Culture War 1.0 in action (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade’s guarantee of a right to abortion, marked the triumph of a decades-long conservative legal crusade. Close to a year later, however, and Dobbs has begun to look like the Republican Party snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
The GOP’s restrictionist abortion platform appears to have played a major role in its subpar results in the 2022 midterms, even as spiralling inflation seemed sure to boost the party’s fortunes. In the months since, its vulnerability on reproductive rights has continued to play out in a number of statewide contests — most recently, in the commanding victory of pro-choice liberal challenger Janet Protasiewicz in Wisconsin’s State Supreme Court election.
All of this has proven frustrating to those who are convinced, with some reason, that the GOP should be winning — not only because of Biden’s economic woes but because of the Democrats’ commitment to unpopular positions on culture-war topics, from transgender athletes to racial preferences. How can the Republicans be bleeding votes on one culture-war issue when they hold a decisive advantage on so many others?
The answer, in part, is that there is no longer just one culture war, but (at least) two distinct battlefields with different terrains — let’s call them Culture War 1.0 and Culture War 2.0. Culture War 1.0, exemplified today by the abortion debate, dates to the conservative backlash to the sexual revolution in the Seventies. It has seen the cultural Right fight a series of losing battles — with the overturning of Roe v. Wade last year standing as an exception that proves the rule. Culture War 2.0, consisting of a varied array of race and gender-related conflicts that have consumed public life in recent years, dates back barely a decade, but it did not truly come to the fore until the convulsions of 2020.
The GOP’s attraction to this second iteration are obvious. The positions increasingly embraced by the Democratic coalition on the relevant cluster of issues — for example, that a woman is anyone who identifies as such, that biological sex is not real, or that present discrimination is needed to counteract past discrimination — are broadly unpopular outside certain affluent, highly educated settings. Moreover, those leading the charge against the new liberal consensus are often disaffected liberals and establishment centrists, which suggests there is a potential for the Right to make inroads beyond its traditional base. Abortion, in contrast, is of greatest concern to religious voters, who make up a rapidly declining share of the electorate.
So, why do the Culture War 1.0 politics of abortion remain so resilient within the GOP, even as it threatens to torpedo the party’s chances in many contests? The answer lies in the difference between these two battlefields. Consider Florida governor and likely presidential contender Ron DeSantis’s recent decision to sign a bill limiting abortion to the first six weeks of pregnancy. DeSantis has capitalised more than any politician to date on Culture War 2.0 issues, having declared war against critical race theory and gender ideology in schools, and against the progressive turn taken by corporations like Disney. These aggressive moves have polled well in Florida, even beyond the Republican base, and helped propel him to a midterm victory last year that set him apart from the mediocre performance of his party.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe problem us that the Left is in large part, a philosophy devoted to coercion, conformity and strict compliance. Its whole structure is devoted to continuous struggle.
God forbid that it ever ACHIEVE its aims; indeed, it has no mechanism for recognising that it has done so, or even defining them sufficiently for that to be a possibility.
It can only ever plunge onwards, ever changing, forever chasing after some new will o’ the whispering until it has destroyed everything.
Strange how those countries in Europe which consistently top the world-wide polls for happiness and quality of life are those with high government spending etc and which you would no doubt label as extreme left, or socialist (even if in Europe those labels would be considered ridiculous).
I would guess that the US takes in similar amounts of tax per capita as many European countries. Their share of social protection in government expenditure is where the differences really come in. US has to consider many different factors if it is to ‘protect the world order’. Most of those European countries largely keep to themselves.
I assume you’re referring to the ‘happiness index’ which places Scandinavian nations at the top. It also puts just about all western countries above all the others, which suggests probable cultural bias in the measurement. That list puts the US at 16, higher than, among others, the UK, France, Taiwan, and Japan. That seems dubious given more objective criteria such as crime and incarceration rates. If we use those more objective measures, it would highly rank many Asian societies such as Japan, Taiwan, etc. These societies do share many traits in common. Notably, they are traditional societies with low immigration and high levels of racial, cultural, and religious homogeneity. I’d contend that these factors are likelier to share a causal relationship with ‘happiness’. After all, the overtly and militantly socialist states of the communist bloc were decidedly unhappy places. A balance between socialist supports and capitalist incentives seems to be better than either extreme.
I would guess that the US takes in similar amounts of tax per capita as many European countries. Their share of social protection in government expenditure is where the differences really come in. US has to consider many different factors if it is to ‘protect the world order’. Most of those European countries largely keep to themselves.
I assume you’re referring to the ‘happiness index’ which places Scandinavian nations at the top. It also puts just about all western countries above all the others, which suggests probable cultural bias in the measurement. That list puts the US at 16, higher than, among others, the UK, France, Taiwan, and Japan. That seems dubious given more objective criteria such as crime and incarceration rates. If we use those more objective measures, it would highly rank many Asian societies such as Japan, Taiwan, etc. These societies do share many traits in common. Notably, they are traditional societies with low immigration and high levels of racial, cultural, and religious homogeneity. I’d contend that these factors are likelier to share a causal relationship with ‘happiness’. After all, the overtly and militantly socialist states of the communist bloc were decidedly unhappy places. A balance between socialist supports and capitalist incentives seems to be better than either extreme.
