by Gennady Shkliarevsky
Last off-year elections were an important test for the Republican Party and its agenda. They were a kind of dress rehearsal before the main battles the next year when the country again went to the polls. The stakes cannot be higher. The outcome of next year’s elections will depend to a great extent on what Republicans learn from last Tuesday’s results.
The beating sustained by the Republican Party is nothing short of shocking. The Republicans went into these elections with an agenda dominated by the issue of abortion and birth control. Yet the results of the voting make painfully clear that this issue is the one that dragged down the Republican Party. American voters have shown that they do not share a radical approach adopted by a majority of Republicans.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of voters’ rejection of the Republican agenda was the approval of the proposal that was on the ballot in Ohio to include a right to abortion into the state’s Constitution. The vote in Ohio is not the only example of voters’ pushback against the Republican stance on abortion. Andy Beshear, Democratic Governor in Kentucky, sailed smoothly to a victory after criticizing his Republican rival who defended a nearly total abortion ban in the state. In Virginia, legislative candidates who opposed the 15-week abortion ban proposed by Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin easily prevailed over the candidates who supported the ban. Important states where Republicans have suffered losses include Kentucky, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
Victories of pro-choice politicians have revived the opposition to the abortion ban within the Republican majority in the House. Mainstream Republican legislators, particularly those in swing districts, have not failed to sense the potential danger they are likely to face in the next year’s elections. A small but important minority among the House Republicans is now pedaling back on abortion radicalism that dominates their party. John Duarte (R-Calif.), who represents the district won by Biden, has stated that he is inclined to oppose spending bills that contain “abortion language.” Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Penn.), Marc Molinaro (R-NY), and other Republicans have sent similar messages. Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) has put the dilemma that the party faces very clearly: “We can’t save lives if we can’t win elections . . . We need to talk about common sense abortion restrictions while also promoting expanding access to contraception, including over the counter.”
The Republican majority in the House is slim and can be easily upended even by a small number of dissenting party members. Divisions in the party are extremely dangerous in this election year as they can spell defeat next November, and the opposition within the party is already stiffening its ranks. John Duarte put it very starkly: “The American people are speaking very clearly: There is no appetite for national abortion law . . . And there’s enough of us in the Republican Party that are going to stand against it.” The effects of dissension can be deadly for the party. Disagreements among Republicans have already prevented them, at least for the time being, to coalesce on the strategy for averting a government shutdown.
For over a year since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Republicans have suffered several defeats, of which the last election is only one. They clearly have not succeeded in developing a winning strategy on abortion to cope with the political backlash that the Democrats will surely try to exploit fully in the election year. They have also failed to come up with a language that they can use in articulating their message on abortion that would attract broad segments of the American people.
The political dilemma related to abortion reflects a broader issue that divides America today. Those who take a pro-choice position portray their opponents as extremists who are out of touch with the mood in the country. They claim that abortion radicalism dominates the Republican Party. As one commentator put it, “There is no ‘middle’ in a right-wing GOP.”
This view is patently wrong. A number of mainstream Republicans—such as John Duarte R-Calif.), Marc Molinaro (R-NY), Nancy Mace (R-SC), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Penn.), and others–are calling for a sensible and constructive approach toward the issue of abortion. This is not to say that there are no extremists among Republicans; there certainly are, just as there are extremists among Democrats. However, the motivations that drive many Republicans are not extremist; they are mainstream. The party has simply not articulated them in the right way.
The Republican opposition to abortion reflects a much broader concern, both in the party and among the American people in general. Many Republican politicians and voters see abortion as representing a malaise that threatens the entire country: the weakening of our commitment to the principle of the sanctity and value of human life and the erosion of the moral fabric of our society. They believe that by opposing abortion, they will be able to reverse this process.
Although many people agree with this diagnosis, few, if any, know what to do about it. The cause of this affliction is not easy to pinpoint. The erosion of our commitment to the sanctity of human life as a general and universal principle is an ominous sign. It shows that we do not put equal value on every human being and that some lives are viewed as more valuable than others. It reveals that exclusion and inequality characterize our society.
Exclusion and inequality are not new problems. In fact, they have persisted through the millennia of human history. Exclusion has been fundamental to all hitherto existing societies and cultures. All of them divided people into deserving and undeserving, slaves and masters, rulers and ruled. Exclusion takes many forms. Abortion is certainly not the only way in which exclusion manifests itself. The elimination of one form of exclusion does not eliminate the general problem. Therefore, the solution is not in going only after one or several specific forms. Banning abortion is not going to remedy the broader problem of devaluing human life. The real solution is in going after the source of the disease—i.e., the elimination of exclusion that generates all these different forms of discrimination.
Since exclusion is an old problem, it cannot be solved in one clean swoop. Its solution will take time and effort, and not just by politicians and activists but by all members of our society. This perspective does not mean that we cannot start with some specific problem, such as abortion. It means, however, that in going after a specific problem, we should also keep in our focus the general conditions that generate this problem.
