If you're anything like most Americans, you probably don't have a strong opinion on whether the federal government should use fiscal policy or monetary policy or both to head off the recession that many economists see in our near future.

You probably don't have a strong opinion on what should be done in the Middle East. If you're anything like most Americans, however, you probably do have a strong opinion on abortion. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most of you reading this column have gotten into a heated argument (or five) about abortion.

While it is a favorite topic within certain circles (see the Willard Preacher, preferably during harsh winter weather), there are certain realities that make the entire abortion debate futile and bogus.

First of all, the central question in the abortion debate remains in the judicial realm. Even with a conservative Supreme Court, there is still a 6-3 majority favoring the fundamental principle in Roe v. Wade. And it's fairly unlikely that the Court will even hear any cases on the central abortion question in the next few years.

Now let's say that Bush tries to swing the court to a 5-4 majority against (read on for why he won't do this). Then abortion would be a legislative issue, and properly so. After all, there is nothing in the Constitution that even tenuously refers to abortion. But even if Roe were overturned, most states would probably legalize abortion and Congress might step in and federally legalize it.

Because abortion was made into a Constitutional question in the 70s, politicians have little, if any, practical power over the issue. But a candidate's stance on the matter can still make or break him.

A friend of mine, who was a campaign staffer for a pro-choice Republican Congressional candidate, told me some stories that illuminated the irrational rabidity that surrounds the abortion question. By far the most common question callers asked the campaign office was whether the candidate was pro-life or pro-choice, even though House members pass very few laws pertaining to abortion and have no control over the central question in the debate (unless the pro-life amendment is passed, which is a fantasy).

Alas, many people still make voting decisions based solely on abortion. If you're one of these people: Stop it! The only person in an elected office who has any power over the central question in the abortion debate is the president, and even his power is very limited.

Once every 3 or 4 years, if some old judge dies, the president gets to pick another old judge, who may or may not share the president's opinion on abortion. If the Senate confirms him, this old judge, who may or may not favor Roe, may or may not hear any cases on the issue before yet another old judge, probably picked by a different president, replaces him. That's about the extent of the president's power in shaping the issue.

President Bush will try to avoid the abortion issue like the plague. During the campaign, Bush's standard answer to questions on abortion was, "Good people can differ on this issue." It's a losing issue for him and Republicans in general.

If Bush is to have any chance in 2004, it's absolutely essential for him to maintain the status quo on abortion. Bush needs swing-voting, pro-choice moderates and pro-life conservatives. In order to keep the pro-choice moderates happy, he has to keep any political noise on abortion to an absolute minimum. Any forceful action towards restricting abortion, besides banning partial-birth abortions, could be devastating to the Bush Administration and the Republican Party.

On the other hand, to keep the social conservatives at ease, Bush has to appear as though he is leading the fight against abortion. He can do this by making a few conservative judicial and cabinet appointments (case in point: John Ashcroft). Bush's task is this: Pretend to take up the banner of the lost cause he's supposed to be leading with the knowledge that even trying to win is committing suicide, all without pro-choice moderates noticing or caring.

In order for Bush to pull off this type of political chicanery, at least one side of this fraudulent debate will have to be more blindly ideological than the old Soviet Politburo (which is a distinct possibility considering National Organization for Women is involved).

As for the Democrats, they just love to pound this issue like the proverbial dead horse. They know that abortion is the single most divisive issue in this country. They also know that more people are pro-choice, so the issue is a winner for them.

When Al Gore was screaming his populist claptrap in the heat of the summer campaign, he would often yell, in the most graceful of monotones, a sentence or two about protecting a woman's right to choose. He whooped, "The Supreme Court is at stake. A woman's right to choose is at stake."

Al Gore knew this was baloney. He knew that Roe v. Wade probably wasn't going anywhere in the next four years. And even if Roe were overturned, a vast majority of states would legalize abortion if Congress didn't do it first. The only reason the Democrats beat the abortion drum so loudly and consistently is to mobilize their liberal base. They know that legalized abortions have a long future in this country. All the positioning is just for political gain.

So, if you're talking to someone and you feel one of those really ugly abortion arguments coming on, sit down, have a stiff drink (or five), and remember that the abortion debate is a crock perpetuated only because both political parties benefit from the continued delusion of key constituencies.