From "Nuanced" to Principled: The Lessons of Pastor Rick, and Why and How Obama and the Democrats Should Make Abortion a Voting Issue

For years Democratic candidates have struggled with how to counter Republican stands that paint the world in black and white, readily summarized in brief, evocative phrases (e.g., "life begins at conception," "tax and spend," "cut and run"). A prime example is abortion, which has left Democrats outside the Northeast and Northwest (where candidates can safely proclaim, "I'm pro-choice" and live to talk about it) and national candidates tongue-tied for years.

Barack Obama faced this problem Saturday night at Rick Warren's "Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency." When asked when he believes life begins, he led with a wonderfully disarming comment about the answer to that question being "above my pay grade." But he then proceeded to offer a somewhat rambling, discursive response that I can't readily summarize after having just read the transcript three times. The main thing I remember is that he said he believes in a woman's right to choose and Roe v. Wade. Commentators referred to his response, like many of his responses Saturday night, as "nuanced," a politic way of saying that it showed greater complexity than his Republican opponent's answer but had the usual ring of a Democratic presidential candidate's response to a question about an emotionally charged issue: too intellectual and difficult to grasp its essence.

When asked the same question, John McCain knew what his task was: to convince the far right, and particularly Christian conservatives, that he is one of them. So his answer was crisp and unequivocal: "At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress and in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment."

So is the problem, as many apologists on the left would suggest, that progressive positions are just more complex and not easily reduced to sound bites? Yes and no. Sure, it's easier to summarize a Manichean world view than one that posits more than two forces in the world (good and evil) and more than two options in every situation (pro-life vs. pro-death, staying the course vs. surrender, free markets vs. communism). But the problem is not that our ideas are too sophisticated. It's that the way we present those ideas is not sophisticated enough.

Most Americans actually disagree with John McCain on abortion, as they do on most of the issues that separate him and his Democratic rival. Polls show that only 30% of Americans believe all abortions should be illegal, and few support a return to the pre-Roe era. The majority -- including the majority of evangelical Christians, who made up Warren's audience -- think we should find some kind of "middle ground" on abortion. The reason is that most Americans are ambivalent about abortion. Virtually no one -- left, right, or center -- is comfortable with late term abortions except when the mother's life or health is in danger. The idea of aborting an 8-month-old fetus for convenience (something no one would really do, but it makes a great bogey man to push Democrats down slippery slopes) is deeply disturbing to the vast majority of Americans in a way that aborting a 10-week-old fetus is not.

Why? Because the concept of life is what cognitive psychologists call a "fuzzy set" -- a concept that doesn't have clear boundaries. Unconsciously, most people view a newly fertilized embryo as qualitatively different from a late-term fetus because it doesn't seem like a person. But the point at which a fetus seems to us more like a person than not is indeterminate.

Regardless of their conscious beliefs -- that life begins at conception or that life begins when a baby takes its first breath -- most people's feelings follow their unconscious perceptions. That's why early in pregnancy even most evangelical Christians find it morally repugnant to force a rape victim to bear her rapist's child, even though they may consciously believe that the fertilized egg is a life, whereas late in pregnancy most people aren't comfortable with abortion except in exceptional circumstances. In their guts, most people feel that Roe v. Wade got it about as right as we're going to get it -- which is why the vast majority of Americans don't want it overturned -- even if they can't articulate why.

The million dollar question is how to talk about an issue that requires nuance in a way that is succinct, principled, and captures our gut-level sensibilities. If Democrats continue to parry Republican war cries of "baby killer" with emotionally bland or euphemistic phrases like "reproductive health" or continue to couch the debate in terms of life vs. choice, offering ambivalent voters a Hobson's choice, they do indeed have something to worry about.

