Bread & circuses.

REPUBLICAN supporters of abortion rights delight the media every four years by raising a ruckus over the party's pro-life stance. But can they make a credible case that it is political poison? Your favorite magazine recently sponsored a Capitol Hill debate on this very question. Not: Is the GOP's pro-life plank morally right? Not: Is it politically practicable? But simply and solely, Is it an electoral handicap? The best advocates on both sides were recruited, and they made their strongest arguments. The result was a spirited fight that your favorite moderator (silently) awarded to the pro-life team.

At the outset, however, the American Enterprise Institute's polling expert (and our umpire on public opinion) Karlyn Bowman presented a genuinely striking fact: public opinion on the abortion issue has been remarkably stable since 1972. A strong majority believes a woman should be able to choose abortion when her health is endangered but not in less threatening circumstances. A large majority believes that abortion is morally wrong, but also that it should be a choice in limited cases anyway. Mrs. Bowman explained that when people hold such seemingly contradictory views, their tendency is to withdraw from the debate. And, sure enough, in the last six national elections, abortion was the most important issue for only 7 to 13 per cent of voters. They favored the GOP. This November, a Los Angeles Times national poll found that 9 per cent of voters listed abortion as one of their top two concerns -- and 60 per cent of them voted for Bob Dole. Furthermore, as Mrs. Bowman explained later in the debate, "the gender gap has many complex causes -- abortion is not one of them."

In making their case that the pro-life position hurts Republicans, veteran GOP strategist Jim Pinkerton and abortion-rights activist Ann Stone argued that the abortion issue cost both Bush and Dole support in key states. Mr. Pinkerton declared that a party that loses states like California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in two consecutive national elections "is not fit for national leadership." But half these states have either GOP governors or senators who are pro-life. How come? According to Mrs. Stone, there is a simple explanation: Whereas pro-life candidates who lost were sunk by abortion, pro-choice candidates who lost "ran terrible campaigns."

From the pro-life side of the table, conservative activist Frank Cannon noted that the Reagan coalition of economic and social conservatives won three consecutive landslides. Again, how come? Survey data indicate the abortion issue helps Republicans by a 2 to 1 margin. Mr. Cannon sees the GOP split on abortion as a battle between GOP elites (including the campaign pros whom Mr. Pinkerton rightly notes agree with him) at odds with a rank and file of pro-life voters. He pointed out that William Weld, a "hero" to NARAL's Kate Michelman for his fight against the platform, lost the women's vote by 21 points in his Senate race; Jesse Helms only lost it by 1 point, and more importantly won his election.

Ann Stone dismisses the Reagan precedents on the grounds that the politics of abortion changed radically in 1989 with the Supreme Court's Webster decision upholding certain restrictions on abortion. As it happens, a large majority favors such restrictions. But for Mrs. Stone, as for many pro-choicers, this objection misses the point. They believe that the issue confronting Republicans is less about abortion than about women's status: whether the GOP wants to "relegate women back to the kitchen."

Let's call it the misogyny thesis (with apologies to Florence King). At any rate, syndicated columnist (and NR alumna) Maggie Gallagher rejected it, citing a May 1996 Yankelovich survey which found that 60 per cent of women believe abortion ought to be either illegal or far more restricted. Polls indicate that the most pro-choice group is young men between the ages of 18 and 35. (Not a great surprise: sex without responsibility has a natural appeal to young men.) But in the light of the historic takeover of Congress, the burden was on pro-choicers to prove that abortion had been a "terrible albatross" to the GOP.

Miss Gallagher argued that the politics of abortion in the GOP had little to do with the voting booth and everything to do with the relative power of economic and social conservatives inside the party. Social conservatives, with little to show for their 15-year investment in the GOP, are now facing a resurgence of the party's Rockefeller wing as GOP liberals fret that the abortion issue deprives the party of attractive candidates like Colin Powell.

BOTH sides, however, have to come to terms with the ignorance of the voters. In her post-election analysis Kellyanne Fitzpatrick had found that 55 per cent of voters (and the same percentage of women voters) believe that abortion should be either illegal or available only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother --the operative GOP position. Only 11 per cent of voters believe that abortion should be legal at any time for any reason -- Bill Clinton's position. Yet only a small minority of voters can match the party and the issue correctly.

Where Frank Cannon and Maggie Gallagher score points is that the issue is far more important to pro-life than to pro-choice voters. Thirty per cent of pro-life voters believe the issue is "extremely important," while only 16 per cent of pro-choice voters give it high priority. And the voters most likely to be pro-life include key swing constituencies: surburban women, senior citizens, and union members. But if some pro-life voters are there for the asking, others have to be galvanized. The fact that 50 per cent of Clinton's voters held pro-life views shows Dole's failure to do so.

There is a legitimate and difficult argument over how best to advance the pro-life movement's goals. Is the Human Life Amendment the best vehicle, for instance? But the debate about whether abortion hurts the GOP ought now to be closed.