Sit down & shut up: the Democrats' gag rule.

As I write this the Democratic National Convention is ending in mid-July, Bill Clinton and Al Gore have been nominated, and Ross Perot has just dropped out of the race. President George Bush is fishing in Wyoming after having been booed earlier in the week at the All-Star Game in San Diego.

The Democratic Convention was predictably prochoice in its orientation. That's something we prolife Democrats have learned to live with. What caught us somewhat by surprise was the extremely pro-choice tone of the convention: a tone that was more than simply strident. It was downright sectarian.

Thus Governor Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, a prolife Democrat - probably the most prominent prolife Democrat in America - was not allowed to address the convention and present a minority report on the party's abortion position. Prochoice Democrats by the busload addressed the convention; a prochoice Republican was even allowed to speak. But the two-term governor of the fifth largest state in the union was the victim of a gag rule because he didn't follow the party line.

In fairness to the folks who censored Casey, they probably considered themselves to be acting with great restraint. They did no more than silence him, whereas, in their view, he deserved nothing less than denunciation. Ron Brown should have mounted the podium and cried out. "Have you no shame, Governor? Have you no shame?

The national Democrats are trying to make it as plain as possible that there is no room in the party for prolife Democrats. Being prochoice is not simply a majority position; it has now become a mandatory position. The national Democrats no longer have a big tent. Instead their tent reminds us of the tent of a conventicle, a revival meeting of religious enthusiasts.

At the convention there was a huge quantity of talk about the Democratic party as the party of "inclusiveness" - the party of males and females, whites and nonwhites, gays and straights, etc. Though Jesse Jackson may have been demoted to second fiddle, the melody the orchestra was playing was that fine old American folk song. "The Rainbow Coalition." But this inclusiveness stopped when it came to prolife Democrats. For them the orchestra played, "I Hear You Knockin' but You Can't Come In."

The party has big arms, and it will extend its ample embrace to anyone - expect those who are so perverse as to harbor suspicions that the little thing growing in the uterus may count as a human person and therefore be entitled to certain protections, above all protections against being killed. Such suspicions are beyond the pale. Anyone who would propose limits on the killing of such growing things is not fit to be received into the company of decent Democrats.

Yet this prochoice intolerance should not have been totally unexpected.

For one thing, there is a kind of anti-intellectualism that has long been part and parcel of the prochoice movement. I refer to their categorical refusal to discuss the central question: Is the fetus a human person or is it not? A person who is intellectually both serious and honest will not dismiss or run away from this obvious and enormously important question. But as a rule prochoicers do dismiss it, they do run away from it. And once you get in the habit of doing this, there is no telling what acts of intellectual levity or dishonesty you'll move on to next.

For another, prochoice true believers, have a tremendous sense of social superiority relative to the average prolife American. And with good reason - for they really are socially superior. They are better educated, wealthier, and more privileged than their prolife counterparts. They drive better cars and live in better houses. They have better taste in coffee, wine, food, and music. They are more likely to watch "Mystery." But as a rule socially superior people feel morally superior as well; if they did not, they would have a guilty conscience about their privileges. This tendency to grab a bigger share, then to congratulate oneself on having deserved it, is one of the stronger bits of empirical evidence for the reality of Original Sin. At any rate, prochoicers look at prolifers with a mixture of disdain and pity. They consider them to be both vulgar and morally offensive: not at all the kind of people whose views need to be listened to, let alone encouraged.

Finally, the prochoice enthusiasts have a fanatic winner-take-all mentality on abortion. Confronted by diametrically opposed views - one view that wants abortion on demand, the other that wants abolition of abortion - the traditional liberal mind would look for a compromise. It would attempt to balance the opposing views and interests, denying both parties the whole loaf but giving each a part, while encouraging both to negotiate their differences. But prochoice true believers will have nothing to do with such wimpy liberalism (nor, it must be admitted, will prolife true believers). They want the whole loaf: let their opponents go hungry. They want a complete victory; no consolation prize should go to the other side. They profess to be liberals, but theirs is a liberalism of a most unliberal type.

Why, then, should we be surprised that Governor Casey was silenced? When people are anti-intellectual, self-righteous, and uncompromising, it is perfectly in character for them to silence their foes.

Pity us prolife Democrats. We have been locked out of our own house, yet we have no desire to enter the Republican house next door. We are a political pariah people.

But it was my party before it was the pro-abortion party. So I have no plans to cut and run. Rather, I choose to stay and fight. It may be too much to expect that we can any time soon persuade the national Democratic party to respect life. But perhaps if we fight really hard we may eventually get them to respect diversity of opinion.