Main Edition
US
FR
April 12, 2023 - 1:00pm
Anglosphere countries’ best chance of beating the civilisational autoimmune disease I call cultural socialism, elsewhere known as ‘wokeness’, is a total reform of corrupt institutions. That goal is only within reach in the United States, thanks to an electorate that has woken up to culture war issues and politicians willing to take on the progressive establishment, notably Florida’s Ron DeSantis.
Yet the pro-life movement is now the biggest obstacle to making that happen. How so? Abortion bans are unpopular, with barely a third of Americans saying abortion should be illegal in most cases. Even 40% of Republicans are opposed. In Florida, DeSantis has said he will sign a bill into law that would restrict abortion to within six weeks of pregnancy, effectively outlawing the practice.
Since two in three Florida voters oppose the measure, it represents a big withdrawal from the state governor’s bank of political capital. As the 2022 midterms showed, anti-abortion politics is a major vote loser for the GOP, and current polls rank this as their biggest weak spot. In effect, abortion fundamentalism is likely to damage Republican chances at state and federal levels, perhaps fatally. This makes it considerably less likely that DeSantis will be able to complete his anti-woke legislative agenda.
The anti-abortion cause punches above its weight for the same reason tax cuts do: these are the priorities of the donors and lobbies which make up the Republican establishment. They also resonate with committed party activists, many of whom spring from evangelical parachurch organisations. As evidence: just four red states have outlawed affirmative action while 13 have banned abortion, even though two-thirds of Americans support the former and just a third the latter.
Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Eric Holcomb of Indiana are two Republican governors who have vetoed bills that would have prevented transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports — despite clear majorities of their states’ voters supporting such bans. Noem wielded her staunch anti-abortion credentials in a bid to deflect criticism. In both cases, the business lobby won out in a way it never would have on issues dear to the pro-life movement.
The question remains as to why conservative parties have been so slow to counter affirmative action, woke schools and colleges, and captured bureaucracies when such policies are extremely popular. The answer is that small and unpopular establishment causes like invading foreign countries, banning abortion or cutting Social Security are better organised and funded. Until culture war and border issues can level that playing field, they will continue to be thrown under the bus by the GOP.
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 Republicans are almost no better than the Democrats. They are so captured by a fringe minority of hard right activists that they cripple themselves with stupid policies like abortion. The republicans could absolutely own the abortion debate, if they simply adopted a policy legalizing abortion up to 16 weeks, something 80% of the population supports. The Democrats have some truly bizarre ideas about abortion, legalizing it past the third trimester, something virtually no one supports. Yet here we are – a party pursuing a policy option they know virtually no one supports.
The people who mostly get abortions, young poor black and Latino women, are not likely to vote Republican; neither are progressive women. So there is no reason to change position on this issue.
Support for pro-life positions is much higher than polls suggest for obvious reasons.
It is clearly not without strong support that states are restricting abortion access following the overturning of Roe v Wade.
The major Wisconsin results demonstrate that you are incorrect.
I have to confess I don’t know what “major Wisconsin results” you’re talking about, and in any case I can’t imagine what these might be, that would render anything I said incorrect.
Hilarious! Someone challenges you with electoral evidence, you say you know nothing about it, but in any case you would ignore the evidence in any case, as you do any polling evidence that doesn’t support your views! Talk about ostrich-like behaviour!
Effectively banning abortion is indeed a major vote loser for the Republicans, and in any case, since they would lose power in many close races, this would lead to far more abortions taking place with the Democrats likely to legalise very late stage abortions.
Hilarious! You provide no evidence simply an arcane reference to what happened in one small state and then berate your opponent for ignoring what you haven’t provided. QED.
Paul isn’t wrong that evidence in the form of polls, which so many times (including those cited by Eric no doubt) are framed in progressive terms, fails to conclusively show that Americans oppose abortion bans. The truth as always is somewhere in the middle, i.e. the vast majority here support reasonable abortion restrictions, and sense that progressives are trying to go too far when they advocate for limitless access.
Indeed. And yes, while it is clear that there is far more support for pro-life positions than is supposed; it is also likely the case that as you say, most Americans support some abortion access.
Now, whether pro-life Republicans stand to gain anything by abandoning pro-life positions is another matter entirely.
I will add that–and this is just my opinion–since the facts of abortion in the US are hard to come by, with some states not collecting any information on who gets abortions and why, coupled with a willfully ignorant media, I suspect many more people would more readily adopt pro-life positions, were the facts understood, and the consequences clearly seen.
