National Public Radio produced an insightful analysis of why reproductive issues are so prominent in this presidential campaign and why Mitt Romney's views are being variously pitched-- by his own supporters-- as very pro-life on the one hand and moderate on the other.
The very-pro-life vs. moderate oscillation is pretty easy to understand: Romney's overriding goal is to be elected, and so he is pitching different messages to different audiences. This is a specific example of a classic campaign phenomenon: the tension between saying things that fire up one's base (which is good for voter turnout and donations) and saying things that win over moderate and independent voters (that need to feel comfortable with the candidate).
Normally this is done by focusing on different issues for different audiences (foreign policy for one audience, social issues for another), or changing one's tone while saying essentially the same thing. On abortion and contraception, Romney has done a little of the latter, but what is surprising-- and consistent with his overall campaign style-- has been his audaciousness in seeming to directly contradict himself depending on the audience. We saw that during the presidential debate on foreign policy: Many people were scratching their heads wondering "who is this moderate guy who wants to focus on soft power and diplomacy"?
On abortion, as the NPR piece notes, Romney's surrogates have been suggesting to audiences that perhaps abortion won't be under attack during a Romney administration. This is similar to Romney's interview with the Des Moines Register, where he used clever wordplay to suggest that having a legislative agenda on life issues won't be a priority for him.
How can he get away with this? While risking the enthusiasm of core supporters, several things allow him to do this with relative impunity.
First, conservatives are desperate for President Obama to be kicked out of office, so they are accepting Romney's winks and nods regarding life issues as the dirty business of achieving the primary goal. Second, and closely related, President Obama is seen by pro-lifers as so unacceptable on abortion and contraception that anyone would be better. Third, pro-lifers trust Paul Ryan to help drive a pro-life agenda from within the White House. Fourth, many pro-life groups use the same "moderate presentation, conservative core" tactic themselves (see my post about Americans United for Life). And last, it would be hard for a President Romney not to have a profound impact, because there is a very good chance that he would be able to replace one or more Supreme Court justices with appointees that would be hostile to abortion rights. So it does not matter what he says during the campaign-- Romney will do some real good (or damage, depending on one's perspective!) while president.
Regarding why reproductive issues have played such a role in this campaign season, I see three main factors.
First, the ACA's contraception mandate gave Republicans a chance to recast the issue of contraception access (normally a dead loser for conservatives, in my opinion) in a way that makes pro-lifers happy (we are fighting contraception access) and moderates supportive of the pro-life outcome (government-mandated contraception is bad because it violates rights of religious conscience). Very smart. Second, a Romney/Ryan ticket that pushes a pro-life agenda helps to trump evangelical Christian nervousness about Romney's status as a Mormon. Third, the issue has been amplified beyond expectation by the cascade of tone-deaf and just plain boneheaded statements of down-ticket Republican candidates about abortion, rape, and medically-necessary abortions.
Links:
National Public Radio report (written article plus streaming audio)(November 5, 2012): Why Abortion Has Become Such a Prominent Campaign Issue
The very-pro-life vs. moderate oscillation is pretty easy to understand: Romney's overriding goal is to be elected, and so he is pitching different messages to different audiences. This is a specific example of a classic campaign phenomenon: the tension between saying things that fire up one's base (which is good for voter turnout and donations) and saying things that win over moderate and independent voters (that need to feel comfortable with the candidate).
Normally this is done by focusing on different issues for different audiences (foreign policy for one audience, social issues for another), or changing one's tone while saying essentially the same thing. On abortion and contraception, Romney has done a little of the latter, but what is surprising-- and consistent with his overall campaign style-- has been his audaciousness in seeming to directly contradict himself depending on the audience. We saw that during the presidential debate on foreign policy: Many people were scratching their heads wondering "who is this moderate guy who wants to focus on soft power and diplomacy"?
On abortion, as the NPR piece notes, Romney's surrogates have been suggesting to audiences that perhaps abortion won't be under attack during a Romney administration. This is similar to Romney's interview with the Des Moines Register, where he used clever wordplay to suggest that having a legislative agenda on life issues won't be a priority for him.
How can he get away with this? While risking the enthusiasm of core supporters, several things allow him to do this with relative impunity.
First, conservatives are desperate for President Obama to be kicked out of office, so they are accepting Romney's winks and nods regarding life issues as the dirty business of achieving the primary goal. Second, and closely related, President Obama is seen by pro-lifers as so unacceptable on abortion and contraception that anyone would be better. Third, pro-lifers trust Paul Ryan to help drive a pro-life agenda from within the White House. Fourth, many pro-life groups use the same "moderate presentation, conservative core" tactic themselves (see my post about Americans United for Life). And last, it would be hard for a President Romney not to have a profound impact, because there is a very good chance that he would be able to replace one or more Supreme Court justices with appointees that would be hostile to abortion rights. So it does not matter what he says during the campaign-- Romney will do some real good (or damage, depending on one's perspective!) while president.
Regarding why reproductive issues have played such a role in this campaign season, I see three main factors.
First, the ACA's contraception mandate gave Republicans a chance to recast the issue of contraception access (normally a dead loser for conservatives, in my opinion) in a way that makes pro-lifers happy (we are fighting contraception access) and moderates supportive of the pro-life outcome (government-mandated contraception is bad because it violates rights of religious conscience). Very smart. Second, a Romney/Ryan ticket that pushes a pro-life agenda helps to trump evangelical Christian nervousness about Romney's status as a Mormon. Third, the issue has been amplified beyond expectation by the cascade of tone-deaf and just plain boneheaded statements of down-ticket Republican candidates about abortion, rape, and medically-necessary abortions.
Links:
National Public Radio report (written article plus streaming audio)(November 5, 2012): Why Abortion Has Become Such a Prominent Campaign Issue
Comments