Extremely well said. Apropos the article and abortion – the problem may be summarised as follows: a) the Right has flinched from the heart of the matter, which is the left’s shameless, manipulative embrace of reverse racial hatred, playing on the guilt of the contented and the chauvinism of “minorities”; b) the Right has therefore retreated into a neo-religious ghetto, which is insincere, unsustainable and unpopular. It will be as effective from this ghetto as was Marshal Bazaine, holed up in Metz during the Franco-Prussian War. A more bone-headed own goal could not be imagined.
The Right is making two mistakes. First, it has flinched from challenging the reverse racism which lies at the heart of the establishment-left conspiracy; and second it is retreating into a neo-religious ghetto. The first is cowardice the second a displacement activity and both will prove unpopular.
No need to repeat yourself, your point is well made.
Although why rather obscure Bazaine, and not say Percival and Singapore?
No need to repeat yourself, your point is well made.
Although why rather obscure Bazaine, and not say Percival and Singapore?
Strange how those countries in Europe which consistently top the world-wide polls for happiness and quality of life are those with high government spending etc and which you would no doubt label as extreme left, or socialist (even if in Europe those labels would be considered ridiculous).
Extremely well said. Apropos the article and abortion – the problem may be summarised as follows: a) the Right has flinched from the heart of the matter, which is the left’s shameless, manipulative embrace of reverse racial hatred, playing on the guilt of the contented and the chauvinism of “minorities”; b) the Right has therefore retreated into a neo-religious ghetto, which is insincere, unsustainable and unpopular. It will be as effective from this ghetto as was Marshal Bazaine, holed up in Metz during the Franco-Prussian War. A more bone-headed own goal could not be imagined.
The Right is making two mistakes. First, it has flinched from challenging the reverse racism which lies at the heart of the establishment-left conspiracy; and second it is retreating into a neo-religious ghetto. The first is cowardice the second a displacement activity and both will prove unpopular.
The problem us that the Left is in large part, a philosophy devoted to coercion, conformity and strict compliance. Its whole structure is devoted to continuous struggle.
God forbid that it ever ACHIEVE its aims; indeed, it has no mechanism for recognising that it has done so, or even defining them sufficiently for that to be a possibility.
It can only ever plunge onwards, ever changing, forever chasing after some new will o’ the whispering until it has destroyed everything.
This article is animated by the distinction between what is popular and what is unpopular, not by the distinction between what is right and what is wrong. The modern world is fascinated by polls because it has more or less rejected the latter distinction. To reject that distinction is to embrace the notion that there are no rational limits on the use of power. Abortion is a manifestation of precisely that notion. To reject the fight against abortion as unpopular is to reject all hope for human thriving.
This article is animated by the distinction between what is popular and what is unpopular, not by the distinction between what is right and what is wrong. The modern world is fascinated by polls because it has more or less rejected the latter distinction. To reject that distinction is to embrace the notion that there are no rational limits on the use of power. Abortion is a manifestation of precisely that notion. To reject the fight against abortion as unpopular is to reject all hope for human thriving.
Completely depends on whether you think there is some middle ground centrist compromise that is worth fighting for or even conceivable. The squishy ‘holding logic’ that underpins this article has delivered slippery slope with a ratchet – for 70 years. Better to let the full logic of Democratic progressivist extremism play out with the collapse of American cities, the implosion of liberal families, the financial collapse of the economy and bankruptcy of the federal state, and then rebuild.
Abortion, gay marriage, transing the kids, surrogacy, artificial wombs (coming very soon google Ectolabs), AI – this is all part of the same process of hyper-individualism, the growth of the state, the destruction of intermediary associations. The weaponization of the FBI against Catholics and parents….open borders,….the UN now licensing sex with minors… The answer to all of this starts by rejecting the false anthropology of transactional individuals (which comes from Descartes, Rousseau and Hobbes via Kant and all the rest) – and insisting on a vision of covenantal individuals in families, neighbourhoods and place-bound communities. Catholics have a word for this: radical subsidiarity.
Selectively attacking Dems on gender theory or CRT is pointless if it doesn’t simultaneously unravel the idolatrous anthropology of individualism that provides the underlay for this kind of identity politics. And this means arguing for a metaphysical vision of human life that accepts both sin and suffering as part of the human condition, that centres on the sanctity of life (created in the image of God), that rejects profoundly, overtly and self-consciously the Promethean attempt to usurp divine power to create, recreate, genetically mould and select or reject… life at will.
A win here or there on this or that book in schools, is pointless without a comprehensive change of heart among the teachers as well as the parents. Teachers and university professors and the legions of DEI satanists are baked into the system for 40 years. No clever focus-grouped victory for a savvy GOP politician is going to change that.
