Democratic Voters and the Radical Democratic Platform
The glass ceiling isn’t the only thing Hillary Clinton shattered this week. She may have also fractured her own party. After adopting the most radical platform in DNC history, some Democrats worry that the party is about to learn a hard lesson about its extreme social stance. The incredible shrinking tent is having a major effect on the base, which warns that the country is nowhere near Clinton’s fanatical approach to abortion.
Justin Giboney, a Clinton delegate from Atlanta didn’t hide his frustration on the document, which he described as “reaching a point of irresponsibility.” “It’s one thing to say sometimes [abortion] is necessary,” he told reporters. “It’s another thing to say it’s a social good.” Others, like young medical student Christina Healy, feel like pro-life Democrats have been betrayed. “It feels like we are being pushed out of the party, but not for a good reason.”
That’s exactly the alarm Kristen Day sounded in her op-ed about the perils of drawing such a hard line on abortion. Pew Research backed up Day’s warning with numbers that spell trouble for the DNC. According to their latest surveys, 28 percent of Democrats believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. In an election as tight as this one, that’s a big slice of the DNC pie. And if the DNC thought their leaders would fall in line with this radical policy departure, they’re mistaken. Already, Democratic senators are distancing themselves from the platform, which includes — for the first time ever — a call to repeal the Hyde amendment and force taxpayers to bankroll abortion-on-demand.
Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) was one of the first out of the gate, calling the idea “crazy.” “It’s something that I know most of the Democrats in West Virginia and most West Virginians would not agree with. I don’t either,” he told the Weekly Standard. His fellow Democrats, Senators Bob Casey (Pa.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.), both self-proclaimed pro-lifers, reminded their party that the amendment was “a consensus-based policy.” And Donnelly spokeswoman Sarah Rothschild insisted her boss wasn’t about to change his mind on the issue. He “has long supported and continues to support the Hyde amendment.” Even the liberal wing of the party couldn’t believe their eyes.
Some of the staunchest supporters of abortion — including President Obama and Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D) — at least give lip service to the wall between the barbaric practice and taxpayers. The divide between Hillary and the current White House was even more evident when Obama’s former director of faith outreach, Michael Wear, called the platform “morally reprehensible.” Yet, Hillary, in one of her biggest rallying cries of the night, insisted, “We wrote it together — now let’s go out there and make it happen together!” In this case “it” isn’t just toppling Hyde, but sending more money to Planned Parenthood, labeling the killing of unborn children “a fundamental human right,” fighting against laws that provide for safer and cleaner clinics for women, even taking away voters’ rights to set the standard in their own states! And it could get worse. Their new nominee has also said that “religious beliefs” on abortion “have to be changed.” How, she’s never specified — but the lack of religious liberty in the platform probably has something to do with it.
With their own party in disarray, Chelsea Clinton tried to distract people from the mess by attacking the GOP platform. Chelsea, who must have inherited her parents’ allergy to the truth, insisted that the Republicans endorsed “child abuse” by supporting gay conversion therapy. As usual, a member of the Clinton family was twisting the facts. The reality is, the GOP platform doesn’t even mention conversion therapy! This is what it does say:
We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children. We support the right of parents to consent to medical treatment for their minor children and urge enactment of legislation that would require parental consent for their daughter to be transported across state lines for abortion.
Meanwhile, libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who some conservatives say is an alternative, isn’t helping make the case why undecided conservatives should support him. In a revealing interview with the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney, the former New Mexico governor isn’t likely to win over many disgruntled conservatives with his far-Left views on abortion and religious liberty. Sounding more like Clinton than Rand Paul, the third-party candidate rants about the ridiculousness of protecting our First Amendment, suggesting that religious liberty is just a license to “discriminate.” “Under the guise of religious freedom, anybody can do anything… [L]iterally, we’re gonna open up a can of worms… discrimination will exist in places we never dreamed of…”
So, Carney followed up, you think it’s the federal government’s job to step in in stop “discrimination?” “Yes,” Johnson replied. When Carney remarked that his position wasn’t very libertarian, Johnson said, “I just see religious freedom, as a category, of just being a black hole.” Speaking of holes, he dug himself a bigger one when he was asked about abortion. “The law of the land is Casey v. Planned Parenthood,” he insisted. “I have no intention of changing the law. I’m not a social conservative.” No kidding.
Maybe you, like many evangelicals, are struggling to come to grips with the options of this election. A new piece by longtime theologian, author, and professor Wayne Grudem may help. Take time to read his thoughtful and in-depth analysis in Townhall that outlines the moral reasons why he’s choosing to vote for a certain candidate in November.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More