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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Evangelicals are actually NOT pro-life, rather they are pro-birth. There is a huge difference! Evangelicals believe that all pregnancies should go to term and be delivered regardless of the quality of that life once born. Dems, and many others, ARE pro-life. Evangelicals support the death penalty, wars where bombs are dropped on innocent civilians to ferret out "evil," and ruthlessly abandoning those people who do not meet their self-righteous standards (walk over the homeless vet or mentally ill, abandon the mixed race child to foster care, etc.). Evangelicals insist that a woman who conceives should bear and birth that child no matter what her circumstances or health. The unborn "life" is the biggest and utmost consideration. It is so much easier to be pro-birth where you can be haughty and holy and assume no responsibility as a member of society for raising the unintended or unplanned baby. It is much more difficult to actually be pro-life. Dems and others who are pro-life put their convictions and actions into providing: healthcare for both the mother and baby, daycare, preschool, school breakfast/lunch, adequate school buildings, effective education, affordable college, adequate housing, job training, unemployment benefits, social security disability benefits, etc. If evangelicals were truly pro-life they would put their money, effort and influence where it really counts. For me, I choose the pro-life principle of the Democrats and, for that reason, support Barack Obama as President. Obama '08
No... the suggested response to the abortion issue is still very, very weak. Here's a much better approach:
1) There were more abortions BEFORE Roe v. Wade than after.
2) According to recent world-wide WHO studies, laws that criminalize abortion have zero effect on the number of abortions performed. The ONLY effect such laws have is to cause an increase in the number of deaths of women who have abortions.
3) Therefore, criminalizing abortion does NOT reduce the numbers of abortions, while simultaneously creating more death. On the whole, it is a pro-death stance.
4) Make the point that what McCain is proposing is that we institute a policy that does NOT reduce the numbers of abortions, that results in more deaths overall, and that he even goes so far as to propose that we execute or imprison women who have abortions, and "I strongly disagree with that kind of extremism".
I've used this argument with conservatives - including Catholic priests who spout off about their "pro-life" position. I point out that their position really isn't "pro-life" at all. It stops them dead in their tracks every time. I don't know why the Democratic party doesn't seize upon this. It's very honest, incredibly simple, and it cannot be disputed intelligently. It leaves them stumbling and bumbling - and sometimes they even change their position on it. The truth is a powerful thing.
Great points, bobsmith!!
MIght want to re-check your numbers on point #1.
http://www
I thought it was an honest mistake, given that there were more abortions per capita, more deaths from abortions, and more pain for the victims of rape or social scorn due to an assumption that it was their fault (woman's rights issue separate from the abortion issue, but historically, closely intertwined).
It's a very good point, overall, though; illegalizing seldom decreases anything but the safety of the action it condemns.
Good Job
A follow-on for pint #1.
In New York City, before Roe v. Wade became the "law of the land" the leading cause of death for women of childbearing age (defined as ages 15 to 44) was complications arising from botched abortions.
A follow-on to point #3
In Romania, not only was it illegal to procure abortions, it was illegal to practice any type of birth control, and women had to take pregancy tests on a regular basis. So, many unwanted Romanian babies were abandoned or place in orphanges, which warehoused these children, providing only the most basic care, with no emotional of physical stimuli. After the Romanian dictator was deposed, conditions changed for Romanian women. Many Americans have adopted these "orphaned" children and have had to deal with emotional deficits engendered by lack of loving care by adults.
Those of us who want expanded childcare, realistic info and provision for contraception, safe but rare abortions, we are the ones who are pro-life.
The main thing is not to confuse audiences. An audience like in Rick Warren's church has "correct answers" in its collective consciousness, and Obama is to be applauded for taking his message to them, even though he perhaps wasn't strong enough. No one will argue that for 99% of women facing the possibilities of abortion, all choices are potentially tragic and certainly profound. McCain took the easy route, and gave them what the audience what it wanted. The national audience watching a presidential debate is not Rick Warren's church audience and is waiting for an honest answer. I'll bet it will be McCain "nuancing" all over the place at that time. The simplest solution for both candidates? Acknowledge the difficulty of the woman's decision and speak straightforwardly, that's all you can do.
LISTEN ... This is a very good debate we are having here. But you are missing a key point from the Saddleback episode ... McCain CONTINUE TO LIE! If he truly believes that human rights begin at conception, then he cannot have stem cell research. Plus he voted FOR 2 of the 3 judges he says do not belong on the Supreme Court. Plus he DOES NOT have a 25 year record of stringent anti-abortion law support! He is not having a "McCain moment". He is a LIAR!
See Ken Allen's Profile
I've long wondered why liberals accepted the terminology of the "pro-life" faction, starting with the term "pro-life.
Great posting. 90% of all Americans are somewhere in the middle of this question. The 2 extremes are 1: Put doctors in jail and force women to carry their babies to term under gunpoint. 2: No restrictions whatsoever
I agree!
I agree, I think the best political position would lie in increasing preventative measures, expanding/improve sex education, improving adoption services and banning third trimester abortions.