This is a culture-war….and that means a war over metaphysics and values….and it starts with metaphysical anthropology. It starts with the way we treat life.
Amen!
Maybe you are too pessimistic. I totally accept your point that “progressive values” are baked into the educational system – which makes “a win here or there” or “attacking Dems on gender theory or CRT” a bit pointless – and I doubt there much future in launching an esoteric philosophical debate.
Instead I suggest that a far more profitable focus would be to rally support around the importance of free speech and debate as the way to test ideas and chart the way forward. This would resonate with much of the pubic who resent the bullying and intolerance of the Woke far more than anything else. Free debate would destroy the worst ideas of the progressives and refine their more laudable ones. It is also a positive program rather than just the current widespread moaning about woke excesses.
This may seem to some to be a naive hankering after a bygone age but I think we are about to see a revival in free debate. Simplistic posturing on Twitter is being challenged by long form podcasts. The turning point may have been the failure to cancel Joe Rogan.
I do not know who will win but I think it would be a mistake to assume a “collapse” is inevitable and passively await it.
The alternative to individualism is collectivism.
Group rights agitation, such as the gayification and now the transification of culture may appear somewhat individualistic, although perhaps this word has been divorced from its original context, but it is inherently collectivist, neomarxist, statist – in the sense it seeks to impose a top-down, authoritarian, new values on the individual and force the individual to comply regardless of that individual’s personal feelings.
It’s the exertion of authoritarian control through debasing and controlling people by their sexual vices.
It’s the exertion of authoritarian control through debasing and controlling people by their sexual vices.
Exactly. I have frankly found Catholicism and Sanity to be the same thing. We are free willed rational, hence moral beings created by and called by Love, to love one another as ourselves. There is no other worthwhile or truer vocation. Vocation is literally a call to each of us.
I am particularly struck at how Aquinas discovers that the ground of being itself is transcendent Love, our “final cause”, Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover who moves us all to truth and integrated being.
We are not material beings with a spiritual side, but spiritual beings with a material side.
Amen!
Maybe you are too pessimistic. I totally accept your point that “progressive values” are baked into the educational system – which makes “a win here or there” or “attacking Dems on gender theory or CRT” a bit pointless – and I doubt there much future in launching an esoteric philosophical debate.
Instead I suggest that a far more profitable focus would be to rally support around the importance of free speech and debate as the way to test ideas and chart the way forward. This would resonate with much of the pubic who resent the bullying and intolerance of the Woke far more than anything else. Free debate would destroy the worst ideas of the progressives and refine their more laudable ones. It is also a positive program rather than just the current widespread moaning about woke excesses.
This may seem to some to be a naive hankering after a bygone age but I think we are about to see a revival in free debate. Simplistic posturing on Twitter is being challenged by long form podcasts. The turning point may have been the failure to cancel Joe Rogan.
I do not know who will win but I think it would be a mistake to assume a “collapse” is inevitable and passively await it.
The alternative to individualism is collectivism.
Group rights agitation, such as the gayification and now the transification of culture may appear somewhat individualistic, although perhaps this word has been divorced from its original context, but it is inherently collectivist, neomarxist, statist – in the sense it seeks to impose a top-down, authoritarian, new values on the individual and force the individual to comply regardless of that individual’s personal feelings.
Exactly. I have frankly found Catholicism and Sanity to be the same thing. We are free willed rational, hence moral beings created by and called by Love, to love one another as ourselves. There is no other worthwhile or truer vocation. Vocation is literally a call to each of us.
I am particularly struck at how Aquinas discovers that the ground of being itself is transcendent Love, our “final cause”, Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover who moves us all to truth and integrated being.
We are not material beings with a spiritual side, but spiritual beings with a material side.
Completely depends on whether you think there is some middle ground centrist compromise that is worth fighting for or even conceivable. The squishy ‘holding logic’ that underpins this article has delivered slippery slope with a ratchet – for 70 years. Better to let the full logic of Democratic progressivist extremism play out with the collapse of American cities, the implosion of liberal families, the financial collapse of the economy and bankruptcy of the federal state, and then rebuild.
Abortion, gay marriage, transing the kids, surrogacy, artificial wombs (coming very soon google Ectolabs), AI – this is all part of the same process of hyper-individualism, the growth of the state, the destruction of intermediary associations. The weaponization of the FBI against Catholics and parents….open borders,….the UN now licensing sex with minors… The answer to all of this starts by rejecting the false anthropology of transactional individuals (which comes from Descartes, Rousseau and Hobbes via Kant and all the rest) – and insisting on a vision of covenantal individuals in families, neighbourhoods and place-bound communities. Catholics have a word for this: radical subsidiarity.
Selectively attacking Dems on gender theory or CRT is pointless if it doesn’t simultaneously unravel the idolatrous anthropology of individualism that provides the underlay for this kind of identity politics. And this means arguing for a metaphysical vision of human life that accepts both sin and suffering as part of the human condition, that centres on the sanctity of life (created in the image of God), that rejects profoundly, overtly and self-consciously the Promethean attempt to usurp divine power to create, recreate, genetically mould and select or reject… life at will.
