THE LIVES OF THE PARTIES : CHILDREN UNBORN

With California’s Republican Party torn by a bitter presidential primary back in 1964, GOP State Chairman Gaylord E. Parkinson laid down the law for the future: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any other Republican.”

That “11th commandment” rallied feuding Republicans around their 1966 gubernatorial nominee, Ronald Reagan. And, over the years, party loyalty has helped the GOP overcome Democratic registration to win elections in California.

But now, with critical 1990 elections nearing, this vaunted unity is threatened by perhaps the most divisive issue to face state Republicans in decades: Abortion.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision July 3 on the Missouri abortion case--Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services--has forced that emotional issue onto California’s political agenda just when lawmakers gear up for another pitched battle: to determine which party will control the 1991 reapportionment.

That’s why the 1990 state elections are so important. And that is why politicians are nervous about electoral wild cards that might threaten the equilibrium of their carefully crafted political support.

Will abortion prove to be a cutting issue for California’s voters? Who wins and who loses as the politics of abortion are interjected into next year’s contests?

That depends. Despite all the hoopla surrounding the victory of a GOP pro-choice candidate in the recent special election in San Diego County for the heavily Republican 76th Assembly District, it’s too early to tell. The 76th district election was “a fluke,” said Jan van Lohuizen, a Republican pollster in Washington: “Be careful in extrapolating from special to normal primary elections, because the process is so different and the numbers are so much smaller. As a result it is much easier for a single-issue constituency to really have an effect.”

The primary elections are nine months away--several lifetimes by the political clock. “Our attention spans are so short,” Van Lohuizen said, “so I think there’s a good possibility that the issue might have gone away.” But the U.S. Supreme Court may overturn Roe vs. Wade, the abortion-rights decision, next year--possibly just as the California primary campaigns begin to crest. What then? The answer may differ with each political contest.

All three active candidates--Democrat John K. Van de Kamp, state attorney general; Democrat Dianne Feinstein, former mayor of San Francisco, and Republican Sen. Pete Wilson--are perceived to be pro-choice. So, all things being equal, abortion should have little impact on the race. But all things are never equal.

Wilson hopes to use the “crime victims justice reform initiative,” proposed for the June, 1990, ballot, to establish a tough anti-crime image. But Van de Kamp insists that right-to-privacy limits in the initiative could be used to undermine a woman’s right to abortion.

As a result, rather than staking out a popular perch for his November campaign, Wilson may have to spend the months before the June election defending his pro-choice credentials, constantly reminding GOP conservatives that he’s not with them and reminding staunch pro-choicers that he’s not quite pure.

But there is no guarantee that the issue won’t come back to haunt the attorney general. Because of Van de Kamp’s opposition to the initiative, his linking of abortion to privacy is being met with skepticism. Opponent Feinstein lashed out at people who would “cynically . . . pit women who want the right to an abortion against crime victims.”

There are other forces that would argue against the dominance of the abortion issue. Ask Dianne Feinstein. A strong candidate, she should be benefiting from visibility, pro-choice organization and money. But her campaign is reeling from the resignation of her campaign manager in the face of lagging fund-raising and opinion poll numbers.

One legislative strategist argued that, for 1990, “Both pro-choice and pro-life--like the NRA--must target the Legislature because that’s where the law is changed. They can’t waste their resources on the governor’s race.”

Clearly if there is an impact, it should be in the state legislative races. But in California the reality is that most seats are safe for one party or the other. There have been instances where a legislative incumbent has been ousted over a single issue. But it’s difficult to change a pro-life vote, or a pro-choice vote, in a general election in California unless the contest is for an open seat--as it is in the 76th district, or party registration is close enough to allow a swing. There just aren’t many of those races.

In legislative primaries and where other contests exist, or can be created, things can change. Where abortion is the motivating issue, change is more threatening to the GOP because of the demographics of who Republican voters are.

In California, candidates usually emerge from the “extremes” of the parties--and the conservatives who dominate Republican primaries and the party apparatus are solidly pro-life. Before the Webster decision, one analyst said, the Republicans got the pro-life vote “without paying a penalty to the pro-choice part of their constituency.” No more.

When a rights issue is to be decided, it is the group whose rights are most threatened that mobilizes. The demographics of who turns out to vote on abortion underscores how damaging the fight can be for California’s Republicans.

“The pro-choicers are concentrating on this issue much more than they have been, because for the first time they’re most seriously threatened,” Van Lohuizen said, “so the incentive to vote on this issue and this issue alone has become much greater for the pro-choicers than the pro-lifers.”

According to another Republican analyst, “The people who clearly feel most strongly about pro-choice tend to be upper-income, better educated women. And those people are not found in Democratic districts, they’re found in Republican districts.”

The activity of these single-issue voters may lead to some reregistration and may create a new group of ticket-splitters, as young, upwardly mobile women who usually vote Republican, or don’t vote, shift to the Democratic column to vote pro-choice.

On the other side, Democrats have already lost the pro-lifers, who have been voting Republican for some time. For Democrats, the issue may not be as divisive or as damaging at election time.

Before placing an abortion initiative on the ballot, pro-lifers should be cautious. Here, as in legislative elections, the group most at risk will turn out. The fear of a gun-control initiative, placed on the 1982 ballot by liberals hoping to bring out the Bradley-for-governor vote, turned out the rural, conservative, pro-gun vote and helped give Republican George Deukmejian his narrow victory margin. A pro-life amendment could mobilize low-turnout voters on the other side.

Because of the state’s political culture and its political system--marked by entrenched incumbents, made nearly invulnerable by status-quo reapportionment and an iniquitous system of campaign funding--the abortion issue may not have a decisive impact on 1990 elections.

Of greater significance, perhaps, the abortion debate, like gun control, has shown Republican leaders to be out of step with mainstream California. The shift in public opinion on these issues can erode GOP electoral power in a state where the party’s fortunes depend on Republican loyalty and Democratic disaffection.

The lesson for all California politicians is that there is a risk in misreading public sentiment on issues like abortion. Lawmakers need to pay attention to their constituencies. Ultimately, they cannot escape hard, social choices by hiding under the bell jar of the Capitol dome.