|
In
a development that could have an effect on the
outcome of the 2005 gubernatorial election in
Virginia, the Virginia chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice
America recently announced that it will not endorse
any of the candidates in that race. It refused to
throw its support behind Democrat Timothy Kaine
because “he embraces many of the restrictions on a
woman’s right to choose that are opposed by NARAL.”
At
the same time, the organization blasted Republican
Jerry Kilgore as an “extremely anti-choice”
candidate who would, it contended, accept the
criminalization of abortion and restrictions on
access to contraceptives. It declined to endorse
independent candidate Russell Potts because it
preferred to have him remain in the Virginia Senate
where he chairs a committee that has successfully
blocked pro-life legislation.
Formal
endorsements or non-endorsements by organizations
such as NARAL have not always had the effect on
voters that the organizations intended. In this
year’s contest, each candidate’s response to the
NARAL announcement could be more significant than
the announcement itself.
One
reason for the potential significance of this
announcement is the relatively high percentage of
voters for whom the abortion issue is the deciding
issue in an election. Every candidate is keenly
aware of the disproportionate impact of single-issue
voters in a competitive election. The accepted
wisdom in modern politics is that a candidate should
find a way to maximize the support of certain
intense groups without stirring the passions of
equally intense groups on the other side of the
issue.
British
commentators describe this political balancing act
as “dog-whistle” campaigning. It involves
delivering a message to voters about the
candidate’s stand on abortion, guns or other
controversial issues in a manner that is likely to
be heard only by supporters.
Often,
“dog-whistle” campaigning uses direct mail or
telephone contacts that can be targeted to voters
previously identified as probable supporters. Or it
uses code words that have special meaning to
single-issue voters and ideally to only one side of
that issue.
This
kind of campaigning may not work in this year’s
gubernatorial race, at least with the abortion
issue. The principal reason is that both sides of
that issue have publicly demanded clarification by
each candidate of their respective positions.
These
discussions will continue to occur in full public
view. Kaine cannot depend on frequent references to
his Catholic faith to neutralize pro-life voters who
know he helped defeat legislation this year that
would cut off government funding of abortions.
Kilgore
will not satisfy passionate pro-life voters without
responding to questions about his stand on the
“morning after” pill and “hypothetical”
state legislation if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned.
On
the other side of the coin, Kaine will not stop the
drain of pro-choice support to Potts without
publicly backing away from positions he has taken
early in the campaign. For his part, Kilgore cannot
offset the loss of pro-life votes with moderate
votes by equivocating on abortion.
Those
who plead with candidates to ignore social issues
such as abortion and to focus instead on “real
issues” fail to appreciate the role of intensity
in politics.
These
critics may deplore single-issue voting, but it will
continue to be a major factor in elections.
Ironically, the participation of Potts, the
independent and vocally pro-choice candidate, in the
2005 election will heighten the focus on the
abortion issue in each of the three gubernatorial
campaigns — whether the candidates like it or not.
--
August 23, 2005
|