A win here or there on this or that book in schools, is pointless without a comprehensive change of heart among the teachers as well as the parents. Teachers and university professors and the legions of DEI satanists are baked into the system for 40 years. No clever focus-grouped victory for a savvy GOP politician is going to change that.
This is a culture-war….and that means a war over metaphysics and values….and it starts with metaphysical anthropology. It starts with the way we treat life.
“Culture War 2.0 may prove a paper tiger, because … it lacks organisational depth, clear institutional ambitions, and even coherent political objectives.”
Doesn’t its organisational depth lie in the tertiary education sector? In national broadcasters (BBC, ABC), in cultural organisations like museums & galleries, in teaching unions. It seems that its ‘institutional ambitions’ have been pretty well realised in having captured those.
“Culture War 2.0’s broad coalition is internally incoherent in its long-term aims”
Not really, they all march under the flag of ‘equality’.
I think the author is talking about Culture War 2.0 from the conservative perspective. The Left certainly does own the institutions and has a clear agenda. The Right, so far, mostly spends its time complaining but appears unable to unite around, and implement, a coherent set of ideas and policies that oppose wokeism and, just as importantly, present a viable alternative way forward.
Not so. The Right has a coherent set if ideas and policies, and a viable way forward. What it lacks is the fixity of purpose and profound intolerance of the Left
The left’s real strength everywhere in the West derives from control of education. Concentration of force at that decisive point through school board activism and parental choice policy advocacy is the only strategy to defeat them.
Not so. The Right has a coherent set if ideas and policies, and a viable way forward. What it lacks is the fixity of purpose and profound intolerance of the Left
The left’s real strength everywhere in the West derives from control of education. Concentration of force at that decisive point through school board activism and parental choice policy advocacy is the only strategy to defeat them.
I think the author is talking about Culture War 2.0 from the conservative perspective. The Left certainly does own the institutions and has a clear agenda. The Right, so far, mostly spends its time complaining but appears unable to unite around, and implement, a coherent set of ideas and policies that oppose wokeism and, just as importantly, present a viable alternative way forward.
“Culture War 2.0 may prove a paper tiger, because … it lacks organisational depth, clear institutional ambitions, and even coherent political objectives.”
Doesn’t its organisational depth lie in the tertiary education sector? In national broadcasters (BBC, ABC), in cultural organisations like museums & galleries, in teaching unions. It seems that its ‘institutional ambitions’ have been pretty well realised in having captured those.
“Culture War 2.0’s broad coalition is internally incoherent in its long-term aims”
Not really, they all march under the flag of ‘equality’.
Here’s what Dobbs said…prior decisions were a miscarriage of Jurisprudence because there is no Express or Implied Federal Right to Abortion anywhere in the Constitution. The decision is up to the States, period.
Leftists should be celebrating Dobbs because it clearly demarcates Red State from Blue State. Leftists can set up their own little Portlantopias all over. Everything will be abundant and peaceful. Healthcare can be Universalized and Equity can be prioritized as a step toward the Egalitarian Heaven that the Prophets Rousseau and Marx foretold.
Just kidding. They will flee their Blue States and embark upon a journey of spreading Misery and Street Chaos to those who Lack Access to Liberatory Progressivism.
Here’s what Dobbs said…prior decisions were a miscarriage of Jurisprudence because there is no Express or Implied Federal Right to Abortion anywhere in the Constitution. The decision is up to the States, period.
Leftists should be celebrating Dobbs because it clearly demarcates Red State from Blue State. Leftists can set up their own little Portlantopias all over. Everything will be abundant and peaceful. Healthcare can be Universalized and Equity can be prioritized as a step toward the Egalitarian Heaven that the Prophets Rousseau and Marx foretold.
Just kidding. They will flee their Blue States and embark upon a journey of spreading Misery and Street Chaos to those who Lack Access to Liberatory Progressivism.
“The GOP’s restrictionist abortion platform appears to have played a major role in its subpar 2022 midterm results.”
It “appears” so to the author; but not at all to me. I hear this repeated all the time; but no one can say how it is so. Association with Trump seems to have been rebuked somewhat–but even then, some races were extremely close. The “subpar results” surely reflect a variety of races, each its own distinct character.
Now, perhaps Trump was associated with abortion because of his Supreme Court appointments; and I can imagine a possible link between high voter turnout in some areas and the palpable rage inspired by the overturning of Roe v Wade. But in any case it is not at all clear that the Republican candidates would have won in this or that race (another problem with statements like the author’s: too general) had they changed stance on abortion. In any case a one-time temporary backlash–all this likely was–is a small price to pay for overturning Roe v Wade.
It is clear that many states are enacting restrictions on abortion access with strong support. Polls are misleading on abortion. There is more pro-life sentiment in the US than is presented in media.
