"Be bold - shape the future" is the tagline of New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, NM. The sentiment - Fortune favors the bold - pre-dates the NMSU Aggies by more than two thousand years. It is used to exhort people to action, especially at a critical juncture; and what is a more critical juncture than the upcoming US election? The alternative to being bold is being cautious. Both courses of action have their pros and cons. In general, the young are more inclined to be bold likely due to a combination of lack of impulse control, inexperience and because they tend to have less to lose. With age the frontal lobes begin to dominate and an awareness of consequences sets in. The exception to this general rule is when one feels one has little to lose.
Take the issue of abortion. In spite of the fact that the results of elections in multiple states suggest they are on the wrong side of this issue, Republicans - legislators, governors and judges - appear to be doubling down with ever more draconian proposals and judicial rulings. I feel they are being bold - to a fault. Ironically, it is former President Trump who has chosen to be cautious with his recent "policy statement" favoring leaving the matter to the states. This is strategy rather than principle since the only principle he seems to have is his perceived self-interest. This has put Republicans in the position of choosing between being bold and being cautious. Meanwhile, Democrats, having lost the Roe v Wade battle at the Supreme Court find themselves, arguably, at an advantage with majorities of voters even in red states favoring moderation in the form of allowing abortions up to a certain stage of pregnancy, exceptions for rape and incest, health of the mother and IVF. Counting on this supposed advantage at the polls seems to me to be the cautious approach. What is not mentioned in this debate is the practice of medicine. Doctors and other medical care providers have been cowed down with the threat of criminal prosecution and loss of their medical license. In a country where the courts have ruled in favor of the conscientious objections of bakers against providing services to gay people and of county clerks against issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, surely the obligation of medical personnel to act in the interest of the patient should carry some weight. For that to happen, one doctor will have to be bold and assert his duty, not right, to provide the proper care to a pregnant woman, thereby challenging the unlicensed practice of medicine by elected representatives and judges. In 2012, in Ireland, Savita Halappanavar was denied an abortion during a miscarriage because of a detectable fetal heart beat and died. The difference between her and American women is that she was unable to leave Ireland in time to save her life while in the US women who have come close to suffering her fate have been able to go to another state for appropriate care. Savita Halappanavar's death resulted in a repeal of laws banning abortion in Ireland. Will a pregnant American woman have to die or will an American doctor be bold enough to take the Hippocratic Oath seriously?
The scuttling of the Senate compromise on immigration due to the opposition of Trump supporters in Congress provides another opportunity for bold action. What if President Biden were to act on the proposed compromise measure as if it had been approved by Congress, which it would have been, if not for Trump's unprincipled interference? After all, the basis of Republican governors like Abbott of Texas passing immigration laws is that the federal government is not doing its job. Sure, if Biden were to act without congressional approval there would be a firestorm of Republican outrage and the issue would make it to the Supreme Court on the double. But voters would see Biden as being willing to act on the immigration issue and Republicans as prioritizing their political agenda over border security. I am not saying Biden would win in a landslide in November as a result, but I don't think it would hurt.
The choice between boldness and caution will be determined by how we perceive our situation. The end of colonialism and Jim Crow was not brought about by cautious calculations but by people like Gandhi and King being bold enough to take on the powers that be. To use a line from a previous Trump campaign, "What the hell do you have to lose?" I would say everything is on the line.