How big of a tent is too big?

Jim Wallis argues that if Democrats simply loosen their stance on abortion rights and made room for pro-life Democrats, many voters who would not normally vote for them now would. Many of these voters, he argues, are heavily religious, but share the beliefs of Democrats on social programs and are against the death penalty and hawkish foreign policy. However, they refuse to vote Democratic because they believe abortion is wrong. First, I would like to say this article makes a few good points. Democrats should take a "pro-choice," but "anti-abortion" stance by promoting programs that would reduce unwanted pregnancies (especially for teenage and low-income women) and reform the adoption process to make abortions less necesarry. To paraphrase President Clinton, abortions should be safe and legal, but rare. No doubt Democrats would do better with pro-life voters to advocate this stance to show that no one really favors abortions. The article also attacks those that base their votes on this one issue, failing to look at other issues that may determine a party's "value of life."

However, there are as many pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, and one party does not ostracize over this issue more than the other. Republicans may have more pro-choice Republicans speaking at their convention, but that is because these Republicans, namely Schwarzeneggar, Guiliani, and others are among the most popular in the country and the Republicans are hoping to use them to appeal to moderate, independent voters. The choice is purely political, and not because the Republicans believe in representing minority beliefs in their party.

Secondly, say Democrats did become more accepting of pro-life views, even bringing them into the mainstream. I agree that some voters that wouldn't normally vote for Democrats now would, but wouldn't the Democrats run the risk of losing female and liberal voters at the same time? I doubt there would be a net gain, and maybe there would be a net loss. It's the same thing with gay rights, or affirmative action. Many argue if the Democrats were less liberal in their stance they could gain more conservative voters. But where is the political gain in that? Everyone wants to hug the middle, but the farther you go the other side the more people you just drive away from your own base. Few are saying Democrats should start supporting gay marriage or unlimited welfare, but if they didn't take a stance somewhere on that side of the political spectrum, what would even be the point of voting for them as opposed to the Republicans? Really, what would the difference be?