Generally speaking, it is not at all clear what the GOP will have to gain by changing its stance on abortion.
Are they doing so with strong support though as you claim? The states that have put it to a referendum have all decided to keep the status quo I believe rather than effectively ban abortions. I also don’t believe the mid term elections can be labelled a success by the Republicans at all. Faced with a president with poor approval ratings and a struggling economy, they still couldn’t take control of both houses and to most people vastly underperformed. Whether this was due to Trumps influence or abortion restrictions I don’t know, possibly a little of both.
The evangelicals are never going to vote democrat, so why appease them at the expense of losing centrist floating voters over a battle such as abortion rights?
No, the midterms were not a success for the GOP–but my point is that surely the blame can’t be pinned on abortion alone.
I would be surprised to hear of a substantial centrist voting contingent that is willing to cast its vote based on abortion. Can’t the centrists more reliably be won over on issues such as crime and the economy?
Whereas, at least in theory, evangelicals will be mobilized over pro-life positions in a way that centrists may not.
Though it must be said that evangelicals are a more disparate group than is supposed, and more liberal about sexuality than is supposed. There are signs of an evangelicalism more tolerant, even supportive, of liberal sexual attitudes, including abortion.
Yes, this is an important point. I live in a city dominated by Dutch immigrants and what is left of the Dutch Reformed Church. I say “what is left” for the following reason: The elite in that church are increasingly rejecting their own traditional asceticism. It is now common, again amongst the elite in that church, to affirm that there is no such thing as shame. The idea that “everything is permitted” is seeping into even that church. It is all a function, as you said, of “liberal sexual attitudes.”
Yes, this is an important point. I live in a city dominated by Dutch immigrants and what is left of the Dutch Reformed Church. I say “what is left” for the following reason: The elite in that church are increasingly rejecting their own traditional asceticism. It is now common, again amongst the elite in that church, to affirm that there is no such thing as shame. The idea that “everything is permitted” is seeping into even that church. It is all a function, as you said, of “liberal sexual attitudes.”
They may not vote Democratic, but they also may simply not vote if the Republicans tack to the middle in an obvious way on abortion. This is not a small group of voters, in terms of the percentage of them who have historically turned out to vote – very high turnout rates (among the highest of any group) and lockstep Republican more or less, when you look at the portion of Evangelicals that is very motivated by abortion politics. The risk to the Republicans is that any significant drop in these extremely reliable votes will not be as surely and easily replaceable by new crossover votes who may be open to voting for Republicans if they were more moderate on abortion — it’s a punt at best. Now the argument can be made that in light of 2022 it’s a necessary punt, even if it fails, due to the fact that the existing strategy appears to be failing, but that still doesn’t mean that the punt would be successful.
Also, the risk that an obvious shift to the center on abortion by the Republicans would generate a third-party anti-abortion candidacy on the right, at least in a national election, is certainly non-trivial, and would, if it happened, destroy the Republican result nationally.
No, the midterms were not a success for the GOP–but my point is that surely the blame can’t be pinned on abortion alone.
I would be surprised to hear of a substantial centrist voting contingent that is willing to cast its vote based on abortion. Can’t the centrists more reliably be won over on issues such as crime and the economy?
Whereas, at least in theory, evangelicals will be mobilized over pro-life positions in a way that centrists may not.
Though it must be said that evangelicals are a more disparate group than is supposed, and more liberal about sexuality than is supposed. There are signs of an evangelicalism more tolerant, even supportive, of liberal sexual attitudes, including abortion.
They may not vote Democratic, but they also may simply not vote if the Republicans tack to the middle in an obvious way on abortion. This is not a small group of voters, in terms of the percentage of them who have historically turned out to vote – very high turnout rates (among the highest of any group) and lockstep Republican more or less, when you look at the portion of Evangelicals that is very motivated by abortion politics. The risk to the Republicans is that any significant drop in these extremely reliable votes will not be as surely and easily replaceable by new crossover votes who may be open to voting for Republicans if they were more moderate on abortion — it’s a punt at best. Now the argument can be made that in light of 2022 it’s a necessary punt, even if it fails, due to the fact that the existing strategy appears to be failing, but that still doesn’t mean that the punt would be successful.
Also, the risk that an obvious shift to the center on abortion by the Republicans would generate a third-party anti-abortion candidacy on the right, at least in a national election, is certainly non-trivial, and would, if it happened, destroy the Republican result nationally.
“In any case a one-time temporary backlash–all this likely was–is a small price to pay for overturning Roe v Wade.”
We don’t yet know if will be a temporary backlash. The polls have been consistent on this issue for a long time. The Republicans might do better to present their overturning of Roe as simply correcting a widely considered constitutionally dodgy previous decision – and returning power to the states to make the decision.
True–we don’t know yet the ramifications for voters.
I don’t know about the GOP messaging strategy, the merits of this or that tone; but deep down, people, including pro-abortiom voters, understand the perfectly reasonable legal aspect of Roe v Wade, which is one reason I think voter turnout will dip on this issue after its high point.
