There has been a recent uprising in abortion diaries lately, as there seems to be about once every month or so. I don't usually write diaries about the hot topic of the hour, but then, I don't usually write diaries. Anyway, I'm going to put in my two cents, though the opinion is probably worth less than two cents.
Emphasizing abortion will not win elections for Democrats (in general.) I am not suggesting that Democrats should change there stance. I am not suggesting that Democrats should stop fighting against the pro-life agenda. They should simply not make it a campaign issue. And here's why.
Roe v. Wade is status quo (federally)
People get excited about a politician when that politician wants to make a change. They don't get excited about a candidate that wants to keep things status quo. There are occasional backlashes against the issue of the moment, like gay marriage, but abortion as an issue has outlived most issues of the moment. Abortions are legal on the federal level. They've been that way since the 1970s. It's status quo.
A politician who says that he or she is fighting for abortion won't really excite new voters. It will help with the base, sure, but so long as the candidate is pro-choice, the base will not be turned off. Emphasizing abortion will not excite swing voters and new voters. In fact, emphasizing it will possibly excite the opponent's base. Are you not going to vote for a pro-choice candidate, because that candidate did not talk about abortion rights extensively in his or her campaign?
The candidate will be better off talking about solutions that he or she has for some other problems, which are myriad. Excite people with change. (Again, note that I am not suggesting that the candidate not have pro-choice on his or her platform. I am simply suggesting that basing a campaign on it is wasteful if not counterproductive.)
Pro-life Democrats and independents exist
And they'll vote for a pro-choice Democratic candidate, because, guess what! Not everyone bases their vote on one issue. In fact, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that a lot of people base their voting decisions on a range of issues and positions.
A candidate loses these people's votes by insulting them. I suggest that a pro-choice candidate not refer to pro-lifers as "anti-choice." It doesn't get the candidate any new votes, and it will get him or her fewer votes. Saying that pro-lifers are intrinsically out to "hurt" or "control" women is both counter to the goal of getting elected and generally dishonest. Most pro-lifers, as misguided as they are, do not generally want to hurt or control women. (Some do, of course, but Democrats won't be winning their votes anyway.) They have deeply held moral beliefs about what constitutes human life. Insulting that belief will not win their affection and votes. Reasoning with them and telling them civilly why they're wrong is fine, of course. I draw the line at insults.
What to Talk About Instead
Remember whose votes a candidate is trying to attain. I believe that Democratic candidates need to emphasize the bread and butter economic issues. They need to talk about helping out the little guy, that same little guy who abandoned the Democratic Party when it started becoming too pro-corporate without the conservative "family values" that the little guy had.
A Democratic candidate should talk about health care. It hasn't worked for us yet, because every time Democrats talk about health care, they have a solution that is too complicated for the average person to begin to understand. Democrats should frame it and probably change their policy proposals to be more direct.
Democrats should talk about the environment and corporate greed. Emphasizing the income gap and why we need a higher minimum wage would be very helpful. Talking about lowering the cost of higher education is good.
The list of possible changes that appeal to the majority of the American people will win more votes than talking about something that is already in place.
But then, I may be wrong.