But that isn't how Democrats should talk about abortion. The pollster Stan Greenberg and I recently completed the first draft of one of the most wide-ranging progressive messaging projects of which I am aware, using a sample of 10,000 to study 10 different ways of talking about 9 issues, from wedge issues (e.g., abortion, guns, gays, immigration) to national security and taxes (where Democrats have traditionally similarly been on the run) to the economy (where Democrats hold an advantage). We found that progressives can win the abortion debate by 15 to 20 points seven different ways against a strong "pro-life" message much like the one McCain offered Saturday night, and they can win in some very unlikely parts of the country. When progressives speak honestly to voters' ambivalence and make their principles clear and emotionally compelling, Americans tend to prefer honesty and nuance to oversimplification. The answer doesn't lie in "dumbing down" our messages. It lies in ratcheting up their emotional intelligence. On some issues it took us several tries in focus groups and online dial-tests to find the words that conveyed what we were trying to express without triggering some other meaning we hadn't intended, but by the time we had completed the latest round of testing, we had multiple messages that beat well-branded conservative messages by 8 to 30 points on every issue.

The language of "choice" is not, in fact, the most compelling way to engage most Americans on abortion. It doesn't resonate with most voters in the center, and it activates negative stereotypes about feminism and promiscuity (and, not surprisingly, it polls particularly poorly with men, who have conflicting feelings about both). It was the right language in the 1960s, when women's right to control their own bodies was emblematic of their struggle for equality, but that was 40 years ago, and as meanings change, so should messages. It is a particularly weak appeal to an evangelical Christian audience, for whom it begs the question, "Whose choice matters most, God's or a (mortal) woman's?"

Obama wasn't going to win over the majority of Warren's parishioners, but he could have spoken to them in their own language while winning the hearts and minds of the majority who were listening on television. He might have begun by acknowledging the obvious, that he knew he wasn't going to convince most of Pastor Rick's flock, but that he was nonetheless one of them, with a comment like, "Well, I knew at some point I was going to be in there with the lions. I know many of you won't agree with me, but I hope my answer at least leaves you with as much respect for me and my beliefs as I have for you and yours." He could then have continued, once again drawing them in while addressing concerns about him that had been raised in recent weeks, "The Bible says that pride is a sin, and I'd be showing more pride than even John McCain thinks I have, with those celebrity and Moses ads, if I told you that I know with certainty when life begins. I wish I did, because then this would be an easy question. But here's where I stand":

No one truly knows what's in the mind of God, and I just don't like the idea of government telling a woman or couple when they should or shouldn't start their family based on somebody else's interpretation of Scripture. We need to find the common ground on abortion, reflecting our shared moral beliefs, not the beliefs that divide us. We are all united in the belief that we should do everything we can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, and abortions, starting with instilling in our children both the values and the knowledge to make good choices. And we all agree that abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control and shouldn't be an option late in pregnancy except when the mother's life or health is in danger. I could go on and talk about how misguided I think our currently policies are that deny access to birth control to women and teenagers in our inner cities, which does nothing but perpetuate the cycle of poverty, stop young people from getting an education and fulfilling their God-given potential, and make it more likely that they'll have children before they're ready to be good parents. But the main point I want to make is that in this country, we don't force one person to live by another person's faith. This should be a personal and moral issue, not a political one.

This is a variation of one of the messages we tested, although it is considerably longer than those messages, which we kept to about 45 seconds. I revised it here to fit both the audience and the central narrative of Obama's campaign (the theme of focusing on what unites and not what divides us).

I'm not claiming that this is the best or only narrative Obama could have offered on abortion. Central to Obama's appeal is his genuineness, and the only messages he should offer voters are those that fit his values and style. But this way of talking about abortion has several features that render it a strong, principled message. It isn't hard to come away with the central theme, because it's offered in both the opening sentence and at the end: That as long as we do not all share the same religious beliefs, the government has no business forcing one person to live by another person's faith. It speaks to religious freedom and government intrusion, two themes usually associated with narratives on the right but that should be central to a progressive narrative on abortion. It recognizes, as Obama did in his actual answer, that this is a moral issue, and it builds on common ground, emphasizing themes like reducing teen pregnancies and instilling values that are shared by both the left and right and hence are likely to be compelling to people in the center. And it re-enfranchises males by reminding men that they have a stake in this, too: that although ultimately the decision to abort or not to abort resides with the mother, women usually make these decisions together with their husbands or boyfriends, and that a woman or couple, not the government, should make these kinds of intensely personal decisions.