It is telling that the most vulnerable, least politically powerful communities are blessed with the greatest concentration of abortion clinics. Many in these communities oppose abortion access but lack the wherewithal to defend themselves against a powerful, lucrative interest.
We are way past reasonable restrictions, states rights with florida, judge dude in texas…. and you know it. There was not a slew of 15 week restrictions… in almost every state it has been 6 weeks, no using approved drugs, no rape or incest, and a whole lot of talk about how women, white women especially need to have more babies. And by the way, where are the reasonable restrictions on guns if you care about life so much?
Indeed. And yes, while it is clear that there is far more support for pro-life positions than is supposed; it is also likely the case that as you say, most Americans support some abortion access.
Now, whether pro-life Republicans stand to gain anything by abandoning pro-life positions is another matter entirely.
I will add that–and this is just my opinion–since the facts of abortion in the US are hard to come by, with some states not collecting any information on who gets abortions and why, coupled with a willfully ignorant media, I suspect many more people would more readily adopt pro-life positions, were the facts understood, and the consequences clearly seen.
It is telling that the most vulnerable, least politically powerful communities are blessed with the greatest concentration of abortion clinics. Many in these communities oppose abortion access but lack the wherewithal to defend themselves against a powerful, lucrative interest.
We are way past reasonable restrictions, states rights with florida, judge dude in texas…. and you know it. There was not a slew of 15 week restrictions… in almost every state it has been 6 weeks, no using approved drugs, no rape or incest, and a whole lot of talk about how women, white women especially need to have more babies. And by the way, where are the reasonable restrictions on guns if you care about life so much?
Hilarious! You provide no evidence simply an arcane reference to what happened in one small state and then berate your opponent for ignoring what you haven’t provided. QED.
Paul isn’t wrong that evidence in the form of polls, which so many times (including those cited by Eric no doubt) are framed in progressive terms, fails to conclusively show that Americans oppose abortion bans. The truth as always is somewhere in the middle, i.e. the vast majority here support reasonable abortion restrictions, and sense that progressives are trying to go too far when they advocate for limitless access.
At this point, I want to imagine that Repub voters like you don’t exist….(Of course, that’d be a healthy delusion, unlike all of yours!)
Hilarious! Someone challenges you with electoral evidence, you say you know nothing about it, but in any case you would ignore the evidence in any case, as you do any polling evidence that doesn’t support your views! Talk about ostrich-like behaviour!
Effectively banning abortion is indeed a major vote loser for the Republicans, and in any case, since they would lose power in many close races, this would lead to far more abortions taking place with the Democrats likely to legalise very late stage abortions.
At this point, I want to imagine that Repub voters like you don’t exist….(Of course, that’d be a healthy delusion, unlike all of yours!)
The major Wisconson results, were the Repubs took a supermajority in the state congress, while on the same night the Dems took control of the state supreme court?
I have to confess I don’t know what “major Wisconsin results” you’re talking about, and in any case I can’t imagine what these might be, that would render anything I said incorrect.
The major Wisconson results, were the Repubs took a supermajority in the state congress, while on the same night the Dems took control of the state supreme court?
No idea what this all means. I am 100% Pro-Life always.
Fellow White male Conservative, your first paragraph (pp) is outright racist eugenics, smacking of that late Democrat Margaret Sanger. Your 2nd pp is delusional, as what mattered last year is that Trump AND Dobbs costs us several gimme fed races. Erase both, then repent of your self-centered, provincial, puritanical thinking so we can win the gimmes in the future. Agreed?
Liberal here! Thank you, I miss flirting with smart conservative men who are pragmatic… keep to the fact that policy is hard to do well and complex problems need most likely mix of perspectives.
Liberal here! Thank you, I miss flirting with smart conservative men who are pragmatic… keep to the fact that policy is hard to do well and complex problems need most likely mix of perspectives.
You but me a man to be under the delusion that republican or moderate women were and are not getting abortions since 1974. I guess your p***s makes it unlikely for you to be either empathetic or get it that when it comes to abortion a lot of people without wombs are calling the shots or are plain hypocritical about words vs behavior. And poverty has plenty of white women. I know, all that sperm can make it so you don’t listen, use logic or look at statistics. Or see it possible that someone could say something and do something different.
The major Wisconsin results demonstrate that you are incorrect.
No idea what this all means. I am 100% Pro-Life always.
