A Kansas Abortion
When I first landed in Kansas City this May, to spend my summer in my hometown, I had to take a long drive back to my parent’s house. All the same fields and roads and suburban sprawl, with one small difference: every once in a while, I would catch a little purple car sticker, reading “Value Them Both”.
Roe v. Wade’s dismantling had come to Kansas and this little sticker of a woman and child was the first sign of a fully mobilized anti-abortion faction. A ballot measure was introduced to the August primary election. This measure would pass or deny a constitutional amendment permitting legislators to completely restrict abortion, including cases of incest and rape — in reality, Kansas legislators had already introduced an abortion bill which would be swiftly passed if the amendment was accepted, making the primary effectively a direct vote on an abortion ban.
It was after the Dobbs decision that the “Vote No” signs — those against abortion restriction — began to match the “Vote Yes” signs in every street of suburban Kansas. With the ever more ridiculous sign war, I was afraid that the abortion vote would be made into a battle of cultural teams, superseding material interests. And this was a battle that any population of liberals/progressives, cosmopolitans, and Kansas expatriates would absolutely lose.
This was not the case, however. Kansans voted to deny this change of abortion laws with 59% voting “no”, an overwhelming majority. Kansas, as the first state to vote directly upon abortion post-Dobbs marked an unexpectedly pleasant start, though it is important to mention that access to abortion in Kansas is still very poor. How was this win possible? What does it mean for upcoming votes and how can it inform progressive tactics?
One element in answering this first question is the Kansas win being a ballot measure, directly voted upon. In this case, the alienation usually accompanied by representative elections was not found, this primary election having a particularly high turnout. It also seemed to be because of a rare phenomenon of political discussions occurring which moved beyond petty debate. These two elements might be thought of in terms of political theorist Hannah Arendt’s concept of the political: as a rare and fragile opening where individuals can discuss and create meaning together. Without giving in to utopian pretenses about “the power of discussion”, I think an important part of looking at the Kansas vote and upcoming votes is the creation of a political sphere free from culture wars.
I want to reflect on what it felt like to occupy that small moment where Kansans felt they could act politically, how suburban kulturkampf made it feel so precarious, and what progressives can learn from this win in the middle of conservative America.
How the Vote was Won
I cannot personally provide all the political conditions which allowed for this win. But living in this moment, I can provide insight into the moment’s feeling, what kept pro-choice Kansans hopeful and fearful, and why we might have been so mobilized.
One of the most regarded components in the primary’s result was the winning advertisement strategy of the Votre No campaign. These ads (which can be seen here) expressed the campaign’s approach which decentered cultural issues or triggers. According to a Vote No campaign Kansans for Constitutional Freedomorganizer, Jae Gray, the campaign intentionally “used messaging strategies that would work regardless of party affiliation”. The campaign ads followed the observation of the House Pro-Choice Caucus that the term “choice” was stigmatized and preferred using “decision” instead. Whether radically eschewing terms like “choice” is an appropriate move, the advertisement campaign was successful in moving the abortion debate away from cultural conflict as such. Instead of centering a discussion of the theological and moral nature of the abortion procedure itself — thereby fighting on the anti-abortion movement’s turf — the campaign reintroduced political terms of state intervention and power, though unfortunately not autonomy, labor, reproductive rights.
It is worth mentioning that aside from moving the debate away from culture, the campaign also appealed to a part of middle American political culture cynically. Kansas City Star writer Dave Helling saw the activation of Kansas’ “libertarian streak” as essential to the win.
The other important element in this win was the aforementioned political space that had opened. When thousands became disaffected at the Dobbs decision, organizations were already in place for Kansans to contribute and work with. The experience of one woman interviewed by the New York Times, Courtney Schmitz, is not a rare one. Schmitz became enraged for an extended time and volunteered “for the first time in her life… at a campaign phone bank”. Of course, the abortion issue being a direct ballot measure also led to a greater feeling of political interest and control.
Anecdotally, there was more political space open for discussion, reflection, and the creation of meaning together. I had evangelical family members ask my point of view, and I — as somehow usually somewhat dismissive of electoral politics — spent the better part of the summer convincing them to vote. They themselves then embroiled into arguments and conversations with anti-abortion church members at service, even one time doing so at a funeral. For a time, politics were commonplace in Kansas.
In The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt defines her concept of the political realm as a space of equals that “rises directly out of acting together, the ‘sharing of words and deeds’”. For Arendt, the political realm is not always existent in collectives but appears once individuals are given the structure to enter a space where collective meaning can be produced and discussed: for example, a workforce opens up political space when it begins a unionization drive, deliberating and acting together.
Arendt’s theorization is helpful in understanding moments of political vibrancy and fluidity, as I experienced in Kansas, rather than simply the games of power denoted “Politics”; or how a disinterested population opens up political space. Employing Arendt’s observations is also helpful in understanding why such moments are so fleeting and fragile.
For Arendt, these moments are characterized by political “space” and “opening”, because they are respites from the competing private and social realms. Normally, Kansans are generally disengaged from politics, with few avenues to work collectively and concerned primarily with what Arendt calls the private sphere. Political space is an escape from the banal private sphere and an engagement in a public arena. But to contrast Arendt’s concept of the political sphere to everyday politics, the latter is rarely characterized by open participation but rather by top-down power or cultural competitions. The typical election or political conflict may be thought of in terms of the social sphere. This is a public arena where factionalized private interests compete and replace the position of a real public realm of creation and collaboration, something Arendt constantly fears. Deliberation becomes reactive opposition and the interests of the private sphere replace politics. Arent’s fear of an encroachment by the social upon the political matches my own fear of an encroachment by culture wars upon the political.
