Is there a middle left in ‘Middle America?’ The fate of South Dakota's Amendment G on election day may tell
The amendment to restore Roe v. Wade in South Dakota may be the canary in the coal mine that determines whether there is any middle ground left in Middle America.
That amendment was conceived in moderation and presented as the picture of compromise. Its framers thought that by simply copying the Roe v. Wade decision word-for-word they would make crystal clear that their intent was to return to women the limited abortion rights they had lost when that decision was overturned.
Prove you are not extreme by photocopying what was and just pasting it back into the constitution. It seemed like an obvious solution, but it may have been a grievous error. If it was, if on Tuesday South Dakota makes Amendment G the first abortion rights amendment to be defeated by any states voters and reverses the way it voted on the same issue in 2006 and 2008, the story of G will dramatically illustrate the difficulty of standing on middle ground in today's Middle America.
When Amendment G was presented to the public as a simple restoration of Roe v. Wade late in 2022, as a compromise to restore abortion rights only early term or in cases of rape or incest, the classic middle ground on the issue, and the place where most South Dakota voters reside, it was immediately attacked and attacked hard from both the far right and the far left.
From the right, Life Defense Fund called on voters to decline to sign and mounted an aggressive campaign to keep Amendment G from even appearing on the ballot. From the left, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood said they would oppose the amendment because it did not guarantee a woman’s right to choose abortion for any reason and in any term.
As the campaign unfolded, both far right and far left proved they meant business. Life Defense Fund, first in the streets, then in the courts, and most importantly in political fund raising, orchestrated a flood of funding against amendment G that made it the first pro-choice amendment ever to be outspent by right to life forces. ACLU and PP, in public statements to their members and private warnings to funders not to contribute to Amendment G, made certain that funding imbalance was a huge one.
A comparison between Missouri and South Dakota is instructive. They are two conservative states with near identical abortion bans.
In one, Missouri, a sweeping ACLU favored pro-choice amendment has raised $30 million to its opponent’s $1.5 million and leads in the polls 52%-34%. In the other, South Dakota, a moderate pro-choice amendment offering women only early and middle term abortion rights has raised less than $1 million to its opponent’s more than $2 million and trails in the latest public poll 48%-45%.
Go radical, outspend your opponents 20-1, and lead them by 18%, or go moderate, get outspent 3-1, and trail your opponents by 3%. Which ground do you think that suggests future ballot issue sponsors will choose to stand upon?
The result of this pincer movement by both fringes against Amendment G for trying to stand on middle ground has been dramatic, and ironic. Precisely because it is truly the middle ground, Amendment G has been deprived of the money needed to defend itself against the charge from the right that it is extreme. Labeled extreme by a far right that considers the slightest compromise to be extreme and deprived of funds to combat that charge by a far left that considers compromise to be selling out, Amendment G is discovering what trying to stand on middle ground feels like in this age of anger.
Voters believe it is extreme because the extreme right says it is and the extreme left refuses to help it show that it is in fact not extreme. Checkmate.
How much more ironic could you get? And how much more illustrative of the difficulty that faces every issue and every politician searching for middle ground in today’s Middle America? As a person offering oneself for public service, you cannot raise the money or survive the primary without indenturing yourself to either far right or far left. As an issue seeking support at the ballot box, you cannot raise the money to present your credentials to the public without submitting your proposal to the censors of the far right or far left.
Polls say the outcome for Amendment G is too close to call. It may narrowly survive. This would show that barely enough voters can still make out the middle ground, the ground they prefer, through the fog of disinformation created by the far right, far left money monopoly.
But if it does survive, its near-death experience, despite it possessing seemingly impeccable moderate, middle ground credentials, will be illustrative. And if it fails, middle-ground ballot proposals may become as rare as middle-ground politicians have become all across Middle America.
Peter Stavrianos worked as chief of staff, campaign manager, and in various other capacities with and for Sens. George McGovern, James Abourezk and Tom Daschle from 1962-1996. He and his wife of 58 years returned to her hometown of Sioux Falls in 2022.
Photo: Dakotans for Health Facebook page