The basic message is that No one likes abortions, so lets prevent unwanted pregnancies, and ban third trimester abortions while allowing those third trimester babies a chance with a couple that wants and can handle them.
Absolutely! That's why couching it in terms of forcing an issue on someone based on someone else's faith turns the tables. 'Compulsory pregnancy'. I LIKE that! ;-)
I am pro life: I do not believe in killing unless your life is in danger.
It is very simple "THOU SHALL NOT KILL"
I believe, as most people do, that life begins at birth. I do not accept the religious dogma that life begins at conception. I have yet to find in the Bible, the words of Christ that says that life begins at conception.
I agree- a so called pro lifer defends life from conception to birth. They refuse to accept responsibility for the results of their belief- that is, forced birth and the ensuing costs of raising a child. They do not care about a child once he or she is borne and they are the first to scream for the death penalty and the loudest voice when it comes to wanting war.
>I have yet to find in the Bible, the words of Christ that says that life begins at conception
That's because it isn't in there. I once challenged an entire team of Jehovah's Witnesses to show me the Bible passage which proclaims that life begins at conception. They couldn't do it. In the end, they agreed the bottom line is that God gave humans free will with which to make their own choices, therefore, God is pro-choice. ;)
absolutely
This is the best, most meaningfully written blog on the subject I've ever read. Thank you!
I am all for detailed explainations of one's positions on all subjects to get a better read on how that person sees the world, interprets the same information I have, thinks and makes decisions. Those are all good things, but to say that somehow answering a question like "When does life begin" with a clear concise answer is somehow less intelligent or thoughtful then an answer of 'at conception' seems to be a little warped.
The question are (to me at least):
1. When do you think life begins?
2. Is this 'life' part of the mother or is it a seperate entity?
3. When does a fetus become a human with his/her own rights?
4. At what point can the mother no longer elect to end the 'life' of the thing?
I think question 1 deserves a very simple straight forward answer. The others, 2-4, are much more complex and could be truthfully ansered in a long drawn out thoughful way.
5. After you answer #1, is it right to pass laws that make everyone else accept YOUR conclusion. Or do you leave it rightly to the individual.
I don't believe in spontaneous regeneration. Life doesn't arise from non-living matter. The only answer to "when did life begin?" is "about 4 billion years ago". That's the scientific answer.
But religious people want to have a "soul" inserted by God. A specific point where "it" happens. it's nonsense that doesn't even find any basis in the bible.
It is very obvious that few of the folks responding to this article actually heard the interview. This particular question asked when the child deserved protection. According to Obama's IL State Senate record, he feels it is ok for the state to kill the child even if it is the product of a failed abortion. Now call me names -- or google the record. But that is a sick position and deserves a more thoughtful response than "that question is above my pay grade".
wrong. he voted against that bill because it had other provisions in it that he didn't like. even the medical association was against that bill.
well, a cell is a living thing, so one could say that an egg or a sperm or any cell in our bodies is life.
“I am struck by how knee-jerk the liberal/progressive community is on the necessity of legal abortions,” writes Timothy Shipe of Westerville, Ohio, in the June 2003 issue of The Progressive. “On every other issue, the progressive community looks at the parties involved, assesses the humanity, the vulnerability, the justice, the balance of power, and then weighs in on the side of the underdog. Every issue, that is, except for abortion.
“The day I accept as ‘progressive’ the anti-human practice of willful abortion is the day I say OK to unjust war, unfettered capitalist exploitation of people and the environment, capital punishment, ethnic cleansing, and so forth.”
Opposition to abortion can be found across the political spectrum. A national poll by Wirthlin Worldwide on the evening of the 1998 elections found that 38 percent of all Democrats (and 40 percent of Democrat women) oppose abortion. A national poll released by the Center for Gender Equality in January 1999, found that a majority of American women don't support legalized abortion on demand.
The abortion controversy is analogous to the Vietnam War. By the late 1960s, both the right and the left came to agree that the war was wrong; they merely advocated different strategies for ending it. The real losers on this issue are the 1.5 million annual victims of prenatal homicide, and the spineless politicians afraid to speak out against the madness.
On secular, human rights grounds, the American Left should take a stand against abortion.
The abortion controversy is NOT analogous to the War on Vietnam. The Left new all along that that war was morally wrong. It is wrong to incinerate (a la McCain) people in their homes and factories and farms. The right STILL does not think its wrong. They cannot get it in their heads that the Vietnamese won and that it was right that they won. The right just thinks the war was fought with their hands tied. It has nothing to do with abortion. The right to be free of compulsory pregnancy must be universal. That is, reproductive freedom is a woman's right. We must opt for the woman over the fetus every time. Anything else is misogyny.