I would be remiss not to conclude with one final thought. The impact of a message doesn't reside solely in the words, metaphors, imagery, frames, or neural networks it triggers or fails to trigger. The messenger, the delivery, and the nonverbal communication are equally important. This year Democrats have chosen a messenger who is a tremendously gifted orator. But Obama has not been able to translate what he can do on the stump to debates or interviews. In contrast to McCain, who had clearly been coached to speak to his audience, to use personal examples, and to stay focused throughout on his primary goal--to convince doubters on the right that he is one of them -- Obama too rarely spoke to his audience, too rarely connected with personal stories, and did not seem to have come into the evening with a game plan of what he wanted to accomplish.

None of that should have happened after over 20 debates and hundreds of television appearances, and none of it would have happened after the second or third Democratic debate if Democrats understood the importance of narratives and nonverbal cues. Republican presidential candidates have outperformed their Democratic counterparts for most of the last 40 years in message, and they have outperformed them in delivery. The reason is simple: They have understood the value of both. Whether or not McCain had a little help outside the cone of silence Saturday night when he sauntered into the church in time to have heard half the questions, there is no question that he had the benefit of superb coaching on both his verbal and nonverbal messages. The Obama team needs to take the cue. If someone with the appropriate expertise hasn't spent a few days with Obama watching the tapes of his prior debate performances and giving him feedback on what voters are picking up between his words, there's no better way he could spend the week of the Republican Convention.

Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation," recently released in paperback with a new postscript on the 2008 election.

Comments

[deminmo]

Obama has two daughters. His view on abortion is not going
to be as easy to articulate. Should he have said, "I can't speak
for God on the issue of when life begins." Or something to that
effect. Should he say, "I'm in favor of the woman making the choice,
not me or the government." Like Pastor Warren said, he was aiming
to throw the canidates off a little to see the real person, not the
politician. For me, even with stammering Obama came off as more
real. Maybe the issue should be, Bush denying federal funds to
hospitals that offer contraception, making some equal to abortion.

[mollysgran]

Hey! That is what he meant when he said it was "above his pay grade"! He meant that he did not want to speak for God! And he is right. It should be up to the woman to make the choice. It is between her and her God, Maker, Higher Being -- whatever. This is NOT something that should be politicized!

I am amazed that it is usually men that get all hot under the collar about the subject. If you don't like abortions, then stop having sex. Don't bother me with you hang ups.

[MourningDude]

Men can't speak for God, but women can?

-boggle-

[VasuMurti]

During the primaries the three leading Democratic presidential candidates were pro-death penalty. Democrats in Congress have repeatedly gone along with Bush on Iraq and granted telecommunication companies immunity for warrantless surveillance. And the Democratic Party has repeatedly shown that it is willing to drop issues like capital punishment, same-sex marriage, and gun control (especially in red states, where they can't win on these issues!) from its agenda. Why can't the Democratic Party (similarly) drop its support for abortion rights from the Party platform?

A Zogby International poll in August 1999 found that the majority of Americans recognize that abortion destroys a new individual human life (52 percent versus 36 percent), oppose partial-birth abortions (56.4 percent versus 32 percent), are opposed to tax-funded partial-birth abortions (71 percent to 23 percent), and think parents should be notified if their minor child seeks an abortion (78 percent).

[righttip]

It will be hard to convince the 30% that believe life begins at conception that the inevitable person is not entitled to the protections enjoyed by all other humans.
BTW only 25-30% of Americans believe in abortion on demand..which Roe allows.

[Simone]

You better go back to school because there is no such thing as 'abortion on demand' any more than there is 'heart surgery on demand' . We do, however, have ignorance on demand courtesy of the people who allow their pastors or right-wing talk radio or the Republican party to interpret the law so they can regurgitate it as a blog comment.

[righttip]

incorrect..see response to Ant. "for any reason a woman chooses" certainly qualifies as on demand. This aspect of the law is fairly common knowledge.

[littlebuddylouie]

I believe Senator Obama did acknowledge that he would probably never see eye to eye with those single issue voters that rigidly hold to the "begins at conception" stance. I respect him for acknowledging that, rather than even pretending to be able to "convince" them.

