Political Note.

Movable planks Why has so little notice been taken of the new language that the Democratic convention in Los Angeles added to the party's platform plank on abortion--language that was actually written by Republicans?

The topic is of particular importance to voters like myself who find that the Democratic party now treats anti-abortion Democrats as hardly more worthy of a hearing than racists and probably less worthy of a hearing than robber barons.

There are really four parts to the Democratic abortion plank. The first reaffirms "the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay." Language supporting Roe has been in every Democratic platform since 1976, and support for government funds for abortion in every platform since 1984.

This part of the 2000 platform differs only in adding the claim, based on a worst-case interpretation of June's Supreme Court decision about a particularly gruesome form of late-term abortion, that "eliminating a woman's right to choose is only one justice away."

The second part of the platform's abortion plank urges reducing the abortion rate through contraception, family planning, and education--language also in previous platforms. Americans are urged "to take personal responsibility" to avoid unintended pregnancies, a note added four years ago.

The third part of the plank declares, "The Democratic party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party."

That language, too, first appeared in 1996. It implicitly acknowledges what the platforms from 1976 to 1984 had spelled out explicitly: "We fully recognize the religious and ethical concerns which many Americans have about abortion," an acknowledgment that disappeared in 1988 and 1992.

It is the fourth part of the plank that is entirely new--and written by Republicans. "We are proud to put into our platform," the Democrats declare, a passage that was proposed for the Republican platform in 1996 but which the Republican convention refused to accept then or to consider this year. The statement reads: "While the party remains steadfast in its commitment to advancing its historic principles and ideals, we also recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing views on issues of personal conscience like abortion and capital punishment. We view this diversity of views as a source of strength, not as a sign of weakness, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues. Recognizing that tolerance is a virtue, we are committed to resolving our differences in a spirit of civility, hope, and mutual respect."

Do the Democrats mean this? Or is it, as Will Rogers said of politics generally, just "applesauce"?

One thing at work here is an effort to salve a wound opened at the Democrats' 1992 convention when the late Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania was not allowed to voice his objections to the platform's unqualified backing for access to abortion.

This year's convention, by contrast, included a memorial for Casey, who died three months ago, with a video tribute and a few words from his politician sons, Robert Casey, Jr., Pennsylvania's auditor general, and Patrick Casey, who is running for Congress.

The tribute was one of the few moments when an anti-abortion word slipped edgewise into the Democratic gathering. It occurred well out of prime time, to be sure. But Patrick Casey wasn't complaining. He told CNN it was an acknowledgment "that there's, you know, millions of pro-life Democrats out there." And he pointed to the Democratic platform's appropriation of the rejected Republican language as a positive sign of "a willingness to hear a different point of view."

Todd Taylor, a Democratic party leader in Utah, where there are many abortion foes among Mormons and Roman Catholics, called the revised plank a sign "that choice isn't a litmus-test issue for the Democratic party."

But if there really are the number of disgruntled, anti-abortion Democrats out there that Casey and Taylor claim, those voters may want to know more about what was behind the platform revision.

One member of the platform committee, who did not work on the abortion plank, believed the new language was in the initial draft. That meant, he said, that "it represented the considered judgment of the Gore campaign." And he could not recall that the draft plank provoked any significant objections or debate.

Did the lack of objections or debate mean a real consensus that the party was prepared to consider a diversity of views on abortion "as a source of strength, not as a sign of weakness"? Or did it indicate that no one, in fact, took these phrases very seriously? Or was the additional passage simply a matter of electoral tactics, less a conciliatory gesture to reassure alienated, anti-abortion Democrats than a shrewd attempt to attract alienated, abortion-rights Republicans?

Perhaps the positions of both parties on this question are beyond serious internal debate. In that case, the Republicans are simply being more honest in not pretending otherwise. But if the revised platform means that Democrats truly want to be the "big tent" party on abortion that many commentators have urged the Republicans to become, what would that require?

One model is the Democrats' own approach to conflicts over foreign trade agreements, affirmative action, and even school vouchers. In all these areas, the party leadership has taken a definite position while listening to those who disagree and looking for ways to honor their concerns.

Party leaders talk, for example, of "fair trade as well as free trade" or "mending not ending affirmative action." The party's presidential candidate has even chosen a running mate whose positions on these topics diverge from his own--and has described such differences as a strength.

Is there anything concrete that Gore could do to demonstrate that his party's expanded abortion plank is more than words? Speaking to the issue? Campaigning alongside an anti-abortion Democrat?

One suspects that this is a subject both he and Bush would prefer not to highlight. Then again, in a close election, it might make a difference.

Peter Steinfels writes the "Beliefs" column for the New York Times and is visiting professor of history at Georgetown University.