SOME THINGS JUST ARE:

POLITICS IN THE RED ZONE

Every once in a while, I have to admit that it's good to be part of Red America. Questions that vex the nation as a whole are no controversy to us. We have certain shared values and assumptions that help to make even our politics a little less rancorous, a little more cooperative than the cutthroat world beyond.

Now, I am speaking here of a Red community, not a whole Red state. The Red/Blue thing is divisive within the states, but very often counties, towns, or voting districts are pure Red, while others are pure Blue. It makes it much easier to get to the local problems of tax abatement, zoning regulations, and budget priorities.

Let me give you a taste of this.

The state House seat in our district is up for grabs this year, the incumbent having decided she had been there long enough. The competitors for it come from two sides of the same town--the gentleman from where the University sits, the lady from where industry reigns. Our University breeds a fairly liberal lot who, for the most part, limit their political participation to protesting and grumbling; when push comes to shove, most of them don't even vote. The industrial side of town is largely sharply conservative, with a dash of union sentiment to dull the edges.

On Thursday night, the university hosted a debate between the two candidates. About 100 people showed up, mostly of the college type. In the back sat a few rows of nicely suit-and-tied College Republicans. The front row featured several women with pro-choice t-shirts or buttons. The rest of the crowd was in the 18-30 range, both sexes, several races, a smattering of international students.

Although the man insists that this race is about two things--jobs and education--the vast majority of questions concerned what we have come to refer to as issues of life and culture: abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, Planned Parenthood funding, and gay marriage. Indeed, the conversation was so heavily skewed to the "wedge issues" that I thought the pro-choice professorette in front of me was going to fly across the room, there was so much air coming out of her in the form of exasperated sighs.

What had her so upset was this. Though the man is a Democrat, and the woman a Republican, both are thoroughly pro-life. The woman has the endorsement of right-to-life and is a long-time local pro-life activist. The man is a Catholic who once considered the priesthood, and must have said a dozen times that he believes that "life begins at conception and should continue until natural death." This drove the pro-choice college students nearly insane.

The debate was polite, quiet, and respectful. The questions were pointed, but largely controversial only to the assembled audience. Both are against abortion, euthanasia, public funding of Planned Parenthood, public or private research on embryonic stem cells, and gay marriage. The woman is concerned that the state's version of the Defense of Marriage Act may be obliterated by court action, and therefore favors an amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The man believes the law will withstand court challenge, and is against such an amendment.

Both are concerned about the homeless and the budget, the $2 billion deficit the governor made out of a $2 billion surplus, and funding K-12 and university education. While the man supports funding for health care coverage for the uninsured, he admits there is little chance the state can provide it any time soon. The woman notes that many uninsured people choose to be uninsured, but concedes that we need to find a way to help those who don't. She points out that, in our district, we are blessed with hospitals that will not turn you away merely because you have no insurance, and suggests the need to spread that philosophy throughout the state.

The woman mentions God and the faith-based initiative more often than the man, but both are clearly unapologetic about basing their decisions as legislators on their faith as Christians.

The pro-choicers in the front row scribble furiously throughout the presentation, and when the questions from the audience are passed up, there are several challenging the candidates to define "life" and to say whether they could (you'll excuse the expression) conceive of a situation in which abortion should be legal. Both reluctantly cede the decision to a woman and her doctor when the physical health of the woman is in "grave danger." But that is the "physical" health--they are both still on the wrong side of the current Supreme Court.

Do they support parental notification legislation? Yes. Do they oppose partial-birth abortion? Yes. Would they propose or support legislation to provide more support and funding for adoption? Yes. Should the living wills and do-not-resuscitate orders of those who can no longer answer for themselves be honored? Yes. Would they block the University from offering RU-486? Yes.

It is likely that, if the students vote for either of the candidates, they will vote for the Democrat, because they will be obediently punching the one big hole that says straight party ticket. But they won't like it.

Here in the Red Zone, the idea that life begins at conception is uncontroversial. Our Democratic mayor came in first last year in the right-to-life 10K. Those who are pro-choice when in the statehouse have the sense not to mention it back home, and to spend a lot of time in the churches simply being seen.

It's a good place to be.

And the funniest part was that, after the debate was over, the two candidates found themselves in conversation with a member of the audience about abortion--and they were working together to present the pro-life position.

God bless Red America.