Abortion in itself is neither good nor bad. It is a medical procedure, and, as with other medical procedures, it is morally neutral. What makes abortions bad is the broader context that makes the medical practice of abortion gratuitous and indiscriminate. It is abortion as a medical procedure that poses a threat to our ethical principles and the moral fabric of our society, but exclusion that underlies our current abortion practice.
The most common reason for seeking or performing abortions is unwanted pregnancies. There are many situations that may result in pregnancies that become undesirable. For example, a pregnancy that endangers the mother’s life becomes undesirable since it presents a difficult choice one has to make between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus. But that is not the only situation that leads to undesirable pregnancies. Far too common are pregnancies that result from sexual promiscuity and the gratuitous use of sex as a form of individual gratification.
The two cases are very different. The former does not threaten to undermine our commitment to valuing human life. It simply puts us before a difficult choice of whose life to protect when both cannot be saved. The other case is different. It does not present a stark choice between saving one life or the other. This case is one in which an individual seeks to destroy life that one finds undesirable, life that is a result of irresponsible behavior of those who have failed to think about the consequences of their ill-considered actions. The two cases cannot be any more different: one seeks to preserve life, and the other to destroy it. Of the two cases, the second case is immoral because it devalues life and abandons moral ground.
Sexuality and sexual acts represent our capacity to create life. They are not to be taken lightly and treated irresponsibly. They are a generous gift bestowed on us by nature and evolution. When we reject this gift and corrupt it by our irresponsible and immoral behavior, we violate the principle of equality that we must grant to all lives and that sustains our society and civilization. We cannot betray and demean this gift without paying a huge price in consequences for us as individuals and for our society as a whole.
The creation of life is sacred. What gives the creation of life its sacred character is not just the insights and perspectives derived from the Bible but also the fact that the creation of life is a result of the evolution that sustains our universe. Nature and evolution have given us enormous power—the capacity to produce life. The significance and importance of this power are hard to overestimate. But this power comes to us with a huge obligation and an awesome responsibility that we cannot forsake. We must understand, cherish, and venerate this power, not misuse or abuse it.
We can only solve the problem of abortion by recognizing and embracing the sacred nature of life and creation. This recognition is integral to any search for a solution to the problem of abortion; it is also perhaps the first and most important step on the path toward achieving this goal.
One certainly cannot and should not expect children or adolescents to grasp the full significance and spiritual meaning of sexual acts. However, we can begin to make them aware of this significance and meaning early in their life. Bringing this awareness to new generations of young people can and must be central to the upbringing and education of youngsters in our society.
The sad fact is, however, that we do not even set this goal. On the contrary, under the pretense of science, we irresponsibly expose our young people to views and attitudes that validate permissiveness and sexual promiscuity. More often than not, our society carelessly exposes generations of young men and women to the use of sex and sexuality as a form of entertainment and a means for personal gratification. Such degrading and irresponsible exposure is taking place in classrooms, on the Internet, and in other locations frequented by children and adolescents.
But even more significantly, our adult culture and public life provide abundant opportunities for popularizing such disgraceful and abusive views of and attitudes toward sexuality and sexual acts. Instead of offering new generations positive examples that instill the principles of the sanctity of life and life creation, all too often, the behavior of adults in our society has a corrupting influence on the young. This behavior teaches our young to value their own egotistic desires and whims more than anything else—asymmetrically more than life-affirming universal principles and values that should govern our relations with other humans, as well as society and nature.
We face a choice in dealing with the problem of abortion. We can take an approach that uses restrictions and bans, or we can focus on a broader and humanitarian vision that will not center exclusively on laws and regulations but will also provide a general orientation that would positively affirm life and life creation and that would promote values that are essential for sustaining our society and civilization. The latter approach will require a strategy and a language that will be up to this enormous task. We should make clear to the American public the damage inflicted by the gratuitous and indiscriminate use of abortions.
Such pursuit has nothing to do with defeating and suppressing opponents. Attempts to defeat and suppress will only further divide our society and encourage more aggression and more conflict. The goal should not be to play into the hands of extremists on both sides of the divide; for them, force and violence are the only preferred options. The goal should be to bring together constructive forces from both camps. They should combine their differences and insights and use them to create an inclusive and comprehensive frame that will be powerful enough to contain all their differences as particular cases—i.e., cases that are true under specific conditions or assumptions and not in some absolute sense.
Next elections can mark a new beginning for our nation, or they can deepen divisions and intensify strife in our society. Much will depend on the choices that our politicians and the public will make and on our skills in creating new and comprehensive solutions capable of sustaining our civilization rather than destroying it. Who will be able to accomplish this important task? Will the Democrats be able to abandon their hostility toward Republicans and their relentless pursuit of political victories at any cost? Will the Republicans be able to overcome their internal dissensions and be creative in finding a strategy and a language capable of taking our country onto the right path? Much will depend on answers to these questions. Only time can tell what is in store for us. One thing, however, is certain: those who will undertake and accomplish this enormous task and solve the problem of abortion will lead the country to a better, more peaceful, and more cooperative future.
~~~
Gennady Shkliarevsky is Professor Emeritus of History, Bard College
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
