John McCain as John Kerry's vice president? Really?
It's a tantalizing thought. The mind goes immediately to two words: "swing" and "voters." They adore McCain. Their support helped him beat George W. Bush in the 2000 New Hampshire Republican primary, and there seems little reason to doubt that swing voters across the country, whose souring on Bush is the main factor in his lower poll numbers, would flock to a bipartisan ticket.
But it's pure fantasy. Undoubtedly, McCain was just being cheeky when he left the door ajar for Kerry in a Good Morning America appearance on Wednesday, still jabbing back at Bush for the appalling smear campaign Bush ran against McCain in South Carolina in 2000. Besides, the Democratic rank and file would have a very hard time with this. McCain put his finger on it when he said he doubted that Democrats would accept a "pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk" on the ticket.
Actually, that's a sentence that deserves a closer parsing. Free-trading? Non-protectionist? Deficit hawk? No problems there. Democrats accepted all three of those things when they nominated and renominated Bill Clinton. And while there's a wide range of views on these issues, Democrats are acclimated to the idea that their party must at the very least acknowledge these positions as legitimate points for intra-party debate.
But what's that other thing McCain mentioned? Oh. That. There's your deal-breaker.
Liberals talk about how inflexible the right wing is on abortion. And, of course, they're right. As one who personally supports the liberal position straight down the line, up to and including Clinton's rather courageous two vetoes of the "partial-birth" abortion ban, I see a conservative movement that, while perhaps driven by what it defines as moral principle, rests its intolerant position on top of a dirty little secret: That while moral principle may work in the rhetorical abstract, actual life situations can be really complicated and force unpleasant moral options. Even conservatives sometimes opt for abortion when the choice confronts them personally.
But at the same time, I've always felt that liberalism, too, can be inflexible on this question. It was a cowardly act back in 1992 when Democrats denied then-Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey a speaking slot at that year's convention because he opposed abortion. Letting Casey speak would not have entailed changing the party's platform, which is solidly pro-choice and shouldn't change. But it would have signaled an awareness of something that every non-interest-group human being who has given this issue any serious thought or discussed it with friends and relatives knows: that the subject is a morally complicated one; that reasonable people who are otherwise fairly progressive can have serious and honest qualms about abortion; that not everyone who has such qualms is a right-wing nut.
What the Democrats couldn't bring themselves to do in 1992, they should do in 2004. They should find a way to permit one anti-abortion speaker to appear on their convention platform. The matter is made all the more salient by some facts on the ground.
As readers of the upcoming April issue of the print Prospect will learn from a fine piece of reporting by our Ayelish McGarvey, there are millions of voters out there who are deeply religious -- who even call themselves "born again" -- but who are not part of the Christian right. Shall I say that again? Millions of them. Almost exactly as many as constitute the Christian right. A swing of 10 percent in the politically moderate religious vote means a swing of one million voters or more.
They backed Bush over Al Gore in no small part because of "moral issues," abortion among them. But they also take seriously the portions of the good book that Bush evidently skipped, about the odds rich men face in passing into heaven and the meek inheriting the earth and the peacemakers being blessed. They're off Bush in a pretty big way. There are only two issues left that might make them vote for him -- gay marriage and abortion.
On gay rights, Bush boxed himself in by going for the constitutional amendment. Most Americans, religious moderates included, feel funny about amending the Constitution. All Kerry has to say now is that he's against meddling with the Constitution, and for a majority of Americans, according to every poll I've seen, that should suffice.
That leaves abortion. Again, the party should not change its position. And it shouldn't nominate John McCain. But both candidate and party should find a way to recognize the religious moderates' existence -- which is hardly acknowledged by the media -- and signal some concern for their morality. If Kerry wins these voters back in hefty numbers, this election might not even be particularly close.
Michael Tomasky is the Prospect's executive editor. His column about politics appears each week.