Abortion access frankly is not a practical concern for most pro-abortion voters, is it? No matter what they say. The people getting abortions are by and large a politically powerless group. Another reason I don’t think pro-abortion will generate big turnouts in the future.
True–we don’t know yet the ramifications for voters.
I don’t know about the GOP messaging strategy, the merits of this or that tone; but deep down, people, including pro-abortiom voters, understand the perfectly reasonable legal aspect of Roe v Wade, which is one reason I think voter turnout will dip on this issue after its high point.
Abortion access frankly is not a practical concern for most pro-abortion voters, is it? No matter what they say. The people getting abortions are by and large a politically powerless group. Another reason I don’t think pro-abortion will generate big turnouts in the future.
Are they doing so with strong support though as you claim? The states that have put it to a referendum have all decided to keep the status quo I believe rather than effectively ban abortions. I also don’t believe the mid term elections can be labelled a success by the Republicans at all. Faced with a president with poor approval ratings and a struggling economy, they still couldn’t take control of both houses and to most people vastly underperformed. Whether this was due to Trumps influence or abortion restrictions I don’t know, possibly a little of both.
The evangelicals are never going to vote democrat, so why appease them at the expense of losing centrist floating voters over a battle such as abortion rights?
“In any case a one-time temporary backlash–all this likely was–is a small price to pay for overturning Roe v Wade.”
We don’t yet know if will be a temporary backlash. The polls have been consistent on this issue for a long time. The Republicans might do better to present their overturning of Roe as simply correcting a widely considered constitutionally dodgy previous decision – and returning power to the states to make the decision.
“The GOP’s restrictionist abortion platform appears to have played a major role in its subpar 2022 midterm results.”
It “appears” so to the author; but not at all to me. I hear this repeated all the time; but no one can say how it is so. Association with Trump seems to have been rebuked somewhat–but even then, some races were extremely close. The “subpar results” surely reflect a variety of races, each its own distinct character.
Now, perhaps Trump was associated with abortion because of his Supreme Court appointments; and I can imagine a possible link between high voter turnout in some areas and the palpable rage inspired by the overturning of Roe v Wade. But in any case it is not at all clear that the Republican candidates would have won in this or that race (another problem with statements like the author’s: too general) had they changed stance on abortion. In any case a one-time temporary backlash–all this likely was–is a small price to pay for overturning Roe v Wade.
It is clear that many states are enacting restrictions on abortion access with strong support. Polls are misleading on abortion. There is more pro-life sentiment in the US than is presented in media.
Generally speaking, it is not at all clear what the GOP will have to gain by changing its stance on abortion.
The Right is making two mistakes. To start with, it has flinched from challenging the reverse chauvinism which lies at the heart of the establishment-left conspiracy; and second it is retreating into a neo-religious fortress. The first is cowardice the second a displacement activity and both will prove unpopular.
The Right is making two mistakes. To start with, it has flinched from challenging the reverse chauvinism which lies at the heart of the establishment-left conspiracy; and second it is retreating into a neo-religious fortress. The first is cowardice the second a displacement activity and both will prove unpopular.
This article is about politics, but politics is downstream from culture, according to Andrew Breitbart, and culture is downstream from religion, according to John C. Wright.
And I say that religion is downstream from 42, the meaning of “life, the universe, everything.”
Thus, to educated women, their meaning in life is to live and work in the public square, and abortion is critical because they are expected to “put out” and they need to be able to protect themselves from the results of “putting out.”
Thus, to progressives generally, their meaning in life is to fight as Allies of the Oppressed against the White Oppressors.
All this is meaningless to ordinary middle class people that want a life of decent work, marriage, and children.
Where all this ends up I shudder to think.
This article is about politics, but politics is downstream from culture, according to Andrew Breitbart, and culture is downstream from religion, according to John C. Wright.
And I say that religion is downstream from 42, the meaning of “life, the universe, everything.”
Thus, to educated women, their meaning in life is to live and work in the public square, and abortion is critical because they are expected to “put out” and they need to be able to protect themselves from the results of “putting out.”
Thus, to progressives generally, their meaning in life is to fight as Allies of the Oppressed against the White Oppressors.
All this is meaningless to ordinary middle class people that want a life of decent work, marriage, and children.
Where all this ends up I shudder to think.
Conservatives will continue to lose unless they bring a vibrant form of Christianity back – one that places strong but honorable men at the center of family and community. Without an overarching theology or philosophy behind them, conservatives will merely react to regressive left-wing policies. Constructive anger is needed to ‘deconstruct’ the perversions of left-wing ideology.
Not only are there many strong and honorable men who are not Christians, but there are many strong and honorable women who are at the centre of family and community life. Conservatives will continue to lose until they broaden their appeal to more of the community.
Not only are there many strong and honorable men who are not Christians, but there are many strong and honorable women who are at the centre of family and community life. Conservatives will continue to lose until they broaden their appeal to more of the community.
