The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, after nearly 50 years of standing as precedent, is already having an immediate impact on individuals across the country. The decision—perhaps the most impactful by a court in my lifetime—has political ramifications, not just practical ones. These consequences will not only affect the upcoming midterm elections, but could reshape American politics for decades to come.
The midterm elections will definitely have an immediate political impact. The overturning of the calamari is certainly a major event that could completely change the short-term political picture. First, it energizes Democratic voters, activists and donors who have so far been unenthusiastic about the achievements of either Joe Biden or Janet Mills. It could give the party as a whole the energy it’s sorely lacked, perhaps putting Democrats’ enthusiasm on par with conservatives this fall. That enthusiasm could further — though not completely heal — the emerging ideological divide in the Democratic Party.
The further question, however, is how much (if at all) this decision will change the concerns of the average voter, especially independents. The answer is that it is unclear, but it is unlikely to completely change voters’ priorities. Recent polls show that independents have a mixed view of abortion rights: while more independents think it should be legal only under certain circumstances, not all, they also consider themselves pro-choice. This seems to indicate that many independent voters have not considered their views, or that they have a more complex view of the issue than activists on either side would like. Either way, while the decision may cause some independents in some races to rethink their choice, it’s unlikely to suddenly put abortion rights ahead of the economy.
For Maine, the question is whether the state is an outlier or a bellwether. This is most readily apparent in congressional and gubernatorial races, where the two candidates are very different on the issue and both are fully aligned with their respective parties. While the decision doesn’t change their views, it does change the governor’s power — likely helping Janet Mills get re-elected. He can now portray himself as Maine’s bulwark against any attempts to restrict abortion at the state level, galvanizing the liberal base. That’s why, if the court’s decision has any immediate political impact in Maine, it’s likely to be about the gubernatorial race: voters may not have considered the issue in that context much before Dobbs.
But Dobbs’ decision has the potential to completely reshape American politics in the long run, even if it’s not a silver bullet for Democrats this year. It has the potential to completely transform the Republican Party, though maybe not in the way you think. For decades, the Republican Party has been built on what Ronald Reagan called the three-legged stool: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign policy conservatives. This alliance has recently been fractured by the recent rise in influence of the more isolationist wing of the party, but it has not completely disintegrated.
Even before the Dobbs decision, there was a growing movement among social conservatives to use more government resources — meaning taxpayer money — to support families. Before Dobbs, this was largely a theoretical debate, but now it can be expected to come more to the fore as the pro-life movement considers its next steps. While this may insulate social conservatives from the frequent criticism that they are pro-birth but not pro-family, it necessitates an almost complete abandonment of fiscal conservatism. For example, Marco Rubio recently laid out his post-Dobbs family-friendly agenda, and almost every item on it would cost significant sums of money, with no real explanation of who would pay for it.
If this becomes a real trend, conservatives who prioritize fiscal discipline may need to find a new political home — or build their own. While their concerns may recede in the near future, simple math dictates that they cannot be ignored forever. Even if the US remains stable and prosperous, it cannot print money and spend recklessly forever. This is the basic reality that the country must eventually face, even if both major parties would rather ignore it.
Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins. He can be reached at:[email protected]Twitter: @jimfossel
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Use the form below to reset your password. Once you’ve emailed your account, we’ll email you the source code.
