Politicians need centrists to win. It’s getting harder and harder for them to find it.

It’s not easy to lead a political party these days. In a world where political positions are dichotomous and where nuance is not expected to be tolerated, trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all position, whether on Middle East policy or reproductive rights, is extremely difficult. Have difficulty.

It is no longer possible to document an actual point of view with the “spirit” of a political position. President Joe Biden has long supported Israel, but he has not bought much time with a Democratic base that is increasingly skeptical of the Israeli government’s ability to wage a just war.

That reminded me of former President Donald Trump’s attempts to soften opposition to restrictive abortion laws across the country.

Ironically, Trump’s controversial positions should, in theory, not be controversial within the Republican Party. President Trump is simply endorsing the “leave it to the states,” which his party claimed to have supported for decades until the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs in 2022. But abortion conservatives want more federal restrictions. As is now fairly clear, simply handing reproductive rights decisions back to the states was not the actual goal of the anti-abortion movement before Dobbs. The goal was to roll back access to abortion by any appropriate means they could find.

However, it would be unpopular to say the last sentence directly as I wrote it. If Republicans had the idea of ​​rolling back access more directly, rather than hiding behind states’ rights positions, perhaps they would be forced to consider their unpopular position on abortion sooner. I would have lost my ability to do so.

But here we are, and President Trump is learning painfully that there is no middle ground on abortion within the Republican Party, at least in a post-Dobbs world. The country is rapidly becoming divided into two camps on abortion rights: pro-abortion and anti-abortion. One could argue that before Dobbs, there was a compromise on access to abortion up to the viable period (approximately 24 weeks). But Dobbs changed the possible range of his policy, removing the elusive middle ground.

If each state were to debate abortion access with different floor limits of 12, 15, or 24 weeks and decide which of these three paths to choose, perhaps President Trump’s The position of “let each state decide” will be seen as trying to figure out what to do next. Midway point. But that’s not what happened. Many states, including large and diverse states like Texas and Florida, have passed unpopular and restrictive abortion laws. As a result, many voters suddenly felt like political activists. Before Dobbs, many Americans took for granted equal rights to reproductive health care, regardless of what state they lived in.

It’s clear what Trump is trying to do. He hopes he can separate himself from the most restrictive positions on the issue. Florida essentially codifies the Roe v. Wade standard into its state constitution, even though Trump is nervous that the issue could hurt his chances for a second term. It is surprising that he stopped short of supporting the ballot initiative. Perhaps he will eventually do so if he thinks the gender gap is widening in the wrong direction for him.

There is no doubt that President Trump was trying to repeat the rhetoric he pulled off so effectively on rights issues in 2016. Trump opposes his proposals to limit or slow the growth of these programs, even though essentially his party still sees itself as There is. Keeper of the “Let’s shrink government” flame. The Republican Party’s position is that it will not touch on rights as long as Mr. Trump is the party’s leader, but many elected Republicans have decided to run in the name of fiscal restraint, so if Mr. Trump takes office, that position will change. It’s obvious that it’s gone.

President Trump is clearly uncomfortable with restrictions on abortions before 15 or 16 weeks, but not enough to say so directly. He thought Florida’s six-week curfew went too far and hinted that it did. Mr. Trump, a Florida resident, can vote this fall to choose between the unpopular restrictive law or the law before a reformed Supreme Court decides to reconsider the issue.

President Trump has no desire to say, “Personally, I support this restrictive law, but the country and states are not ready.” He could say something like, “I think Florida should change its law to 15 weeks, but I can’t vote to reinstate Roe.”

I don’t know which is worse for Trump. But ultimately, he will use the Florida vote as his own barometer for all of us to see how nervous he is about losing his next term on this issue. I think it would be used as

In 2016, voters who didn’t trust Republicans on the right decided to trust Trump on this issue. For these older voters, there was enough cultural overlap to give him a chance to keep his Social Security promise.

Are there enough women who care about abortion rights who would trust Trump even if the party did otherwise? I’m skeptical. And the less President Trump publicly pushes back against a six- or eight-week ban, the less credibility his compromise position will have. As pressure mounted, Mr. Trump aligned himself with the party’s toughest abortion activists, a move he now recognizes poses political problems. I don’t know if this is a political trap that even Houdini himself could escape from. How will he distance himself from the decisions to appoint three Supreme Court justices that led to Roe’s downfall? That can only happen if the judge agrees that the project was outsourced and not his own initiative. But if he admits that, he would be admitting that he somehow traded judicial seats for political support. It’s a pretty slippery slope!

Both candidates want to avoid talking about Gaza, and Mr. Trump would like nothing more than to stop discussing abortion as well. The more either candidate talks about these issues, the more trouble they will end up in. As many readers already know, I ultimately view Dobbs’ decision as existential – and one that will likely overturn many other divisions in this country. Voters view abortion rights as fundamental. And if an issue is fundamental to people’s way of life, people will vote for it over many other issues.

Why Are These Abortion Ballot Bills Passed?

As I finished writing the above column, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the 123-year-old anti-abortion law became state law. Meanwhile, the state could hold a referendum this fall on whether access to abortion should be guaranteed in the state constitution.

Knowing Arizona as much as I do, I think this is as good as a pass. Although the state is culturally very conservative in some ways, it has a very strong liberal bent, which translates to a “my bedroom, my job” attitude. As in Florida, the option not to pass a constitutional amendment in Arizona would be to abide by highly restrictive laws. Given her two options, it’s clear which one voters will choose.

As I wrote last week, perhaps the 15-week limit could be the lower end of the “acceptable” limit for abortion. perhaps. However, it is clear that there is “tolerance” and “preference” and that the people would prefer to decide for themselves whether or not to make this decision. We don’t want the government to decide that.

If you’re wondering what these abortion proposals actually mean for the makeup of the general electorate, the biggest thing they do is motivate young people to participate. And if all these abortion proposals across the country do just that and increase turnout among young people, it could be the difference between Biden carrying Arizona and Trump carrying it. .