I agreed until "1.5 million annual victims of prenatal homicide".
no one actually likes abortions, just as no woman actually likes a baby passing through their crotch... you have to examine the subject in context... zygotes and early stage fetuses don't even have brains, they are so unformed that they could not possible exist outside of the parasitic state...
abortions happen for many reasons, some abortions even occur naturally, when the woman's body aborts the fetus without concious input from the woman. If a female is a child or is not in a position to handle a baby, is in other ways incapable of caring for a baby, was raped, or if the fetus is deformed or is forming into a state that no human would want to be in, she may decide to abort it.
I can understand prohibiting third trimester abortions, because the fetus is actually mostly formed into a human and depending on the circomstances, may survive outside of the parasitic state.
come on... should masturbation be banned because of the potential humans that died?... is that manslaught
Sperm and egg are lving cells, so it is safe to say human life begins perhaps a quarter million years ago with the first fully human gendered cells. Obama should stop pandering to misogynistic nuts for Christ. He should say that no woman should be forced to maintain a pregnancy against her will. That, if he has to opt for a living, breathing woman versus an embryo or fetus, he would opt for women every time. And as far as McCain goes, as he was willing to incinerate villagers from 30,000 feet he has no moral ground from which to judge women.
The left has not nuanced the issue:
"It's my body and I can do what I want" That's as straight forward as it can get.
The problem with that is:
3 seconds before delivery and it's still not a baby.
why is selling body parts illegal?
Prostitution and drug use should be legal.
That's what Obama should say: It's a woman's body. end of story.
Lair.
I agree with much that Dr. Westen said. The debate has been distorted and the language has been inadequate. Just a word from someone who remembers how it used to be... There is no way the State can enforce mandatory pregnancy. Even if it were the right thing to do. A woman who does not want to bear a child will do anything to end that pregnancy. I knew at least one woman who was killed by an illegal abortion. Back in those days, we took up collections in the dorms, drove our friends to that town in PA where a kind and competent doctor performed illegal abortions, sent friends to Puerto Rico for abortions. Lots of alternatives. So the question is not "if" abortion. The question is "how" abortion.
Also, all this talk about when does life begin.. Dumb question. Of course a zygote is alive. A paramecium is alive. The question is when does the human being begin. The answer is probably "bit by bit."
Abortion is a class warfare issue.
The debate over abortion is really deciding whether poor and lower-middle class women can get abortions. Rich people will still be able to send their wives, daughters, mistresses, etc. to Europe or Canada to get safe, legal abortions, and even upper-middle class folks will be able to do so, even if it causes some financial heartburn.
To make the McCain/Bush ban on abortion equitable, all females between the ages of 10 and 60 will have to take a pregnancy test at the airport if they are going out of the country, and if they are indeed pregnant, they would have to take the test again on re-entry. If you are pregnant going out, but not coming back -- straight to jail with you. Too bad if you have a natural miscarriage. Do you really want to live in a place like that?
This is just some holier-than-thou hypocrites harping on a rare medical procedure and ignoring the fact that we are fighting the biggest wars going on now and even though we have ample resources, we do not feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, etc. Anyone who knows anything about religion would know that we are awash in disgraceful sin.
It's also a gender warfare issue since feminists demand that men must have their sexuality and reproduction controlled by the state. Young men cannot be allowed to decide if they are ready to become fathers because they have to be forced to financially subsidize the choices made by young women. As usual feminism stands only for rich and middle class white women.
Feminism, mattheweste, believes in an individual's freedom no matter the gender.
Feminism believes that women are equal to men under the law.
Feminism is constantly under attack because of all the misuse of the term.
Young men who become fathers must support their child. Feminists didn't make up this rule. Family Courts across the country have made this rule.
Senator Obama needs to hire Drew Westen. He and his campaign staff need to spend some quality time together or their on their way to another defeat to the GOP machine. Drew has the answer and so far the Democrats are oblivious to the best election expert in the US and that includes Carl Rove.
Exactly. This is what I was thinking as I read the article. I hope the Obama team picks up on this. I'm getting worried.
We all know how MR. OBAMA feels about abortion. He even thinks that the "partial birth abortion" is the right thing. How many of you women would say, oh that baby I am about to have looks like there may be something wrong with it and I don't want it. So, the baby is killed, just as it started to live. He is part of the NARAL, which goes along with the partial birth abortion. Now, do you think that is the right way to feel? I do not. Many women have babies that have some problems, such as Cerebral Palsy, retardation and many other ills, but a REAL MOTHER, wants that child and loves and raises it.
A child, no matter what may be wrong, has a right to live, be loved and raised with loving care.
if you had watched the forum, you'd know that he doesn't support partial birth abortion. and any woman who thinks to herself "oh that baby I am about to have looks like there may be something wrong with it and I don't want it" is sick and demented and shouldn't be having children. and that's not how it works. most women actually get abortions for economic reasons. now that's what's really sad. but in actuality a woman must give up her life, independence, career, etc. if she has a child. unplanned children is how most women make it to the poorhouse and there simply isn't enough support for women.
there is middle ground on this issue, but that middle ground includes choice.
Until Democrats become only "one issue" voters and we are not....the
If Democrats want to own an issue....I say...own the Economy...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
