Has the abortion issue become the dividing line in American politics?

If so, where is the line to be drawn, and who gets to draw it?

The 2008 election is already lining up around abortion. Hillary Clinton has gone out of her way to stake out a moderate, centrist position which contradicts the fervency of what most analysts have considered to be among her core beliefs.

On the other side, Rudolph Giuliani has outraged moral conservatives by taking a hard line in favor of a woman's right to choose, while Condoleeza Rice has also stepped into hot water even though her line is far more moderate-conservative-centrist (if such terminology is allowed).

To the extent that Hillary Clinton's new stance is ideological treason to staunch members of the abortion left, I doubt it will hurt her. But if anything will abort Condoleeza Rice and Rudy Giuliani, it's the abortion issue. These days, it's more of a Third Rail in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party.

Oddly enough, if you total all three of these candidates' positions on abortion, they're well within the views of the vast majority of mainstream America, which favors neither extreme.

I think that at this point in time, the Republican Party is at a crossroads, while the Democratic Party is not. The Dems have learned from losing. They know what it takes to win, that winning means not allowing ideological elevation of form over substance.

And I do mean form over substance. The president has little influence over abortion, which is not supposed to be a federal issue at all. The most any president can do is appoint judges who could be called upon to interpret Roe v. Wade. Even if Roe were overruled, abortion laws would then revert to the states. I doubt any federal ban on abortions would be held constitutional, because liberals would vote against it, and conservatives would have to jettison the concept of states' rights on which any overruling of Roe would be predicated. So the president is not now, and will never be, in a position to abolish abortions (or, to legalize them).

So it's form over substance.

Radical form over moderate substance. This makes the radical anti-abortion position (treating abortion for any reason as murder) out of touch not only with the mainstream, but with simple political reality.

The Republicans are at a crossroads right now because I don't think there's any consensus on whether ideology should be subordinated to winning. This is because they've already won, and winners get cocky. They assume they'll keep on winning -- regardless of what dish they serve up to the voters. They forget that politics is a bit like running a restaurant. People don't have to come back. Serving up unpleasant ideological extremism is a bit like serving people bad tasting food and telling them it's good for them.

Over a year ago, Dick Morris offered a taste of future Republican fare:

Will the Republican Party escape from the embrace of the pro-lifers so that it can nominate candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice? Likely not. Those who see each election as an opportunity to hold candidates to litmus tests on key social issues are not likely to relinquish their hold or relax their vigilance.

Many people on both "sides" often forget a key feature of litmus tests: they are not absolute.

For example commonly available litmus paper (for sale here) offers varying scales of acid to base.

Here's the widest range paper, showing 1 through 12:

Further narrowing the scale towards the "center," here's 6 through 9.5:

And finally, here's the most "centrist" litmus test available -- 5.5 through 8.0:

Far be it from me to know which litmus test to apply in political matters or candidates. (Perhaps I should consult a spectrumologist!) But right away, it stands out that a preliminary issue in any "litmus test" is finding the right paper to use. Most candidates would love to get away with using one sort of litmus scale for themselves, and another, more extreme scale for their opponents.

And I would go so far as to venture that in chemistry as well as politics, the vast middle space is not quite as colorful as the opposite ends, and in general the dividing line is not as clear as commonly believed.

As to another contentious litmus test issue, gay marriage, the distinctions between the positions of most politicians are so subtle that I don't think there's a test paper yet made. Regardless of what anyone thinks or how anyone feels, there's an overwhelming consensus against same sex marriage, and the litmus paper would probably hover around whether it should be prohibited at the federal level. Because the latter can only happen with a constitutional amendment, I don't see it as a major looming campaign issue. It's a non-starter for both sides, and likely to be downplayed as it was in the last election. While the Democrats would like to push the Republicans to the right (just as the Republicans would like to push Democrats to the left), any "showdown" over a constitutional amendment is unlikely. And because of the prickly states' rights issue, it's unlikely to break cleanly for either side.

While not right now of central importance in the next presidential election, homosexuality seethes as a religious issue -- in a cauldron supplying endless emotional fuel for the debate over gay marriage. There seem to be two Christian theological schools of thought, but even the question of whether Leviticus prohibits all homosexuality for Christians is far from settled. Even more fascinating is the question of what may have been lost in translation. (According to the latter scholar, the intent may have been to prohibit not all homosexual acts, but those which defile a man's wife's bed.) This religious debate is not about to go away.

Plenty of litmus tests all around, and whoever hides the most "wrong" colors -- while seeming to have the most "right" colors -- wins.