PLANK NOVEMBER 7, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Let’s get one thing straight. GOP Senate candidates Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin did not lose their races on Tuesday because they are extreme right-wingers whose opposition to abortion, even in the case of women who become pregnant as a result of being raped, is considered beyond the pale. Nor did they lose because of verbal gaffes about rape—although Akin’s creative understanding of the female reproductive system should have been enough to disqualify him for a seat in the U.S. Senate, or in freshman biology.
No, Mourdock and Akin lost because they each made the mistake of actually trying to explain an increasingly common position by Republican officer-holders, including Paul Ryan.
I heard a lot last night and this morning about how the Mourdock and Akin defeats show that Americans don’t like inflammatory rhetoric about abortion or that Republicans need to do a better job recruiting more normal candidates. But those two men weren’t inflammatory. Akin’s comments about rape were stupid, but not intentionally inflammatory. And I’ve explained why I think Mourdock’s remarks reflected a consistent view for someone who believes that life begins at conception.
It seems to me that abortion rights supporters are missing the point and the opportunity here. It’s not unusual for GOP politicians to oppose rape exceptions. But they haven’t previously had to defend that position—at least not on a big stage. When they are forced to explain themselves, as in the case of Akin and Mourdock, it’s not their words that alienate voters, but the idea of forcing women to carry to term a pregnancy that began in rape. Americans can hold mixed positions on abortion in tandem—many continue to believe that abortion is morally wrong but should remain legal. Likewise, voters can support abortion restrictions while at the same time opposing the idea that a rape victim should have to carry her rapist’s baby.
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
Republicans can—and really should—try to recruit future candidates who are a little less wack-a-doodle. And GOP politicians will no doubt be a little more careful before they say anything that involves the word “rape.” But as long as opposition to rape exceptions remains a mainstream position for Republican officeholders, the GOP’s abortion problem is here to stay.
8 comments
"But as long as opposition to rape exceptions remains a mainstream position for Republican officeholders, the GOP's abortion problem is here to stay." Well said, Amy. They are not 'out of the mainstream', they ARE the 'mainstream'. They were just a little incautious to say the "words that must not be said". Still, that gave the electorate an accurate choice -- vote for Republicans and against a rape exception, or vote for Democrats and keep the right of choice. For me, that's what elections are about, each party giving the electorate an accurate view of their positions so the electorate can choose the policies they want going forward.
- AllanL5
November 7, 2012 at 9:48am
Astute column Amy. My rapidly aging memory is vague, but I believe it was Paul Weyreich who helped bring evangelicals into politics in the late-1970s, but then told them that politics was never going to meet their concerns and they were basically pushing a rope. I can't remember (again) if it was even Weyreich or someone else giving the advice, but the evangelicals certainly ignored it. While what Mourdock and Akin said is clearly outside the mainstream of the country, it is right down mainstreet in the evangelical community which is the tail wagging the Republican dog in many areas of the country.
- Lundell
November 7, 2012 at 9:55am
Very true. And don't forget Joe Walsh. He claimed that "with modern technology and science" there is absolutely no need for abortions for the health of the mother. He lost his IL House seat last night.
- Attrill
November 7, 2012 at 10:12am
Attrill - I'm looking forward to forgetting all about Joe Walsh, but not for a few more days while I wallow in glorious schadenfreude, minus the schauden, with extra freude.
- GeoffG
November 7, 2012 at 10:20am
Akin and Mourdock made the mistake of being consistent in their principles: if life begins at conception, it makes no difference how it began, not to the "person" in the womb. Anybody who says life begins at conception and believes there should be an abortion exception for rape is either condoning murder or doesn't really believe that life begins at conception; she is a murderer or a liar. I don't believe "life" begins at conception, but I can't condemn somebody whose religious beliefs inform her that life does begin at conception. Akin and Mourdock's "mistake" was being neither a murderer nor a liar, while trying to impose their religious beliefs on others.
- rayward
November 7, 2012 at 10:20am
- kpidcoc
November 7, 2012 at 10:37am
- kpidcoc
November 7, 2012 at 10:51am
Socially conservative Republican candidates will continue to be asked about abortion and rape, and they will not be able to resist preaching their misogynist beliefs to the rest of us. Which means they will keep losing elections. Good.
- heppner52
November 7, 2012 at 3:10pm