Of all the domestic pursuits of Obama’s first year, his common
ground efforts on abortion have possibly been the most thankless. At
some points it appeared the only common ground he had inspired was to
unite both sides against it. Yet, each has much to gain by Obama’s
peace plans. Obama’s mission may be to usher in a new way to think
about political conflict – an aspiration so lofty it earned him the
Nobel Prize for the aspiration alone. His goal seems to be to appeal to
and, simultaneously, to foster a moderate middle, a reasonable group
that can talk to, rather than past, each other. If he’s going to
succeed in the abortion conflict he’s first got to confront those who
perceive common ground as a threat.

Obama’s message has met with resistance, not only from the extreme
right which reflexively opposes everything he does, but liberals too
have been hesitant, and even distrustful, of common ground language.
Rev. Carlton Veazey, of the Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice,
called attempts at common ground "troubling." Eleanor Smeal, president
of the Feminist Majority Foundation, suggests history is doomed to
repeat itself summarizing plainly, "I tried a common-ground thing in
1979." The pro-choice movement has reason to be cautious. For many
pro-choicers, there’s no evidence to suggest the anti-abortion
establishment is suddenly going to embrace prevention of unintended
pregnancy (there’s not one pro-life group in the US that supports
contraception after all,) or rally behind supports for struggling
families (those voting against social programs on which struggling
families support, Like WIC, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Head
Start, are almost exclusively
pro-life elected officials.) The May murder of Dr. Tiller remains fresh
in our minds–so joint anti-violence efforts, while critically needed,
feel a little hard to picture. The health care reform debate, with
abortion serving as the primary derailing issue, offers another
opportunity to grow jaded about common ground prospects.

But the search for common ground offers a rare opportunity. Obama
has, if not awakened, then given voice to what appears to be a long
silent majority of reasonable pro-life Americans. His common ground
call has appealed to moderate pro-lifers most of whom support contraception
and sex education, even if they don’t trumpet it. And, most
importantly, Obama’s common ground charge may, at last, be pushing to
the margins the extremists who have for so long dominated the headlines
(and the fundraising) on the right.

Twice as many young white evangelicals
voted for Obama than did for Kerry in 2006 (32% vs. 16%) and] Obama
also won the majority of the Catholic vote. Undecided voters were moved
by Obama’s common ground vision. Indeed, the majority of Americans,
including those affiliated with traditionally pro-life faiths, believe
in common ground. According to a 2008 poll by Faith in Public Life, 53%
of Americans believe political leaders can find common ground while
staying true to their core beliefs. Majorities of white mainline
Protestants (59%), Catholics (55%), and the unaffiliated (52%) believe
common ground on abortion is truly possible.

What’s troubling is that Obama has come up short in appealing to the
very liberals who have been most receptive to his policies and his
ambitions. And that could be unfortunate for the left leaning as well
as for Obama. After all, Obama’s broad strokes common ground plan reads
like the agenda of a Feminist Majority conference: Preventing
unintended pregnancy; supporting poor women with wanted pregnancies;
expanding reproductive choice by making adoption more available;
improving maternal and infant health; preventing violence in the
abortion conflict. Inroads in any one of these areas, let alone all of
them, would be worth a break in the hostilities. Hardliners on the right would be unlikely to mount an
opposition effort to any either.

With his speech at Notre Dame, Obama spoke directly to pro-life
Americans. He was not dissuaded by extremist groups protests over his
appearance or their attempts to portray him as "the most pro-abortion
president ever." One of Obama’s greatest talents as a leader is his
deep trust in the American public’s ability to see through artifice and
hyperbole. As ABC News reported,
Obama went to Notre Dame and "entered the arena to thunderous applause
and a standing ovation from many in the crowd of 12,000." Despite what
the anti-abortion protests outside would suggest, the vast majority of
pro-life people there were open to what he had to say and could see
there are shared goals pro-lifers and pro-choicers seek. He didn’t
allow the extremists shouting outside the door to define the day.

There are many more such "teachable moments," as Obama himself likes
to say, that haven’t been taken full advantage of. Obama must continue
to speak directly to the pro-life public, translate how his policies
serve their greater goals. Take healthcare reform. The states with the most uninsured tend to also be the most "pro-life" politically given the pro-life campaigns against healthcare reform a disturbing angle. Industrialized nations that provide their citizens with universal health insurance (the US is the only one that does not), like those of Western and Northern Europe, have the lowest abortion rates in the world— that’s unlikely to be a coincidence. Pro-life Americans are able to do the math when informed that it costs a pregnant woman without health insurance
is $6,000-$8,000 for delivery alone while an abortion will cost her
about $400. The pragmatic pro-lifer gets it and is interested in more
constructive ways to be pro-life than yelling while holding a sign.
Obama can tap that desire.

Common ground is a great idea and a great possibility. The task
ahead for Obama is to first convince those who stand to benefit the
most by it.