The radical Leftists who now make up the base of the Democratic Party have criticized presidential aspirant Pete Buttigieg, the former Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, for being too “moderate” for questioning Far Left policies, such as Medicare for all.
The reality is “Mayor Pete” isn’t opposed to these policies, he actually embraces their goals, he just hides his radicalism better than Far Left Democratic Senators Sanders and Warren.
“I don’t think he is a moderate standing alone, because he has similar policies,” Iowa Buttigieg supporter Branwen Floden told Philip Wegmann of RealClear Politics, while running through the list of policy ideas that make up his platform. “It is a little different, but I don’t think the ideas are that different than other candidates.” The difference, she says, is that he holds his platform just “a little closer to the chest.”
In other words, Ms. Floden hopes that Buttigieg can fake out enough people who don’t support radical ideas, such unlimited abortion up to and past the moment of birth, to get elected and proceed to implement the ideas he supposedly wasn’t for.
We could call this the Obama precedent: As Philip Wegman noted, when Obama campaigned in Iowa, and even after winning here, he was still considered a long shot. His ideas, some observers said at the time, were too radical. A dozen years later, the first openly gay presidential candidate, a man married to another man as the result of a policy that Obama-the-president endorsed but Obama-the-candidate shied away from, may have won Iowa.
So, the reality is that Buttigieg embraces progressive values while preaching moderation.
For example, Buttigieg’s extreme devotion to abortion was on display last week when he told a prominent pro-life Democrat there is no room for pro-life voices in his party, prompting fears from pro-life Democrats that his extreme stance could cost them votes in November:
“Buttigieg…might find it pragmatic right now to reject our overtures. It won’t be pragmatic, though, when in November the Democratic Party loses a swath of pro-life states to President Donald Trump.” – Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life
Pete Buttigieg’s refusal to name a single restriction on abortion – even up to the point of birth – puts him at the extreme fringe of public opinion.
Buttigieg has refused to condemn infanticide and partial birth abortion, arguing “it shouldn’t be up to a government official to draw the line.”
Like Virginia’s baby-killing Democrat Governor Ralph Northam, Buttigieg would permit abortion without restrictions up until the moment of birth, even for healthy, viable babies:
Buttigieg said there is no point in pregnancy, even after a baby is fully developed and viable, where abortion should not be allowed.
Buttigieg justified abortion even after a child is born, suggesting life does not begin until a baby takes its first breath.
Buttigieg pledged to repeal the Hyde Amendment and force taxpayers to fund abortions.
Alexandra DeSanctis, in a National Review analysis of the radical abortion views Buttigieg espoused in an interview with Meghan McCain of The View put it this way as the former small-town mayor tried to hold his radicalism on infanticide “close to his chest.”
McCain asked the Democratic presidential hopeful about an interview last fall in which he had defended his support for legal abortion by claiming that the Bible says “life begins with breath.” Here’s the heart of their exchange:
McCain: I think the interpretation from pro-life people like me was that you meant a baby actually being born . . . I just wanted you to clarify, because I found that statement to be pretty radical.
Buttigieg: I’m just pointing to the fact that different people will interpret their own moral lights, and for that matter interpret Scripture, differently. But we live in a country where it is extremely important that no one person should have to be subject to some other person’s interpretation of their own religion. . . .
McCain: . . .I think people, even Democrats — and there are a lot of pro-life Democrats in the country — want to know exactly where your line is. . . .
Buttigieg: My point is that it shouldn’t be up to the government official to draw the line. It should be up the woman who is confronted with that choice. (Applause.)
McCain: So if a woman wanted to invoke infanticide after a baby is born, you’d be comfortable with that?
Buttigieg: Does anybody seriously think that’s what these cases are about? If this is a late-term situation, then by definition it’s one where a woman was expecting to carry the pregnancy to term. Then she gets the most perhaps devastating news of her life. We’re talking about families that may have picked out a name, may be assembling a crib, and they learn something excruciating and are faced with this terrible choice. And I don’t know what to tell them morally about what they should do. I just know that I trust that her decision isn’t going to be any better, medically or morally . . . because the government is telling her to do it a certain way.
Buttigieg’s defense of late-term abortion, wrote Ms. DeSanctis, is resting on a false set of facts. It’s also a sidestep that doesn’t address the heart of what McCain was asking. Whenever he’s asked to articulate his position on abortion, Buttigieg attempts a neat sidestep, claiming that the real question ought to be whether a woman, rather than the government, gets to make her own choices.
But the central question of the debate over abortion policy isn’t whether we should trust women or government officials. The question is whether and what abortion kills. If, as pro-lifers argue, every abortion intentionally ends the life of a unique human organism, our policy debate must acknowledge and address that fact.
The former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, prefers to disguise his radical position by dressing it up with fictions concluded Ms. DeSanctis.