[Ant]

Where does Roe v Wade say or imply that?

[righttip]

It says it everywhere...even wikepedia understands that...
"The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. "
Woman's health includes mental duress..thus , abortion on demand even after viability, complementing the already mandated on-demand feature up to 24-27 weeks.

[Anthrofreak]

These so called "low information voters" only understand things in simple, binarily opposed frameworks. Nuance is wasted on them. They are so focused on emotional knee jerk issues like abortion and gay marriage that the mere mention of them is enough to illicit their predictable emotional response. Lets ask those same people to consider supporting sex education, funding for programs like planned parenthood and asking ALL insurance companies to cover birth control.

Their eyes glaze over and they go back to beating their chests and thumping their bibles. They are too stupid to realize that all of the above are likely to reduce unplanned pregnancy and the number of abortions. Women won't need abortions if they don't get pregnant in the first place. It's common sense. They can't think in terms cause, effect and prevention.

[thinklib]

There are millions of 'low information voters' on both sides.

They respond to 'emotional knee jerk issues' from both sides.

One side 'thumps their bibles' while the other side thumps their copy of Christopher Hitchens' latest book.

One side thinks, for some reason, there isn't enough sex education and that we have to teach our kindergarteners how to put condoms on bananas. The other side thinks there is plenty of sex education already and perhaps we should build up morality and integrity instead.

[sdskelton03]

What you call "emotional, knee jerk issues" are for some people anything but.

There are many, myself included, who are pro-life, 2nd ammendment backers who believe marriage is between a man and a woman that aren't blithering idiots. We have well thought out positions and have carefully considered opposing arguments and reasoning.

Our nation would be a better place if more people could believe that those who disagree with them aren't knuckle draggers just because they disagree.

[MourningDude]

Offer your nuance. Do your little soft shoe dances. Wax eloquent on the difficulty of the issue. Pay lip service to every possible flavor of belief. Rehash decades of discussion and dialogue. BUT THEN have the honesty to state what you believe. Not what your handlers wrote down for you to say. Not what the polls tell you will win the most votes. Without that, the rest means very little.

As an analogy, BHO was hailed as a world expert on Constitutional rights. He talked repeatedly about restoring the constitution. He talked about slippery slopes and privacy, and the limits of government. He impressed many with his keen understanding, and his spectacular resume. AND THEN he swept all that aside and voted for FISA. And now all his lip service and all his discussion and all his dissembling means very little.

[Saver]

Great discussion! Wish I had time to read it all. It's rare to see such a range of viewpoints in one place and it really does have an impact. Here's my two cents.

It's past time to reframe this issue with a vengeance. How about this:

"Do you think the government should force women to continue their pregnancies?"

That seems mighty similar to rape.

[BMSstudy]

Or maybe this...

" Do you think the government should allow some people the right to end other peoples' lives?"

That seems might similar to murder.

[JBoulder]

Senator Obama would be served well by reading the analysis of Drew Westen for how he (Obama) should respond to Republican hot button issues. The Pastor Rick interview, recent McCain attacks, and the media is in a period of tear Obama down (they make money on both ends building a candidate up and then tearing same candidate down, and money of course is what the media is about) raise an important red flag for weakness in the campaign. We do not want to follow the road John Kerry took in '04. Please encourage the Obama campaign to consult Westen.

[tililek]

I find it hard to believe that the only item of importance on the part of evangelicals has to be abortion. If that is true then this nation and all of us have failed, and deserve whatever fate has in store.

People are murdered for no reason all over the world - and the election is said to revolve on when life begins? That kind of thinking is an indication that education at every level of life and school has failed.

[luvobama]

Indeed. Sad thing is, those who need to, won't get it.

[mikegoodyearaz85338]

Hence forth the left should refer to this forum as the "Massacre at Saddleback".

[TrevorAlan]

Whatever the answer, it needs to be short so people can understand it and it will sound decisive (unfortunately, many prefer a decisive answer they no is wrong to even a minute of waffling even if it will give the right one).

