Wes,
You write:
> Regarding my earlier post on abortion, my point was that even those
> who are opposed to it will like the alternative even less. You give
> the government the power to outlaw it and you will have even more of
> a socialist nanny state than we have now. Which means creating
> another federal agency to enforce the law,"no-knock" raids on homes
> and offices suspected of giving abortions, jailing women who go out
> of the country to have the procedure. Far fetched? Giving whats
> happened in the last six years I dont think so.
For the past few years, my tendency has been to scream "OGNAAT!" ("Oh
God, Not Another Abortion Thread!") and just walk away when the issue
comes up -- it seems to be one on which most people are firmly decided
and disinterestd in becoming decided otherwise before any such threat
starts -- but this thread seems to be hitting on interesting political
aspects, so I'm going to give it another go.
First, let's think about where it's coming from in order to discern
where it might go. Brian's advocacy of "seizing the undefended high
ground" on the issue is essentially a political statement: "This may
be a way the LP could appeal/succeed."
If that's the case, then presumptively any such success would not be
limited to the abortion issue.
If America elected a Libertarian congressional majority/executive
administration because the LP took the position Brian recommends on
abortion (that I doubt that would happen notwithstanding), that
majority/administration would not be limited to action ON abortion.
Presumably, in tandem with any action it might take on abortion, that
majority/administration would be working to ROLL BACK encroaching
police statism in other areas. Far from creating a new federal police
force to check on women's menstrual cycles, that
majority/administration would more likely rein in existing
infringements of the 4th Amendment.
Believe it or not, it IS possible to outlaw an activity without
engaging in random block-by-block, house-by-house searches to ensure
that said activity does not occur. Murder is against the law. So is
bank robbery. But I've never had the police come to my door demanding
to search my house on the off chance that I have a corpse hidden in
the closet or a ski mask and pistol stashed under my mattress. Nor do
I generally expect that they would do so unless they knew, or had
probable cause to believe, that a crime had been committed.
In the case of a putatively libertarian administration or majority
implementing the kind of policy Brian is talking about, it wouldn't
likely be:
"Every woman report to the police station monthly in order to prove
she hasn't become pregnant or if she was pregnant either still is
pregnant or has given birth."
It would much more likely be:
"Hello, this is Officer Bob. You called? What's up? You're reporting a
violation of the abortion law? OK, tell us what evidence you have to
support your allegation that the crime happened -- when and how you
knew the woman got pregnant, when and how you knew that she no longer
was pregnant, and what makes you think that that's the result of an
illegal abortion rather than, say, a miscarriage, an abortion for
health reasons, or a live birth. And you'd better make it good -- the
judge gets irritable when we ask for a warrant and have nothing to
offer as probable cause except some busybody's bullshit speculation,
and I have better things to do than listen to you gossip."
That's not to say that I necessarily agree with Brian on the issue --
but the "it will bring on the nanny/police state" argument doesn't
hold water if one believes that it would take a Libertarian
majority/administration to implement his position.
My main disagreement with Brian is on the premise that the change he
recommends would likely bring about any great shift in voter sentiment
toward the LP.
The 10% of Americans who even MIGHT be "single-issue 100% pro-choice
voters" aren't going to support the LP if it makes this change (most
of them don't now, either, even with the LP ball entirely on their
side of the court).*
The 29% of Americans who even MIGHT be "single-issue 100% pro-life
voters" aren't going to support the LP unless it adopts their
positions entirely, not just half-way.**
And the "massive middle" is composed almost entirely of "NOT SINGLE
ISSUE ON ABORTION" voters who are going to have to see more from the
LP than an abortion position they agree with to get them here, and who
would not likely be especially driven away by an abortion position
they weren't fully on board with IF they saw enough in the LP to cause
them to support the LP otherwise.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
* In 1997, when I was still pro-choice, I ran for city council in a
medium-sized city (polled 20% in a three-way race, too, and that city
elected an LP councilman, who was one of my key 1997 volunteers, last
year). When I was canvassing door-to-door one day, I ran into a voter
who took my fliers, looked me up and down, and said "I only care about
one thing -- are you pro-choice?" Naturally, I said yes, since it was
true. Big grin from her -- "Well, you've got my vote then." And she
slammed the door, and I went on my merry way wondering what in the
hell that lady thought that the city council had to do with abortion
issues (I later heard that in one midwestern city, I don't remember
which one, the council had tried to drive abortion providers out using
zoning restrictions and such, but I've never heard of that as any kind
of widespread phenomenon or likely pro-life group strategy).
** By 2002, after a number of years of debating the issue, I had
become pro-life. I ran for Missouri state legislature in a district
with demographics (heavily African-American and heavily Catholic)
which supposedly lean pro-life at the polls, and my campaign
literature, web site, etc. did feature my pro-life orientation. I was
in a two-way race with a pro-choice Democrat, and I polled no better
than the average "slightly more than paper and no real money involved"
LP candidate (around 8% if I recall correctly). The only group I'm
pretty sure I polled well with were the nuns from the convent next
door to the polling place I spent most of the day working.
Among the things I learned from that race:
- No single issue is likely to help you unless your agenda otherwise
appeals -- even among most of the voters to whom that issue is of at
least some importance. There may be some fringe voters who will ALWAYS
vote for the candidate who takes (insert position here) and who will
NEVER vote for the candidate who takes (insert position here), but
most voters have either a simpler ("my Dad was a Republican, and my
granddad was a Republican, and by Gawd ...) or more complex
("interesting position on abortion, but his tax proposals suck and I
just can't go for medical marijuana ... this guy over here isn't as
good on abortion, but he promises to back that tax deduction that
would save me $1500 a year ... and besides, my Dad was a Republican,
my granddad ...") mindset.
- The single-issue interest groups will not accept ANY deviation from
their line, at least from a third party candidate (I suppose a major
party candidate, especially an incumbent, might get a pass on this or
that because he can offer access, influence, etc.) -- they're worse
than any "LP purists." My recollection is that the Missouri Right to
Life PAC's questionnaire that year had 10 questions, and that I met
their specifications on nine of those questions. The one I didn't meet
spec on was their advocacy of banning cloning -- and that disagreement
got me labeled as "Not A Pro-Life Candidate" on their web site and in
their voter guide.
