Ezra Klein's Abortion Strategy is Wrong (But That Doesn't Mean He Doesn't Have a Point)

Ezra Klein

Ezra Klein is something of an anomaly in the modern media landscape.  Originally a Democratic operative (he worked for the Howard Dean campaign in 2004), he transitioned into work as a columnist at The Washington Post before founding Vox, an explanatory news media site that dominated many progressive political circles (I read it religiously at one point) during the first Trump administration, before eventually moving to the The New York Times in 2020 where he works as a columnist and podcast host.  Klein's anomaly status is that he's generally well-respected in progressive circles (even if he don't always agree with him), and has been for a while.  His book Abundance, which came out earlier this year and has since become a bestseller, has sharply shaped the debate on housing in the United States on the left, with many finding themselves in pro/anti abundance camps, but that Klein was able to shape this conversation at all is impressive.  Quite frankly, while there are countless conservative voices (from Ann Coulter to Ben Shapiro to the late Charlie Kirk) who have been able to create discourse about MAGA politics, Democrats aren't as prone to investing in talking heads for their theories, more often sticking to conventional politicians, and only on occasion (with people like Jon Stewart and the Pod Save America hosts) giving that level of influence to people not in elected office...Klein happens to be one of the few people to break that mold.

Klein has made a number of headlines in recent months, capitalizing on his new level of influence coming out of Abundance, and while we're not going to get into all of it (suffice it to say that I don't agree with his comments about Charlie Kirk "doing politics the right way" and we'll leave it at that as we've already discussed that topic here), I do think this recent conversation about the 2026 midterms is a place I want to add my voice.  In a recent interview with Tim O'Brien on the Bulwark Podcast, Klein talked about Democrats taking on stances that are more moderate (or even conservative) in red/purple states.  In the conversation, he cites Sen. Susan Collins specifically as a Republican who has done this successfully on the other side of the aisle (Collins is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, and has held a Senate seat in a state that has not gone for a Republican for the presidency since 1988), and also talks about how in 2009, Democrats had 40 pro-life Democrats in the US House, as well as Senate seats in Arkansas, Louisiana, in both Dakotas, Ohio, Montana, West Virginia, & Indiana.  Klein goes on to say that now "it's easier to imagine the end of America than to imagine the Democrats winning a Senate seat in Arkansas."  Klein then goes on to say, and I think this is crucial to understanding his argument: "Politics is about winning power, it's not about only choosing strategies I am personally comfortable with."

What Klein is alluding to here is a recent article he wrote talking about running anti-choice (i.e. pro-life Democrats) in red states in hopes of winning back a majority in Congress, particularly the US Senate.  This was met with a lot of heavy criticism of Klein online, with some saying that he's against abortion rights, and that this is a line-in-the-sand that they think betrays Democratic core beliefs.  I think this opens up a few larger questions-should the Democrats be willing to abandon their pro-choice stance by backing anti-choice (if you've read this blog long enough you know that I don't use the phrase "pro-life" because I don't think it's accurate, but I'm using it initially because Klein uses that phrase in his article, and it's common parlance with this issue), and if they aren't willing to do so, how do they expect to have a winning, functional majority in the future, given that for much of the Trump Era of American politics, we have largely seen declines in the number of winnable states/districts in Congress for the left.

Before we begin, I want to set some ground rules.  I don't always agree with Klein, but I do believe that he is pro-choice, and that people saying he's anti-abortion rights are doing to so to be provocative.  I also do think that Klein truly wants Democrats to win a majority in Congress again, and that that majority should find a way to better protect abortion rights, as well as to protect trans people and immigrants (both groups he also cites).  I don't think that Klein is a "secret Republican," even if he might be more moderate than some Democrats arguing against his behalf.

But I also don't think he's totally right (or totally wrong here), and I think it starts with his focus on abortion rights.  Klein is correct that both the number of Democrats and the number of pro-life Democrats in the US Congress since 2009 has dropped dramatically.  2009 was a high-water mark for the Democrats coming off of two insanely successful national campaigns (the 2006 midterms and the 2008 election of Barack Obama), and they had more seats in either house than they have had the remainder of the 21st Century.  That coalition included Democrats in the Senate like Ben Nelson & Mark Pryor who would label themselves as "pro-life" as well as Democrats like Blanche Lincoln & Evan Bayh who had mixed stances on abortion.  With the retirement of Joe Manchin in 2024, there is only one Democrat left in Congress (Texas's Henry Cuellar) who does not back abortion rights, and as you know, the Democrats do not have a majority, much less a majority similar in size to that of 2009.

Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley (D-MS)

Klein's argument falls apart, though, when you look at public opinion polls on abortion rights.  A 2023 survey by PRRI showed that 64% of Americans support abortion being legal, and in all but six states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Idaho, Arkansas, & Mississippi) a majority (or better) of voters would consider themselves pro-choice.  This has been borne out in ballot initiatives, even in red states.  In 2022 and 2024, abortion ballot initiatives in Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, & Montana all passed protecting pro-choice rights into state law.  At the exact same time, all four of those states held Senate elections where the state elected Republicans who are anti-choice (with pro-choice Democrats as options on the ballot).  Essentially those voters are telling Democrats that they are pro-choice...but still unwilling to back a Democrat even if it means having to back an anti-choice Republican in the process.  It's also worth noting that Democrats have, in one of the six states that don't back abortion rights, recently run a well-funded, anti-choice candidate (Brandon Presley) for Governor...and they still lost.

Klein's argument isn't necessarily wrong in the terms of needing to moderate, it's that he picked the wrong issue to try and stop the tide.  I am decidedly pro-choice, and I did say in 2023 that it was worth trying to get an anti-choice Democrat in Mississippi because it was better than nothing (and I still feel that way...if there was a clear option for a Democrat who called themselves "pro-life" in Utah or South Dakota next year, I'd say go for it because a Democrat is going to be better for abortion rights than a Republican even if they have similar views because they'll put Democrats into committee chairmanships who will stave off extremist abortion measures).  I think it's telling that Klein didn't, for example, pick issues that are far less popular to show a clear break.  Police reform, for example, is not remotely as popular as abortion rights (public backing of "Defund the Police" reforms is low, and when you call it "Defund the police" it becomes even lower).  Student loan forgiveness, trans rights (particularly transgender student athletics), and immigration reform are all soft spots for the Democrats.  If we are going to break from the party on certain issues to try and win back moderates, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on issues the country does not agree with the Democrats on (as opposed to abortion rights, where they think we have the right answer?).

The problem is that Klein doesn't have a lot of examples of this working, and is instead going back to people like Ben Nelson & Mark Pryor (who haven't won an election in 15 years) as examples instead of admitting that both sides have struggled mightily to be able to buck the biggest hallmark of the Trump Era: straight-ticket voting.  He brings up Susan Collins as an example in Maine for a reason-she's the only pro-choice Republican who has been able to consistently hold a blue seat in the Trump Era.  In the years following 2009, pro-choice Republicans like Bob Dold & Mark Kirk also lost to pro-choice Democrats in the same way that Nelson & Pryor were replaced by anti-choice Republicans.  Collins is one of only two Republicans in Congress (along with Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski) who consider themselves to be pro-choice, and she's the only one to do so in a spot her party lost in the last presidential election.  Yes, Collins is someone the Democrats would love to emulate, finding a way to duplicate her success in reverse, but let's also be real-she's a unicorn, an extraordinarily talented politician whose ability to win a blue area against really impressive candidates (she's beaten sitting members of Congress in blue wave elections to hold onto this seat!) is both laudable and, let's be honest, a little baffling given she's hardly what you'd call a charismatic politician.  It's also not something you can duplicate easily.  Even House Democrats who hold relatively red areas of the map like Jared Golden or Marie Gluesenkamp Perez are pro-choice, winning over Trump voters in their district in other ways.

This isn't to say that people should give up, or that Klein doesn't have a point.  I think it's worth exploring holding your nose for Democrats in pink states like Texas, North Carolina, Alaska, Kansas, & Ohio, and putting up with them taking moderate-to-conservative stances on issues like criminal justice, transgender rights, & immigration legislation if it means we get back a majority (I do concur with Klein's statement that "politics is about winning power," even if it's a more moderate ideology of the power than I'd like).  If progressive Democrats disagree with that, prove it by winning pink states with candidates who are backing these issues (get Sherrod Brown a win in Ohio in 2026, same with defeating Susan Collins, or electing Roy Cooper in North Carolina...these are people who are more progressive than their states are, so if you believe they have a winning formula, show up and vote).  And if there are unusual circumstances like Brandon Presley in 2023, where we have a strong option to run in a state that doesn't back abortion rights...give it a go (if Chuck Schumer's daily calls to John Bel Edwards pay off in Louisiana, this would be a good place to start given Louisiana's tacit support of abortion is only at 53% in polling).

But I think Klein's focus on abortion rights is misguided as a strategy.  He's correct that Democrats need to try a different tactic to win, and he's correct that it's easier to see the republic falling than Democrats winning a Senate race in Arkansas.  But there's no evidence running anti-choice candidates in the Trump Era will move the needle for Democrats (or that we need to win Arkansas to get a majority).  It's more likely that if the Democrats cobble together a Senate majority, it will be winning back Biden states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, & Maine, as well as getting lucky with more options akin to Golden & Gluesenkamp Perez...options that are, let's face it, more than likely going to match the voters of their constituency by supporting abortion rights.