What you have to understand about Obama’s, and the Democratic Party’s, push to appear moderate on abortion is that it is part and parcel of a bait and switch by the religious left. What they want you to focus on are “social justice” issues rather than the “culture war” hot button issues like abortion, marriage, gay rights, etc.
There is a two part problem to this:
1) social justice always means more government spending and programs rather than actually helping the less fortunate.
2) they want to avoid talking about issues like abortion and marriage because they are firmly to the left of the majority of believers, and most American, on these issues.
Judith Warner outlines it for you. First she quotes a number of prominent members of the religious left offering their Obama spin:
“They reached out to us,” said Jim Wallis, a progressive evangelical leader who was consulted on the abortion language, and who on Tuesday convoked a rather remarkable phone press conference in which a group of Republicans, Catholics and evangelicals came together to publicize and promote the new Democratic statement.
“The committee worked hard to give language that gave evangelicals and Roman Catholics the sense that they could participate in the Democratic Party without the compromise of their convictions,” Tony Campolo, a prominent evangelical, and a member of the Democratic platform committee, said in the conference call.
Joel Hunter, senior pastor of the Northland Church in Orlando, Fla., and a former head of the Christian Coalition, went even further. “Pro-lifers of both parties can now support Senator Obama,” he said.
Only one small problem, the facts simply don’t support the view that Obama and the Democrats moved toward the center at all:
There is nothing new in the Democratic position. The abortion plank’s first sentence, “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right,” is, arguably, the most powerful statement in favor of abortion rights that the party has ever made. Some pro-choice activists find it less grating to the ear than the old Clintonian formulation, which promised in the 2004 party platform to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare.”
[. . .]
If there is any sort of olive branch on offer to the anti-abortion community right now, it seems to me to consist chiefly of this week’s spin campaign, which gave cover to evangelicals and Catholics who have come out as pro-Obama (or as willing to talk to Obama) and now may well need to save face.
Ironically, after revealing the sham that is the supposed compromise Warner is compelled to defend the basis of the con:
Sanctifying life – without care for the living — is little more than a morality play.
Supporting families is a moral choice.
No, sanctifying life is about moral choices. Either killing innocent children is wrong or it is not. There is no “play” involved. One moral question is not erased because another one follows it. The choice to support families is not more important than the choice of whether to let them exist in the first place.
This mindset views the act of allowing a baby born after an unsuccessful abortion to die as inexplicably tied up with how much money the government spends on health care and adoption. This is the height of moral sophistry.
But this is what the left wants to make this about: showing compassion through government programs. Because that is something they can support without resort to morality. What unites the religious left with the atheistic/agnostic left is their profound belief in government as THE agent of compassion and morality; as the moral voice of its citizens. And it is this error that leads them both to pound the table for more and more programs even after decades of failure (does anyone think families are better off because of the rise in social spending in this country?) and to adopt moralistic language with which to coach their secular arguments.
Obama and his allies want you to believe that he is compassionate and moderate simply because he uses faith based rhetoric to call for traditional big government solutions. They want you to ignore his extremist views on abortion because he supports increased spending on pre-natal care and adoption tax credits.
But this is con game of the highest order. A man who can’t see the fundamental moral question involved in not allowing a living breathing baby to die in the name of political ideology does not deserve your trust.
Obama has had multiple chances to prove that he really is different and he has failed. It is becoming clear that perhaps the only principle that Obama isn’t willing to compromise on is abortion on demand and at tax payers expense. And to add insult to injury, he insists on lying about it.
So much for all that talk about hope.