Fellow White male Conservative, your first paragraph (pp) is outright racist eugenics, smacking of that late Democrat Margaret Sanger. Your 2nd pp is delusional, as what mattered last year is that Trump AND Dobbs costs us several gimme fed races. Erase both, then repent of your self-centered, provincial, puritanical thinking so we can win the gimmes in the future. Agreed?
You but me a man to be under the delusion that republican or moderate women were and are not getting abortions since 1974. I guess your p***s makes it unlikely for you to be either empathetic or get it that when it comes to abortion a lot of people without wombs are calling the shots or are plain hypocritical about words vs behavior. And poverty has plenty of white women. I know, all that sperm can make it so you don’t listen, use logic or look at statistics. Or see it possible that someone could say something and do something different.
I get the impression that for some on the right it’s more important to be right morally than to win power.
It is even more popular amongst the Republican donor class than the base these days. Abortion is an issue they can grandstand and lose on while still pretending they are fighting the good fight. It is also one of those issues that is safe for the uniparty. Things like protecting the Bill of Rights, having a functional economy, addressing illegal immigration, fixing healthcare and infrastructure, or stopping domestic surveillance programs are just so icky to them. Remember if you have any majority control, your constituents expect you to do things. If you are able to keep the government reliably split, you can keep the game going for a long time. The simple fact is Dobbs punted the abortion issue back to the states where the Republican party said it should be to be voted on. Well people voted.
Nonsense. Dems don’t agree on Pro-Life. I am Republican almost entirely BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE.
How is it a safe issue for the Uniparty? 2. A functional economy is an exception because for the Donor Class it’s an ‘unsafe’ issue they do address, albeit only somewhat; it’d be best to swap in nat’l deficit & debt for that issue. 3. Fyi, not so much icky as ”lacking moral virtue and righteous emotion.”
Nonsense. Dems don’t agree on Pro-Life. I am Republican almost entirely BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE.
How is it a safe issue for the Uniparty? 2. A functional economy is an exception because for the Donor Class it’s an ‘unsafe’ issue they do address, albeit only somewhat; it’d be best to swap in nat’l deficit & debt for that issue. 3. Fyi, not so much icky as ”lacking moral virtue and righteous emotion.”
From plodding complacently along in the ideological wake of their opponents, the Republicans lurch, quite suddenly, into the most extreme position they can think of – ban abortion! Worse, they are allowing a number of increasingly angry commentators, shouting from the margins and going slightly doolally, to corral them into a “religious right” position. They should never forget that few of us will consciously vote for a puritan policy, whether or left or right. It is signally off-putting.
In one sense, you are correct, “banning” abortion is an extreme position, tending to be adopted by the “religious right”.
But is it true that few will consciously vote for a so-called “Puritan policy”?
Something like 13 states have eliminated abortion access since the overturning of Roe v Wade. Others have added restrictions.
Those who voted for the lawmakers in those states knew very well those candidates’ stance on abortion.
And though he is certainly unpredictable, and probably himself in favor of abortion access, did any Trump voter doubt he would appoint, let’s say, “the right” Supreme Court justices given the chance?
Here the issue is tangled with so many other and extraneous considerations that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions.
Here the issue is tangled with so many other and extraneous considerations that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions.
For pro-life people these arguments are just bizarre. It isn’t extreme to be opposed to child sacrifice. It isn’t extreme to know how human bodies function. It isn’t extreme to stop pretending that women are defective men. Those things are reality based, not religiously based. Abortion is the absolutely necessary corollary to the fantasy that there is such as thing as sex without consequences for women. Which is a mass delusion.
Thank you!
Preposterous language. Child sacrifice involves taking a rational, conscious, realised human being to the slab and slaughtering the poor creature. Abortion, before a fair few weeks, involves no more than flushing out an embryo with rather less than the awareness of a fish. The two are not the same. To assert that they are is barbarous dogmatic stupidity. Nor is this point anything to do with the insanity of “trans” – presumably you are throwing in an association with such nonsense from a dim awareness of your central argument’s utter weakness. Yes, partial birth abortions are iniquitous and these you may compare to slaughter; but early stage abortions are nothing of the kind. As for your point about sex without consequences, that is exactly what millions of human beings have always yearned for and modern society has supplied it. Heard of the pill? Pre-modern society enslaved people to a demanding, two-tiered system of hypocrisy and nobody – bar a minority of frustrated, crabby old failures – will vote for a return to that. Which is why the religious right is almost as repellent as Woke itself and heading for a round and resounding rejection.
