‘Learn from even your political enemies.’ How Ohio Republicans can stop abortion | Expert

Marc Clauson, professor of history and law at Cedarville University, is noted for his work in the history of political and economic thought, constitutionalism, and markets and social justice.

Unfortunately, Issue 1 failed to pass, but its failure was predictable.

Several factors came into play, and Republicans and conservatives ought to learn from them.

Issue 1 opponent got the jump

First, proponents did not advertise early.

Instead, they waited until the opposition had begun to run ads. And, unfortunately, the conservative ads were skewed toward clearly associating Issue 1 with the upcoming abortion ballot measure.

The opposition effectively jumped on that association, allowing the abortion “tail” to wag the dog.

In turn, this mistake ties in with a cultural problem in Ohio and around the country.

Generally, people don’t want unrestricted abortion (and the conservatives had better point out the possibilities of that for November).

On the other hand, most also don’t want abortion banned or overly restricted.  Given the Ohio legislature’s recent bills, the perception — or reality — has been that lawmakers wanted to ban almost all abortions.

The people of Ohio don’t want to go that far, and any suggestion of very restrictive abortion legislation is met with strong opposition.

Lessons from your political enemies

Some may respond, “Do you then favor abortion?”

No, I don’t, but we must learn from the past — learn from even your political enemies — that you can’t always get everything at once. How did socialism infiltrate many European nations before and after World War II?

Incrementally and democratically!  Think incrementally and improve persuasiveness.

Better rhetoric

Additionally, the opposition to Issue 1 was very effective with the rhetoric that it would “destroy democracy” or “undermine one man, one vote.”

Those are slogans that have become deeply embedded in the American cultural-political psyche. The simple majority is almost sacrosanct (even though historians know what it led to in ancient Athens).

Two centuries of democratic rhetoric and progressive constitutional and legislative policies have institutionalized this idea of democracy.

Of course, it is not true that a supermajority vote undermines democracy; it simply ensures that most voters favor any proposal, helping to prevent “tyranny by the majority.”

But I don’t know if it is currently possible to overcome the prejudice against supermajorities.

What about the future?

I do believe Ohio will now be seen as a state ripe for the picking by various interest-identity groups if those groups can “divide and conquer.”

They divide by bringing separate ballot initiatives forward, and then they isolate the factions that might otherwise cooperate.

Next, they appeal to those on the periphery who are not rabid party members or ideological supporters.

They do this through “gloom and doom” apocalyptic publicity. And they have a lot of money to spend.

With all that money they persuade the “substantial middle” of all voters to believe that these measures either may be good or may be harmful in some general sense — not to them personally but societally.

What should conservatives do?

Let’s take abortion as an example.

As soon as this November ballot issue was even thought about, the conservatives should have formulated a countermeasure and gotten it placed on the November ballot.

That measure could have exploited all the weaknesses of the present November measure and at the same time assured voters that they would not be voting for a radical amendment but rather a reasonable addition to the Ohio Constitution.

In addition, conservatives should think and act incrementally — be patient and persuade while also responding immediately to the efforts of the opposition.

Finally, by all means, don’t make the abortion measure say what it doesn’t say. Voters can see through overblown rhetoric.

So, for example, do not argue that somehow the abortion measure will allow for transgender surgery or hormone treatment. It says no such thing.

Perhaps some time way down the road, some radical judge might read that into it, but no reasonable person would. Stick to the actual wording. There is more than enough to oppose as it is.

Everything I’ve said is not a compromise.

I can’t say this too strongly: Strategies in voting do not have to be unethical to be effective.  What I have suggested is perfectly ethical.

It is designed to move the issue toward the ultimate goal while being both wise and above reproach.

Marc Clauson, professor of history and law at Cedarville University, is noted for his work in the history of political and economic thought, constitutionalism, and markets and social justice. Before coming to Cedarville, he was the assistant commissioner in the Department of Finance and Administration for the state of West Virginia.

This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: What Republicans should do to stop abortion amendment | Marc Clauson