently placed a curtain over Harris’s economic policies in the eyes of the electorate. It’s quite telling that a large majority of voters who prioritized the economy ended up siding with Donald Trump. Only a minor fragment of the voter base even considered abortion as a primary concern.
The mere intensification of the issue was not the only misstep by the Democrats, but the manner in which they addressed it also played a significant part. The party’s rhetoric on abortion has spiraled into a divisive tool over the years, often donning an aggressive and blame-ridden tone. Painting those inclined towards banning or restricting abortion as manipulators with intent to ‘control women’s bodies’ simply because they ‘don’t trust women,’ or calling them ‘weird,’ hasn’t helped the party at all.
While the Democrats may find this combative approach justifiable due to the end of Roe, they might do well to reference their past. Notably, the last three Democrats to seal the presidency steered clear from these types of inflammatory remarks. Joe Biden, in his 2020 run, mostly sidestepped the topic, even going as far as not mentioning it in his convention speech.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, spoke passionately about striving to make abortion ‘safe, legal, and rare.’ The word ‘rare,’ however, is now considered unacceptable by radical party activists. Similarly, Barack Obama, a staunch supporter of abortion rights, exercised considerable care not to demonize opposing views.
During his 2009 speech at the University of Notre Dame, he narrated a personal incident where a pro-life doctor expressed a desire to vote for him but was skeptical due to the language used on Obama’s campaign website. The doctor did not request a significant alteration to Obama’s stance on abortion, but demanded fairness in the discourse. Complying with the request, Obama revamped the questionable language on his website.
Obama’s humbleness and all-inclusive approach to the abortion debate was undoubtedly one of the contributing factors to his monumental victory in Indiana, a feat last accomplished by a Democrat in 1964. Such examples are a stark contrast to the current Democratic Party ethos which seems to exclude those identifying themselves as pro-life from securing party nominations even when these candidates seemingly have a solid chance in red districts.
It is worth noting that a considerable fraction of Democrats who identify as moderate or conservative, or independents leaning Democrat, believe that abortion should be universally or largely illegal. However, the party blatantly disregards such views, preferring to stick to their rigid litmus tests and reactionary stances on abortion, gun control, and health care; thereby, contradicting their claims of being a party that advocates diversity and inclusivity.
Sadly, the party’s inclusivity seems to be a diminishing trait, a far cry from the era when Democrats dominated national elections. Democrats for Life, a pro-life Democratic organization, should offer the party an opportunity to reevaluate its stance. However, their participation in the 2021 March For Life in Washington, D.C received paltry recognition from their party colleagues.
Despite her candidature for the vice-chair position of the Democratic National Committee, Kristen Day, the organization’s executive director, has failed to gain any endorsements from members of the DNC. In her words, ‘People want to be listened to and have their views heard.’ Day seeks to represent those who may not agree with every item on the DNC’s agenda but still identify as Democrats due to shared interests on familial issues like paid parental leave and the child tax credit.
But the Democratic Party’s refusal to lend an ear to such alternative views reflects their inability to comprehend the fact that many of their supporters hold moderate positions. The party’s obsession with their radicalized agenda is blocking them from acknowledging a significant number of diverging viewpoints within their ranks and that a flexible approach may help them win back territories lost to Republicans.
In the 2024 elections, 37 of the 39 candidates endorsed by Democrats for Life’s political action committee won their respective races. As the Democrats continue speculating for political saviors to replicate Obama’s magnetism, they might want to consider mirroring his harmonious and unifying approach towards abortion.
Perhaps a candid look at Day’s prospective vice-chair position at the DNC could be the first step in this direction. Advocating for a less confrontational stance and more accepting attitude might be the key to reconciling differences and navigating the Democratic Party back to their winning ways.