How much long-term damage has Roe v. Wade done to Democratic politicians? As in, literally?

(H/T: Instapundit) Do you know what word is missing from this half-screed, half-lament by the New York Times?

As Republicans never tire of pointing out, the Democratic candidates for president are old.


Where are the national Democratic politicians in their 40s and 50s? At 52, Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, is this year’s lone exception. Does it say something about the party, or about the generation, that other than President Obama (born at the tail end of the baby boom), national candidates from this age group are rare?

“Abortion.” And I don’t even think that it’s intentional, either. In fact, I suspect that if you walked up to the author and said Hey, do you think that maybe the relative lack of forty-something Democratic politicians above a certain level might be due to the fact that Democratic families have had access to abortion for the last, oh, forty years or so? that said author would look at you with a legitimately baffled expression on his face. The idea would be… bizarre… to him.

Now, to be fair: I would hardly say that abortion can fully explain why there’s a sudden trough in the Democratic trough, there. There are so many other things that could also be factors in the Democrats’ problems, starting with the way that Barack Obama offered up the putative best and brightest – and electorally weakest – of the Democratic party as a sacrifice to Obamacare. But flip it around. Are you going to tell me that Roe v. Wade didn’t have an effect? None at all? Because that sounds even less likely than the suggestion that legal abortion can neatly explain the Democrats’ young-politician problems in one handy nutshell.

All in all: to quote somebody or other… I’m not married to this position, but I’d argue it over a beer.

4 thoughts on “How much long-term damage has Roe v. Wade done to Democratic politicians? As in, literally?”

  1. > As Republicans never tire of pointing out, the Democratic candidates for president are old.


    Those of us of a certain age will remember the fuss made about Reagan’s age when he ran for the presidency. Reagan was just under 70 when he took the oath of office on his first term.


    HRC will be 70 in January 2017

    Bernie Saunders will be 76 in January 2017

    Joe Biden will be 75 in January 2017


    So yeah, the age and health of HRC (assuming she is the Dem’s nominee) should be a major issue now, and certainly in the general election.

  2. Up until 2007, I couldn’t have told you the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. However, I always voted Republican because of the Democrats ungodly pro-abortion stance.

  3. I’ve thought for a while that if you have [to simplify things] 3 groups, one of which has essentially a replacement birth rate, one of which is below, one of which is above, it won’t take many generations for that to have an effect. Which is why there’s a lot of wackiness with immigration, adoptions, and a strong anti-overall-population to the greens.

  4. Well, to have a political dynasty, one must first have a dynasty.

    Say what you will about the Kennedy’s and the Bush’s — they show up for the candidate nominations.

    If Hillary! REALLY wanted to exercise her desire for power, she should have had at least five children, and those five+ should be equally fruitful. They have the money, and the political machinery, but no one with the fire in their belly (besides Hillary herself).

    As it is, Chelsea seems more interested in the quiet life of a rich socialite than the sweaty scrum of politics — and who can blame her?

Comments are closed.