But I would like to throw in that we need to pull the focus from simply abortion back to regular birth control. Someone in my family gets this pro life propaganda and in it I have seen repeated calls for the criminalization of birth control, including overturning Griswold v. Conn which I believe had more to do with condoms than invasive medical procedures. This cannot stand, those people really ARE the American Taliban and I bet many Saddleback Church members would not count themselves part of THAT movement.

Anti abortion forces have their wedge issues, the forces of light need our own.

[deminmo]

Bush is trying to outlaw most contraception and calling
it related to abortion. No one wants to support the thousands
of children born without stable homes, nor pay for the health
care, but they are more than willing to dictate private choices
for the rest of us.

[righttip]

Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood's predecessor, was also a big fan of eugenics. So was an infamous German dictator.

[BVA]

If Obama's strategists, consultants, pollsters, debate prep people, and managers had not yet developed an effective answer to the most obvious, the most likely, and the most important question, ABORTION -- then why did they allow him to appear for questioning at an evangelical religious forum (Saddleback)?

Is this malpractice or simple incompetence?

Is Drew Westen really right (in his book) about the Democratic consultants lack of professional qualifications especially knowledge of the scientific literature that describes how political persuasion works?

Would the title of Amy Sullivan's 2005 "Washington Monthly" article, 'Fire All the Consultants!' be more effective for the Democratic Party if interpreted literally and not just figuratively?

[slaxx]

good blog. i too was very disappointed with obama's answer. he had to know that the question was coming and could've found a better way to express his ideas than saying that it was above his "paygrade."

and i too find it odd how even though most americans and christians are pro-choice, the pro-life candidate can easily and with pride say that life begins at conception, but pro-choice candiate always appear ashamed and fearful fo expressing their opinions on abortion. we have to stop pandering to the far-righties who are actually in the minority in this issue.

i was equally upset with how hesitant obama was to say that churches that get federal funding shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. give me a break. would anyone have any qualms with saying that the KKK can't discriminate if it's using federal funds for its programs? mccain goes on the ellen show and has no problem telling her to her face that gay marriage is wrong, but candidates can't/won't even speak freely about their beliefs with regards to the issues that might offend the religious right, even when these issues don't even effect the right's lives and MOST americans don;t agree with them.

[beherenow54]

I agree completely with this article, and only wish that Barack Obama, and all the democrats, would adopt this description of their thoughts (it is so very simple!). They keep missing the boat on this topic, which should not be a political issue, in my opinion. I left the Republican party because of their ever-increasingly religious position on abortion, based on their notions of "faith" and what fit into their narrow view. No one religious group has the right to legislate their views on another, whether that person be of the same faith, a differing faith, those who are unsure of faith, atheists, etc. It's called freedom of religion and freedom from persecution for our differing religious beliefs. Anti-abortionists are, in effect, persecuting others for differing religious beliefs. In the past 8 years, in particular, it's as though this administration is attempting to secure religion in the center of our government, and adopt policies and legislation based upon it.

Our founding fathers decided to separate church and state for a very good reason, and we are seeing the results of Republican attempts to add it back in, blur the line, in all areas. SOMEONE (actually, many people, as a voting block) has to come out and say, in no uncertain terms, that the government, and/or any religious group, does not have the right to make one person, group of people, a nation, live by the religious beliefs it deems the correct ones.

[littlebuddylouie]

I too left the Republican party years ago in disgust when they sold out to the extreme religious right.
While watching the charade at Rick Warren's church, I found myself wondering how many of those female congregants had themselves had abortions, and never told anyone.
I've met several women over the years who've told me about past abortions, and I'm convinced the only reason they told me was because they knew my current personal disdain for religion, and that I wouldn't judge them one way or the other. None of them expressed any regrets about what was for them, a deeply personal decision that they had to make at a particular time in their lives. These weren't exactly the types of women that would ever go to church and allow themselves to become poster children for guilt, shame and regret either. I wish more such women would speak out publicly, but I also understand why they don't.

