Posted on 03/23/2005 4:46:14 AM PST by billorites
Washington — THE Congressional vote on Monday allowing Terri Schiavo's parents to take her case to a federal court underscores the success of Christian conservatives in defining the last election as having been decided by moral values. But political strategists may not want to bank too heavily on this assessment. Especially on life-and-death issues, support for moral values among Americans must contend with a deeply held pragmatism.
It is rare for Washington politicians to buck public opinion. An ABC News poll conducted on Sunday found a 63 percent to 28 percent majority supporting removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube. The poll also found that the public, by a margin of 70 percent to 27 percent, opposes Congressional involvement in the case. Fully 67 percent of the poll's participants thought members of Congress were more focused on using the Schiavo case for political advantage than on the principles involved.
The ABC poll tracks with a new Gallup poll and a Fox News survey in early March in which 59 percent of respondents said they would end Ms. Schiavo's life support if they were her guardian. Such wide margins in nationwide surveys reflect broad bipartisan support. The ABC survey had a 54 percent majority of conservatives and a 61 percent majority of Republicans supporting the decision to remove the feeding tube.
But despite such public sentiment, the Congressional vote was lopsided. Republicans encountered little resistance in their effort to give the federal courts jurisdiction over Ms. Schiavo's case. Many Democrats did not show up for the vote and those who did were split.
While there were probably more votes of conscience in Congress on the bill than the public thinks, it is also pretty clear that the Christian conservative movement now has the clout on life-and-death issues to do what the National Rifle Association has done for years on gun control. Strengthened by the results of the November elections, the movement can convey to legislators that the intensity of their constituents' beliefs is more important than the balance of national public opinion. Swayed by this reasoning, more than a few Democrats may be more interested in moving to the right on moral values than in staking out the middle of the political landscape.
The problem with this strategy for the Democrats, and even perhaps for many Republicans, is that Americans have a strong pragmatic streak. While most Americans may say they believe in creationism rather than evolution, on issues that directly affect their own lives, like health and protection of the quality of life, science wins.
Take note, for example, of the increasing support for stem-cell research. A nationwide Pew poll last August found respondents by a 52 percent to 34 percent margin saying it was more important to conduct stem-cell research that might result in new cures than to avoid destroying the potential life of embryos. Two years earlier, when this issue was first emerging, the public was more evenly divided, with 43 percent in favor and 38 percent against .
The August poll, taken during the presidential campaign, had another noteworthy lesson: the middle of the electorate, the swing voters, not only cared a lot about the stem-cell issue but also backed stem-cell research by nearly a two-to-one margin.
Demography is another cautionary constraint. As the electorate ages and baby boomers further dominate the political discussion, they will tend to push public opinion in the direction that reflects their own situations. Remember, Roe v. Wade was handed down in the 1970's, when this same generation was focused on procreation. Now it is struggling with aging, health care and end-of-life questions. As a consequence, these issues are as likely to evoke intense beliefs on both sides of the issue, not just on the conservative side. Witness the new ABC poll, which found that strong support for removing the feeding tubes was twice as great as strong support for keeping them in place.
Christian conservatives have a lot of political capital these days, most of it earned, some of it overstated. Public reaction to Congress's intervention in the Schiavo case may well test whether they have enough standing to run against public opinion on end-of-life issues. But unlike gun control, where groups like the National Rifle Association have disproportionate political power in rural areas and states, end-of-life issues are a full-court game.
Potentially arrayed against conservatives are elderly people, who vote heavily, as well as baby boomers, who always have numbers on their side. These voters, increasingly concerned about these issues in their own lives, may well be wary of political constraints on the tough choices they or their families may face.
One-third of the respondents to the ABC News poll reported that a friend or relative had died after life support was stopped. And more than half of these respondents were involved in the decision. Like Social Security, end-of-life issues hit close to home, where ideology and partisanship play much less of a role than an all-too-human self-interest.
Andrew Kohut is president of the Pew Research Center.
I stopped at "moral values"...they don't know what that is. I guess I should have stopped at "New York Times," but I was curious...why don't they just go ahead and draw a huge smiley face on this article and get it over with?
This is about as factual as last week's report that Bush was going to nominate Carley Fiorina to the World Bank..
THE NYT IS BEYOND PATHETIC!
THEY ALSO GIVE 'CLUELESS' A BAD NAME!
B.S.
My best friend couldn't believe it until she checked her self, and then she called me back, crying "Why are they murdering that lady?"
Mark
This was a comedy piece disguised as opinion.
Just how much money do you get from Teresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation, Mr. Kohut?
And I wonder where the Kerrys stand on this issue? Anyone heard a peep outta them on the subject of Terri Schiavo?
Or people who say "well I wouldn't want to live like that..." Most people that say that ARE braindead anyway, but it's NOT UP TO THEM!!
Leave it to the NYT to reduce this woman's life to nothing more than political strategy.
. . .as for NYT's critiqueing 'm o r a l'. . .this is like a blind journalist describing an elephant.
I wonder if Schiavo may not be more a statutory than a Constitutional issue; 18 USC 241 would seem to apply if 'life' is a "right or privilege secured ... by the Constitution or laws of the United States". While I'm not aware of any general 'right to life' in federal law, the Declaration of Independence says that "[all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life...", and the Ninth Amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Taken together, these seem to argue that 'life' is a God-given right equal in status to the enumerated rights, and not to be 'denied' by being ignored. Therefore, in a backdoor way, it is 'secured' by the Ninth Amendment, bringing in 18 USC 241.
Well, I am perfectly ignorant about the law and I have no opinion about Schiavo, but I think this line of reasoning is interesting. If it's correct, then no one can be deprived of life without some sort of federal due process.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress,
threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his
having so exercised the same;...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or
an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to
kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for
any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to
death.
A little news flash for the NYT: ELECTIONS are the "balance of public opinion". Republicans are in the majority in both houses of Congress, in control of the White House, and hold most state legislatures and governorships for a reason. MOST people agree with THEM, and not with the twisted liberal psycophants in the DNC and the MSM!
anyone (calling all dims) that would base a life and death decision on an opinion poll is morally bankrupt.
At first, polling data had support for "letting Terri die" (in other words, murdering her "legally") at the mid-80%. By Monday, it was down to about the mid-seventies. Now, it's down to 68%. Either people are learning the truth about Terri's state or these polls are about as useful as fourth wheel on a tricycle!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.