Conservatives will continue to lose unless they bring a vibrant form of Christianity back – one that places strong but honorable men at the center of family and community. Without an overarching theology or philosophy behind them, conservatives will merely react to regressive left-wing policies. Constructive anger is needed to ‘deconstruct’ the perversions of left-wing ideology.
The author doesn’t seem aware how Culture War 1.0 and Culture War 2.0 relate. For both of them, the essential question is whether sex and gender are supposed to be meaningful and have natural consequences or not. The author makes it sound as if public acceptance of abortion and gay marriage, and disapproval of men beating up women in prisons and on sporting fields, is static – but only a few years ago the public opposed abortion and gay marriage, too.
As for the political calculation, policy preferences are only a part of the electoral calculus for most voters. They also vote on a candidate’s personality, associates, demeanor, etc. A politician who has principles will often get votes of people who disagree with him, because they admire his character, etc. I personally know (for example) pro-life Republicans who voted for Obama because they ‘liked him.’
DeSantis seems to me to know what he’s doing electorally – he transformed Florida from being a purple state to being a red state. Hopefully he can do the same in other swing states next year.
The author doesn’t seem aware how Culture War 1.0 and Culture War 2.0 relate. For both of them, the essential question is whether sex and gender are supposed to be meaningful and have natural consequences or not. The author makes it sound as if public acceptance of abortion and gay marriage, and disapproval of men beating up women in prisons and on sporting fields, is static – but only a few years ago the public opposed abortion and gay marriage, too.
As for the political calculation, policy preferences are only a part of the electoral calculus for most voters. They also vote on a candidate’s personality, associates, demeanor, etc. A politician who has principles will often get votes of people who disagree with him, because they admire his character, etc. I personally know (for example) pro-life Republicans who voted for Obama because they ‘liked him.’
DeSantis seems to me to know what he’s doing electorally – he transformed Florida from being a purple state to being a red state. Hopefully he can do the same in other swing states next year.
It does seem rather sad that RonDeS is characterised as favouring/not favouring abortion to whatever decree not because he actually thinks his stance is right or wrong, or even how practical a ban would be, but how it polls.
I still don’t get how you would want to ban abortion when probably just as many would take place but more women would die as a result – OK I suppose because those would be the poorest ones who couldn’t afford a decent backstreet job?
I actually agree with your sentiment. It sounds like something I would have written when I was younger and less cynical, if a bit too impolite. I’m personally pro-choice, for some of the reasons you mentioned, but I’ve come to oppose any national abortion policy because its a values issue, therefore people are never going to agree on it and the issue creates political conflict that spills over into other more important issues. It’s a question of measuring the lesser evil. My view is that leaving the abortion question to the states is the least bad solution, but reasonable people can disagree.
I actually agree with your sentiment. It sounds like something I would have written when I was younger and less cynical, if a bit too impolite. I’m personally pro-choice, for some of the reasons you mentioned, but I’ve come to oppose any national abortion policy because its a values issue, therefore people are never going to agree on it and the issue creates political conflict that spills over into other more important issues. It’s a question of measuring the lesser evil. My view is that leaving the abortion question to the states is the least bad solution, but reasonable people can disagree.
It does seem rather sad that RonDeS is characterised as favouring/not favouring abortion to whatever decree not because he actually thinks his stance is right or wrong, or even how practical a ban would be, but how it polls.
I still don’t get how you would want to ban abortion when probably just as many would take place but more women would die as a result – OK I suppose because those would be the poorest ones who couldn’t afford a decent backstreet job?
DeSantis signing the six week abortion ban seems to be an obvious political gambit to appeal to the political zealots that vote in primaries and/or secure some level of funding to run an otherwise uphill anti-corporate populist campaign (I hope for the latter but I strongly suspect the former). As for the staying power of culture war 2.0, I think the author underestimates the extent to which the Internet has changed the political landscape. A large part of Trump’s success came from his ability to leverage new media like Facebook and Twitter in a way few Republicans have. Further, he eschewed traditional big money interest groups in favor of small Internet communities and Youtube influencers. Those things aren’t going away. My feeling is that, barring major government intervention in Internet regulation (possible but incredibly difficult), the organized interest groups (such as labor unions, the chamber of commerce, corporate donors, industry lobbies, etc.) that wielded so much power in 20th century politics will continue to decline in importance relative to these atomized internet communities. This bodes ill for the establishment forces whose political power is built upon using money to influence and control these institutions, and then use those to control political outcomes. The author needs to update his thinking. The Internet has already continually eroded the power of traditional interest groups in the same way it has eroded the power of traditional news media, and as the Internet continues to grow and prosper at the expense of traditional media, the decline of traditional interest groups will also continue apace. I personally will enjoy seeing them continue to futilely flop about like fish on the shore while populists, socialists, libertarians, and other dissidents continue to chip away at their power.