[avance]

HuffPost's Pick

In the early 19th century abortion in the United States was legal. Historians of the subject estimate that one in five pregnancies was terminated. No organized church, not even the Roman Catholic Church, opposed it. Advertising of abortifacients and abortion providers was commonplace in newspapers. There was no controversy over late term abortion because a woman faced little difficulty in obtaining an abortion early in a pregnancy. It was generally understood that abortion was acceptable up to the time of what was called the "quickening" of the fetus. Regulation of the procedure varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (see http://law.jrank.org/pages/446/Abortion-Abortion-in-American-law-nineteenth-century.html), accelerating with the success of professional physicians organized in the American Medical Association gaining a monopoly on the practice of surgery, inclluding the provision of abortion. From about 1870 until Roe, abortion was illegal. Thanks to this hundred-year-blackout most Americans seem to think that abortion has from Biblical times been regarded as murder and a sin, an error that has muddled straight thinking about the issue.

[gotborked]

Also, slavery was legal.

Sometimes, the law gets it wrong.

[debbyg]

I have a simple answer to the abortion question. I used it when a co-worker started his pro-life rant.

I understand your feelings on this and I know my feelings, but are either of us qualified to make that decision for any other person? Until you have walked in their shoes, you have no right to make that decision.

Personally, it has always galled me that only men make these decisions for Americans. Not one has ever carried a child, nor will they ever become pregnant.

[wolfgangmo]

I would have read the article but it was too nuanced.

[righttip]

Agreed. Until you have walked in that baby's shoes you have no right to make that decision.
My husband and I thank you.

[luvobama]

Oh brother. Thank you hall monitor.

[Simone]

Let your husband speak for himself.

[LilyMaskew]

The point is that most pro-choice and anti-abortion believers do not take Life and Death lightly. We are actually agreed on that point, for the most part. The problem is in the nuances and the different reasons. Some because of their belief in God. Some because they believe God gives us the power to reason for ourselves. There are as many reasons as there are people. Some people believe that allowing a child to be born to a family who has abused their other children is a fate worse than death. The government is probably good on questions regarding finance or courts or - government, but not on personal decisions that require a lot of critical thinking. IMHO there is no one blanket answer. Who knows which people would volunteer not to be born, knowing how much of a burden they could be on an ill-equipped mother? We can't assume that the baby would necessarily chose to be born; there are too many people alive today living in poverty and pain, with disease that they would rather die than live with. No one except the parents can possibly come close to an answer. Certainly not the govenment.

[Rashnak]

Your argument is flawed.

By your reasoning, I cannot judge a murderer because I have never killed anyone.

How DARE you imply that men have no role in the conversation. Your narrow mindset is no different than when men said that women have no right to vote.

[luvobama]

I would never have an abortion. Yes. i have had an unplanned pregnancy. However, i would march to keep abortion safe and legal for those who need it. i could never pretend to know what was best for a pregnant person. I'm not that smart.
What's ironic, is that those who are so ready to boss other people around under the guise of protecting life, almost always oppose birth control, are pro death penalty and love war. It's as though life is only life when it is in someone else's body. You certainly don't value the lives of Iraqis and all the other evil doers.

[mollysgran]

This is the problem. Suddenly it is all about you, instead of the person who is having to deal with the decision.

It is such a personal matter and should never be politicized.

Why don't you chime in again after you have done some deep breathing exercises.

[HawkOnTheLeft]

The post was as much about messaging in general as it was about abortion.

On a few key themes traditionally viewed as Republican strengths, a simple, non-nuanced message can go right to the gut:

National Security: Republican actions have made our enemies stronger. Worried about what Iran will do next in Iraq? Well, Iran wasn't in Iraq before we invaded. Iran is stronger because we invaded. (Pick your foe and repeat.) Republicans have no business telling anyone how to make America safer.

Taxes: John McCain wants to tax your children. The national debt has grown for $5.7 trillion to $9.6 trillion on this president's watch. Just the interest on the increase is a $2,000 tax increase per family of four for every year your children live. What scum would rather tax your children forever than close loopholes for multi-millionaires and big oil?

Leadership: If McCain is such a leader, why couldn't he lead his party away from the trough of earmarks? Isn't that what leaders do? Elect McCain, get the Republicans.