What if this fragile political space is once again reduced to a struggle of cultural teams?
Political space needs to be rigorously maintained through institutions, organizations, and attentiveness. Something about the campaigns and organizations surrounding the Kansas abortion vote forced political space into Kansas, but with the constant threat of the social’s encroachment.
Why Culture Threatened the Vote
The threat of a premature closure in the political sphere and its replacement by an active social sphere was what made the Kansas primary feel so precarious.
Political factions have actively brought about this closure, preventing political space to open due to the interest of modern America in cultural issues. The intensification of existing cultural conflict has historically been used by power and political factions to reduce material and political solidarity. The history of Kanas’ rightward shift began with the use of this process: converting a population largely interested in economic and individual issues to one focused on cultural-religious values.
Kansas was a liberal stronghold during the earlier 20th century. Even through America’s right turn, during the 1980s, Kansas was the site of competing Democratic and Republican operators and in 1990, the state elected a Democratic majority in the house). Historically, Kansas voters, although deeply religious, were more concerned with their economic interests than culture. The complete transformation of Kansas into a conservative state began with a specific event in 1991 and was deeply tied with the national project of centering cultural grievances.
In 1991, thousands of anti-abortion activists poured into Wichita and committed civil disobedience, leading to the temporary closure of abortion clinics throughout the city, in what was called Operation Rescue. As Thomas Frank writes in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas?, the intent of these protestors was to make “contradiction manifest–to force one aspect of the Kansas identity to clash with another–to set up a conflict so unresolvable that everyone in the state would eventually have to choose up sides and join the fight”. Centering the morality and metaphysics of the abortion procedure, anti-abortion operators successfully pushed most Kansans to default upon their deeply held religious views.
Today, we see the extension of these chosen cultural divisions, such that not only does the dominant Kansan culture rely upon religious morality to guide politics, but cultural signifiers identified as “liberal” are actively confronted. My fear in the Kansas suburbs was that the deepening cultural dimension of the abortion vote would force voters to once again default to their “teams”.
Up until the election was called, many Kansas progressives were deeply anxious about the vote. I saw the neighborhoods around me enmesh themselves in cultural displays. “Value Them Both” signs were stolen prompting a ridiculous week-long investigation by a local sheriff. Two mothers across the street from one another began planting signs in response to each other. And a local church statue was covered in fake blood with an extreme reaction from the conservative churchgoers.
The election, however, was won and won by those moving beyond petty debate and throwing themselves into organizations and community projects. It was also won by the Vote No campaign’s disengagement with questions of the religious and moral character of the abortion procedure.
The anti-abortion movement relies upon overriding the material interests of millions through cultural signification, thus it will not be fought through the use of antagonistic cultural signifiers but through an appeal to our common interests.
What Can Progressives Learn
To reiterate my subtitle, what can we learn from this Kansas vote as progressives?
Firstly, for me, the Kansas campaigns and vote show that maintaining access to reproductive health requires disavowing typical cultural conflict. The Vote No advertisement campaign’s strategy in some modified form — including the introduction of terms like “labor” — may be helpful. Additionally, we might focus on creating broad coalitions and networks appealing to material interests rather than moral bashing Moreover, we certainly need to stop responding to theological/metaphysical questions such as “when does life begin”, thus spending political energy on debates with no consequence.
We need to bypass cultural triggers which make those of the conservative cultural team stop discussing or listening. This means not reducing ourselves to liberals in the broad swaths of Americans who are vaguely conservative yet have the same material interests as ourselves.
From my experience in Kansas, I also want to emphasize that there will be no cultural revolution in red counties. There will be no conversion of Sons of Anarchy fans to The West Wing fans. But whether you drink Bud Lite like water or expresso like wine, reproductive justice is fundamentally in the material interests of anyone with a uterus. I do not think this strategy is too unseeable and the Kansas win supports it. It is only barely a stretch to say you can convince the average middle American to support a dictatorship of the proletariat if you simply do not mention Marxism or look like a Democrat.
We need to work actively to protect political spaces at least partially from the culture war, where different cultural stripes can engage and create together. This means helping people think politically and providing easy-entry organizations and causes to direct energy. And it means exiting the Vampire’s Castle and being patient with those who are offensive but trying.
Finally, in the long continuing fight for reproductive health care, this space will allow justice to win. When greater political space is open, the free discussion of experiences with abortion and what reproductive labor means personally can lead to greater reflection. Jenny Brown, in Without Apology, supports this strategy, writing: “Unlike many abortion rights campaigners in the United States, the [Irish] movement did not assume that people were unmovable on the issue. In fact, the campaign relied on moving people who had not thought about abortion much or had just adopted the church's disapproval as their own. The campaign asked Irish people to focus on their own experiences and the experiences of their neighbors. Many people who had never told friends or family about their abortions recounted their experiences for the first time during the campaign”.
By no means is there a folk radicalism in Kansas that just needs to be tapped into. In fact, this vote may not have been as romantic a moment as I portray it. However, I believe it presents a case study in the issues and successes that will be facing future abortion votes.
Kansas tells us to stay vigilant, persistent, and open. Today, I share some of the concerns I have previously expressed over Americans’ waning interest in the Black Lives Matter movement: what happens the day the “Value Choice” signs come down? That day has already come. As the pro-choice signs and bumper stickers fade away, their respective antagonistic signs have not. The anti-abortion faction will not fade away because of one primary and this makes considering this victory even more important. In fact, there is a new sticker: “Value Them Both. We Still Do”.
