Is it possible that welfare reform and my small contribution toward that effort in 1996 as the Republican chairman of the Welfare Reform Task Force may have inadvertently contributed to the election of a Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate in 2022, a Kentucky governor, and a Virginia state legislature in 2023? Sounds strange.
After the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade - which returned the abortion question back to the states - the GOP has had to fend off well-organized campaigns in states across the country.
Is there a lesson to be learned?
At the very least, Democrat women and young women have been super motivated to vote and vote Democrat. There is no wonder and no secret why Vice President Kamala Harris is leading the charge for the Biden-Harris campaign on the abortion rights issue. She has made frequent college campus stops to discuss the issue. It is paying political dividends.
One of the Welfare Reform Bill's primary goals was to break the government dependency cycle. All too often, for the indigent to qualify for welfare benefits, you simply had to have a baby.
I cried constantly that the government makes it easier and more beneficial to be on welfare than to get a job. I said forcefully that welfare discouraged the formation of two-parent households as the presence of a male in a household could reduce or eliminate welfare benefits. We questioned how a young lady living in a crowded, small apartment could escape her conditions by merely having her own baby. This would mean she would qualify for independent housing, food stamps, and other benefits paid for by the federal government, Uncle Sam.
Congress, President Bill Clinton, and America built a consensus in 1996 on the need to change that system. And we did.
But little did I realize that nearly 30 years later, it could play a role in the fate of elections. Why? Or better yet, how?
It helped create "passionate" young women voters. I recently witnessed the "passion."
As a guest speaker at a Historically Black College and University (HBCU), I first tasted this quagmire.
It was a lovefest for me at first. Having taught for 14 years at an HBCU as a visiting professor, it was like a homecoming.
Then I stepped into it. I tested one of my columns, and it did not go well. It was on abortion. During my political career, I reluctantly voted pro-choice, supporting the will of my constituents, but privately I was pro-life. For the last 25 years, I have been able to express my personal beliefs on the issue.
Let's just say it did not go well. The Black women's attitude toward me flipped faster than pancakes on a grill at the House of Pancakes. The Black class men piled it on, too.
I tried to change the subject gracefully, but they would not have it. I was literally "saved by the bell" - the end-of-class bell. It was ugly. Try as I might, but the toothpaste was already out of the tube, and there was no way to put it back in. Lucky for me, it was my last public session on the campus.
The students' repeated comments in various forms were over the economics of the abortion question. I will attempt to paraphrase their remarks: "Families are struggling to begin with, and adding another mouth to feed would only make their abject poverty even worse. The cost of raising a child would prevent them from climbing the socioeconomic ladder. Today, you need to pay a good chunk of one's salary for daycare, etc."
There was no wiggle room on whether a woman could or could not have the right to deliberately terminate a pregnancy. That was a must.
How does that tie in with welfare reform? In 1996, we wanted a system that would not increase a mother's benefits simply for her having more and more children. That was the wrong incentive.
Before the 1996 Welfare Reform legislation more babies were being born and fewer abortions as the monetary pressures were less than they are today. In fact, having more babies earned you more money and benefits from the federal government.
Ironically, today, the economic incentives are gone due at least partially to Welfare Reform. More women are opting to have an abortion due to the economic pressures. They will fight to protect that right as it would improve their economic fortunes.
Today, the driving force behind the recent elections is the adroit organizational skills of pro-abortion groups. Their messages of "freedom" and a woman's right to have total control over her body have resonated with many voters. But it cannot be denied that Black women are a major part of the effort. The urban vote against Republicans has been extremely high for non-presidential year elections.
Looking at the statistics, you would find that though Black people make up only 14% of the population, they account for nearly 40% of all the reported abortions in America.
With all the problems we have in the nation and the world, it is possible that for many, the ability to end a pregnancy that would lead to the further procreation of man could be the determining factor in their voting for or against you.
Knowing this reality, the ball is in the Republican Party's court. Will they be adamant on principle (and lose in 2024)? Or will they be practical on what is realistic when it comes to abortions and then have a chance to compete against Democrats?