DeSantis signing the six week abortion ban seems to be an obvious political gambit to appeal to the political zealots that vote in primaries and/or secure some level of funding to run an otherwise uphill anti-corporate populist campaign (I hope for the latter but I strongly suspect the former). As for the staying power of culture war 2.0, I think the author underestimates the extent to which the Internet has changed the political landscape. A large part of Trump’s success came from his ability to leverage new media like Facebook and Twitter in a way few Republicans have. Further, he eschewed traditional big money interest groups in favor of small Internet communities and Youtube influencers. Those things aren’t going away. My feeling is that, barring major government intervention in Internet regulation (possible but incredibly difficult), the organized interest groups (such as labor unions, the chamber of commerce, corporate donors, industry lobbies, etc.) that wielded so much power in 20th century politics will continue to decline in importance relative to these atomized internet communities. This bodes ill for the establishment forces whose political power is built upon using money to influence and control these institutions, and then use those to control political outcomes. The author needs to update his thinking. The Internet has already continually eroded the power of traditional interest groups in the same way it has eroded the power of traditional news media, and as the Internet continues to grow and prosper at the expense of traditional media, the decline of traditional interest groups will also continue apace. I personally will enjoy seeing them continue to futilely flop about like fish on the shore while populists, socialists, libertarians, and other dissidents continue to chip away at their power.
Huh? What you say? Me not understand. Please be explaining this further.
Essentially that there’s no real organisations set up for doing nothing but actively opposing woke issues, so while their is great support throughout the population for anti woke ideas there’s no money or organised funded campaigns to fight it.
Whereas the anti abortion crowd despite being a small minority of voters have groups and fund campaigns and candidates with the sole purpose of banning abortion, and have been successful despite a majority of the population being against the proposals.
The quandary for the Republicans is which do they value more, the money and organisation the evangelicals bring, or the votes of the quiet majority they may lose by restricting abortion
As Ann Coulter points out, taking an inflexible stand on abortion could doom the party. Most “pro-life” people, even evangelicals, are tolerant of a brief period of abortion, up to 12-16 weeks.
The people you describe fail to distinguish between generation and maturation. They fail to distinguish between substantial and accidental change. The generation of a new animal (conception) is a substantial change; the growth of that animal is an accidental change. A human animal does not pop into existence when it turns 12 weeks and one day old.
The people you describe fail to distinguish between generation and maturation. They fail to distinguish between substantial and accidental change. The generation of a new animal (conception) is a substantial change; the growth of that animal is an accidental change. A human animal does not pop into existence when it turns 12 weeks and one day old.
As Ann Coulter points out, taking an inflexible stand on abortion could doom the party. Most “pro-life” people, even evangelicals, are tolerant of a brief period of abortion, up to 12-16 weeks.
The battle for institutional power is a different theatre of war from the battle of ideas. Success in one, can be indifferent to success in the other.
Essentially that there’s no real organisations set up for doing nothing but actively opposing woke issues, so while their is great support throughout the population for anti woke ideas there’s no money or organised funded campaigns to fight it.
Whereas the anti abortion crowd despite being a small minority of voters have groups and fund campaigns and candidates with the sole purpose of banning abortion, and have been successful despite a majority of the population being against the proposals.
The quandary for the Republicans is which do they value more, the money and organisation the evangelicals bring, or the votes of the quiet majority they may lose by restricting abortion
The battle for institutional power is a different theatre of war from the battle of ideas. Success in one, can be indifferent to success in the other.
Huh? What you say? Me not understand. Please be explaining this further.
The Republicans are not very good at politics. Maybe they’re more interested in donations than actually winning elections.
Part of the problem for them was abortion was not as big of a deal to oppose when Roe was in place preventing many of the practical consequences of their legislation. Now votes on the matter mean much more.
Which election did a Republican candidate lose, because of donations? For that matter, which did one win, because of donations?
Part of the problem for them was abortion was not as big of a deal to oppose when Roe was in place preventing many of the practical consequences of their legislation. Now votes on the matter mean much more.
Which election did a Republican candidate lose, because of donations? For that matter, which did one win, because of donations?
The Republicans are not very good at politics. Maybe they’re more interested in donations than actually winning elections.
Reproductive rights. Yup. He wrote that.
As a necessarily pro life liberal Catholic, and Catholic social teaching IS liberal, the mass killing of innocent human lives , like the holocaust in Germany or the gulags in ’60’s USSR, the issue that obviously defines not only our times , but mankind.
Like gassing children and priests at Auschwitz , its simply not something that admits of any response other than total opposition.
Accordingly this liberal must vote Conservative here in Canada where “Liberals” are the polar opposite of liberal democrats, and indeed, at this stage of our communication and logistical infrastructure, this liberal can entertain thoughts of smaller political entities. Secession.
Must I have our girls and boys told that they are not actually girls and boys? The ones we don’t kill obviously.
I used to think Frankenstein was a work of fiction, not prediction.
It is not ethically possible to shut one’s eyes to mass killings like well behaved Germans walking down the street with eyes averted. We are them.