Asymmetrical Information
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 13 July 2005 | 8 responses
Jane Galt has two posts on thought provoking topics which might help jump-start your morning: “Should we give more aid to Africa?” and “No Roe, no GOP?”
I have to disagree in part with Galt’s second post. I agree with her that it’s hyperbole to say that overturning Roe would do away with the Republican party or give them long-term minority status. But I do think that if Roe was overturned it would result in a temporary (on the order of 5 or 10 years) shift toward the Democrats, particularly in the states.
One issue not mentioned in “No Roe, no GOP” is that without Roe, the conservative religious base would have one less issue to rally around. If an ammendment banning gay marriage and an overturn of Roe occured, isn’t it possible that conservative Christians would slowly migrate to the Dems for economic reasons? I’m no demographics expert, but I’ve seen this argument before, and it seems plausible.
I also think that Galt is wrong to assume that if Roe were overturned, the decision about legalized abortion would fall to the states. That is how it would happen at first, but with a strongly Republican Congress…if that decision were overturned, what is out there in the laws to prevent the National government from prohibiting the procedure? They’ve already established a precedent in that they’re willing to pass laws banning specific medical procedures (late term abortions), why wouldn’t they push one to ban it outright?
Secondly, in her Africa post, she suggests opening up lines of credit to help fund projects in Africa. Isn’t that exactly what we’ve been doing, and hasn’t that been part of the problem - repayments on the debt created in financing those projects have worked for decades as one of the retarding forces holding back economic growth in Africa. It’s certainly not the only one, but it’s been a contributing one.
But I do think that if Roe was overturned it would result in a temporary (on the order of 5 or 10 years) shift toward the Democrats
I’m going to disagree with this. I think my party could head off any backlash by simply pointing out that they had merely shifted the decision-making power regarding abortion to the states. Unless, of course, they try to enact a national ban, which would be extremely foolish and almost certainly doomed to failure anyway.
Just to play Devil’s Advocate with Eric for a moment (not sure I believe this)…let’s say it was tossed back to the states after Roe v. Wade went down. Which states would be the most likely to immediately enact a ban? Republican controlled states.
In other words, if it was tossed back to the states, the availability of abortion probably wouldn’t change too much in New York, Illinois, California, Massachusetts, etc. But it would change dramatically in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, etc.
So on 1 hand, you’d have the pro-abortion folks in CA et al. being given a rallying cry by having Roe v. Wade overturned, while on the other hand you’d have people in the Republican states having to genuinely put up with it being illegal there. That sounds like a setup that could lead to a backlash to me.
Eric wrote:
But the reason it would be foolish at the Federal level is because 2/3 of the public wants abortion to remain legal (though they’ll accept some restrictions on it). So if it’s extremely foolish to do at a national level for this reason, why wouldn’t the same reason hold true at the state level? If people are motivated to vote Democratic in state elections for legislators and governors in order to insure that abortion remains legal in their state, that will certainly have a residual effect at the national level. Plus, I would bet that there would be an attempt in Congress to ban abortion at the national level if Roe is overturned. The serious pro-lifers - and by this I mean almost all of the prominent organizations of the religious right - don’t just want abortion to go back to the states, they want it banned nationwide. The Republican party would have to at least attempt to do that by putting up legislation to do it or risk losing those people to a potential third party. I really do think that the political leadership of the party does not want Roe overturned for this reason. They know that it will greatly damage them for at least the first 5 to 10 years after it’s overturned.
So if it’s extremely foolish to do at a national level for this reason, why wouldn’t the same reason hold true at the state level?
Because the only states where a total ban would pass in the first few years after Roe were overturned are ones that are heavily red. So red that even most Democrats won’t be too upset about it. Other red states will enact some restrictions that will be generally palatable to their voters.
Going state-by-state allows for a “customized” legal situation that reflects how the population feels about abortion. I agree with Jane Galt that the folks in “pro-abortion” states (holy crap, did Balta just use that term?) won’t be too upset, ultimately, that people in other states are seeing abortion restricted.
The Republican party would have to at least attempt [a national abortion ban] by putting up legislation to do it or risk losing those people to a potential third party.
The pro-life movement has been quite disappointed in the very little Bush has done about abortion for the past 4.5 years, yet there’s no sign the party is about to lose them. Overturning Roe would be the biggest accomplishment of the movement in three and a half decades. I think they could be convinced of the utility of working at the state level–at least for awhile before attempting a national ban.
The Religious Right would push for a national ban. Also if Roe is overturned while the states that currently have Republican majorities are still in basically the same balance I think the Republican legislatures in those states are full enough of themselves to think that they could survive passing complete bans. They’re wrong in several states, but I don’t think they really appreciate that. They think they’re more popular than they really are, which reminds me of Missouri Republicans and Medicaid where they’ve cut it drastically and are planning on eliminating it in 2008. Want to guess what their popularity is like right now? But if they pass the kinds of bans that the Religious Right want the people who disagree with them but are lackadaisical now just might turn out strongly for at least one election cycle. But the Republicans won’t lose the RRs. There’s always Griswold, after all.