Let’s take a trip down Memory Lane. Think back to the political climate in 2003. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and President George W. Bush signed it into law. The Democrats were placed in an untenable position. Democrats traditionally enjoy the support of women. They decided they should object to any limitations on a woman’s right to choose, after all it is a matter of principle. Unfortunately for the democrats, they ignored the opinions of mainstream Americans who spilt evenly on abortion rights, but clearly draw the line at the partial birth abortion. These mythical lines are often troublesome in politics. Where should the line be drawn? Should you let your opponents draw the line for you?
In 2003, Republicans drew the line for Democrats. Democrats were for partial birth abortion and Republicans were pro-life (heck, isn’t everyone pro-life). Democrats let Republicans draw this line because the far-left liberal wing of the party (let’s call them the liberal elites) and the folks from Hollywood (we’ll call them Hollywood liberals) thought that any limitation on a woman’s right to choose was merely a step away from overturning Roe v. Wade. Clearly an overreaction, especially when you consider the sentiment of a majority of the relatively conservative card-carrying union members in the Midwest who have traditionally supported Democrats in the past. They didn’t care for the Democratic position on this issue. The Democrats had a tough time. They lost elections.
A person far smarter than me once said that those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Fast Forward to February of 2004. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriage passed by that state’s legislature was unconstitutional. It was also a presidential election year. The Democrats found themselves in another untenable position. Democrats traditionally enjoy the support of homosexuals. Opposing a ban on gay marriage seemed to be the appropriately liberal thing to do. After all, why should the government proscribe that marriage is between a man and a woman; that’s so big brother and those right wing whackos have clearly overstepped their bounds, right? Wrong. Unfortunately for Democrats, they ignored the opinions of mainstream Americans who think gay marriage crosses a line.
In 2004, Republicans drew the line for Democrats. Democrats were for gay marriage and Republicans were for family values (isn’t everybody for family values). Democrats let Republicans draw this line because the liberal elites and the Hollywood liberals thought that the government should stay out of the business of defining marriage. Clearly an overreaction, especially when you consider the sentiment of a majority of the relatively conservative card-carrying union members in the Midwest and African-Americans who have traditionally supported Democrats in the past. They didn’t care for the Democratic position on this issue. The Democrats had a tough time, they lost elections. How did that old saying go? Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The year is 2006. The issue is stem cell research. Substitute Republicans for Democrats. We’re in trouble now. The issue involves stem cell technology called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). The Republican money folks led by former Senator Danforth support SCNT and so does Governor Blunt. The published research suggests that this type of research could possibly lead to cures for a number of debilitating illnesses. This type of research could have a significant and positive economic impact on the state as well. The pro-life movement leaves no room for compromise. They were willing to torpedo anti-abortion legislation in Missouri last year in an unsuccessful effort to enact a ban on stem cell research. They see these issues as consistent. It’s pretty clear that Republicans are divided on this issue. Division is bad. People stay home from the polls. We could lose elections.
In 2006, the Democrats want to draw the line for Republicans. Democrats favor life saving research (doesn’t everybody favor life saving research) and Republicans are out-of-touch. This debate will likely take center stage in the re-election bid of Senator Jim Talent. Senator Talent is a conservative, albeit relatively boring and undistinguished, lawmaker who fancies himself a legislator and not a politician. He is being challenged by State Auditor Claire McCaskill, who narrowly lost to Governor Blunt in 2004. The polls have shown this race to be extremely competitive since McCaskill entered the race. As Election Day approaches, Senator Talent finds himself in an untenable position. The Republican money people are funding the movement to place stem cell research on the ballot. They are for stem cell research. The pro-life movement (including many of Senator Talent’s grass roots supporters) is uncompromisingly against stem cell research. Senator Talent was in lock step with his supporters and co-sponsored federal legislation that would effectively limit stem cell research. Then, he withdrew his support for that bill during an academic floor speech that attempted to draw a distinction between certain types of research. In a nutshell, he flip-flopped (a dangerous game in politics) while trying to appear thoughtful and well studied on the issue. It seems that he might have made a mistake. Democrats and Republicans alike seized on his indecisiveness. He has yet to take a position on the potential ballot issue in Missouri. This potential ballot issue may ultimately cost him his seat in the U.S. Senate.
Senator Talent should carefully consider his next move. At this point, no one is particularly happy with him. He has alienated his grassroots supporters by opening the door to support of some types of stem cell research and he has not really garnered the favor of the money folks with his lukewarm support of some types of stem cell research. Not to mention the fact that most of us found his explanation to be extremely complicated and confusing. Indecisiveness has ended many political careers. Republicans need to unite behind Senator Talent, even if he is indecisive. Senator Talent should remember his consistent roots and unapologetically take a position. Otherwise, a much more liberal voice will begin to represent Missouri in the U. S. Senate.
What’s the moral of the story? Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Let’s not allow Democrats to draw the line. Let’s unite behind Senator Talent. Let’s not lose this election.
