How the pro-choice advocates made their case in Kansas
The CW on the Kansas vote this week seems to have gelled into this basic message:
[W]hat just happened in Kansas, where voters in a deeply red state voted overwhelmingly to protect abortion rights. By now, you know the toplines: Democrats were motivated and Republicans divided.
But here’s the biggest surprise: Lordy, there were swing voters.
Abortion rights supporters naturally won big in blue counties. No surprise. But they also ran up a huge margin of 68 percent to 32 percent in Johnson County, “a suburban area that was once reliably Republican but that has trended rapidly toward Democrats since Mr. Trump’s entrance into national politics.”
They also won in several counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump.
As the Wapo notes, the victory for abortion rights supports “relied on a broad coalition of voters who turned out in huge numbers and crashed through party and geographic lines…”
Look at this graphic from The Times:
How did that happen? Abortion rights advocates figured out how to talk to Middle America. Via the Wapo:
Abortion rights supporters used conservative-sounding language about government mandates and personal freedom in their pitch to voters, and made a point of reaching out to independents, Libertarians and moderate Republicans.
Organizer Jae Gray explained the strategy:
“We definitely used messaging strategies that would work regardless of party affiliation. We believe every Kansan has a right to make personal health-care decisions without government overreach — that’s obviously a conservative-friendly talking point. We were not just talking to Democrats.”…
And therein lies a powerful lesson about how to talk about abortion in 2022. As Josh Barro points out his newsletter:
The messaging in the Kansas campaign couldn’t be further from the Groups-Speak mush I have complained about previously — no “reproductive justice,” no “men get abortions, too,” — and it also ignored the sometimes-fashionable idea that you should brush right past voters’ internal qualms about the morality of abortion and simply make the case that abortions themselves are good.
Take some time to look at some of the ads that blanketed the airwaves in Kansas. Barro highlights this ad that “doesn’t even mention the word: abortion.” Instead, it emphasizes that the proposed constitutional amendment would lead to “a strict government mandate designed to interfere with private medical decisions… Kansans don’t want another government mandate — superimposing that message over a COVID mask mandate sign.”
Another ad features a local doctor, who emphasizes how extreme the bans could be: “Do no harm. That’s the oath we take as doctors. But now the government wants to force doctors …to break that oath …
“It’s a government mandate that could ban all abortions with no exceptions, even rape and incest”
This ad features Christian pastor who says that the amendment would ‘replace religious freedom with government control.”
This ad stresses the threat to both privacy and freedom:
“It gives government more power over your privacy and your personal medical decisions. Don’t let politicians take away your freedom.”
Another ad emphasized the existing limitation on abortion: “Abortion is already highly regulated in Kansas,” it says. “Taxpayer funding for abortion: outlawed. Abortion after viability: banned. Parental consent: required.“
This ad features a Catholic grandmother…
“Growing up Catholic, we didn’t talk about abortion,” she says. “But now it’s on the ballot … If it were my granddaughter, I wouldn’t want the government making that decision for her.”
In this ad, a woman talks about an abortion that she says saved her life.
“It’s an impossible choice,” she says. “I had a three year old son at the time and a husband … if I didn’t have an abortion they would be without their mother and their wife”
Nota Bene: As Josh Barro notes, abortion rights activists did not simply appeal to their base; and they resisted the temptation to scratch their ideological id. Instead, they appealed to values that resonate across the political/cultural spectrum. They met the voters where they were; and treated centrists, conservatives, and even pro-lifers with respect.
It worked.
That’s by Charlie Sykes and Josh Barro, both of whom are conservatives. And I’m sure there is something to what they say. Those messages are (in the main) conservative messages designed to appeal to pro-choice Republicans. But let’s not pretend that these were the key to success. People already knew what they thought about abortion rights. It wasn’t the specifics of the ads that persuaded anyone.
I suppose the “respect” aspect may have been somewhat important in that if they had tried to make the arguments that the Democrats in the state (who made up the vast majority of the “no” vote) would find appealing, the pro-choice Republicans would have been offended and so may not have voted. That’s how they roll.
I wonder if there will ever be a time when conservatives return that “respect” and appeal to Democratic swing voters in their language? I’ve never seen it but I suppose it could happen.