Thank you!
Preposterous language. Child sacrifice involves taking a rational, conscious, realised human being to the slab and slaughtering the poor creature. Abortion, before a fair few weeks, involves no more than flushing out an embryo with rather less than the awareness of a fish. The two are not the same. To assert that they are is barbarous dogmatic stupidity. Nor is this point anything to do with the insanity of “trans” – presumably you are throwing in an association with such nonsense from a dim awareness of your central argument’s utter weakness. Yes, partial birth abortions are iniquitous and these you may compare to slaughter; but early stage abortions are nothing of the kind. As for your point about sex without consequences, that is exactly what millions of human beings have always yearned for and modern society has supplied it. Heard of the pill? Pre-modern society enslaved people to a demanding, two-tiered system of hypocrisy and nobody – bar a minority of frustrated, crabby old failures – will vote for a return to that. Which is why the religious right is almost as repellent as Woke itself and heading for a round and resounding rejection.
In one sense, you are correct, “banning” abortion is an extreme position, tending to be adopted by the “religious right”.
But is it true that few will consciously vote for a so-called “Puritan policy”?
Something like 13 states have eliminated abortion access since the overturning of Roe v Wade. Others have added restrictions.
Those who voted for the lawmakers in those states knew very well those candidates’ stance on abortion.
And though he is certainly unpredictable, and probably himself in favor of abortion access, did any Trump voter doubt he would appoint, let’s say, “the right” Supreme Court justices given the chance?
For pro-life people these arguments are just bizarre. It isn’t extreme to be opposed to child sacrifice. It isn’t extreme to know how human bodies function. It isn’t extreme to stop pretending that women are defective men. Those things are reality based, not religiously based. Abortion is the absolutely necessary corollary to the fantasy that there is such as thing as sex without consequences for women. Which is a mass delusion.
Bingo!!!
Therein lies the issue. We all lament how politicians lie to win votes, yet when some don’t, we want to tar and feather them. I’d like to remind you that the word abortion is a euphemism for the practice of killing unborn children. I would like to offer that the issue of killing unborn children should have slightly more gravitas than other issues such as affirmative action or school choice.
The real joke here is that if Republicans came out for abortion on demand, the left would be shouting from the rooftops that abortion kills mostly children of color.
Anti abortion stances are not morally right if you disagree that life starts at conception. Which is by no means decided by science or God for that matter, because if a baby could live outside the womb would be the only proof. Oh and if god did not intend for there to be abortions, there wouldn’t be, if you believe in the all mightyness
Every single human on the planet is dependent to some degree and every single human on the planet is radically dependent as a baby. A baby can’t live naked outside an igloo but it is still definitely human. And no, there is zero scientific debate on when human life begins. There is only ideological rage trying to deny it.
Every single human on the planet is dependent to some degree and every single human on the planet is radically dependent as a baby. A baby can’t live naked outside an igloo but it is still definitely human. And no, there is zero scientific debate on when human life begins. There is only ideological rage trying to deny it.
It is, in fact, more important to be on the right side of history re: child sacrifice than to win power.
It is even more popular amongst the Republican donor class than the base these days. Abortion is an issue they can grandstand and lose on while still pretending they are fighting the good fight. It is also one of those issues that is safe for the uniparty. Things like protecting the Bill of Rights, having a functional economy, addressing illegal immigration, fixing healthcare and infrastructure, or stopping domestic surveillance programs are just so icky to them. Remember if you have any majority control, your constituents expect you to do things. If you are able to keep the government reliably split, you can keep the game going for a long time. The simple fact is Dobbs punted the abortion issue back to the states where the Republican party said it should be to be voted on. Well people voted.
From plodding complacently along in the ideological wake of their opponents, the Republicans lurch, quite suddenly, into the most extreme position they can think of – ban abortion! Worse, they are allowing a number of increasingly angry commentators, shouting from the margins and going slightly doolally, to corral them into a “religious right” position. They should never forget that few of us will consciously vote for a puritan policy, whether or left or right. It is signally off-putting.
Bingo!!!
Therein lies the issue. We all lament how politicians lie to win votes, yet when some don’t, we want to tar and feather them. I’d like to remind you that the word abortion is a euphemism for the practice of killing unborn children. I would like to offer that the issue of killing unborn children should have slightly more gravitas than other issues such as affirmative action or school choice.
The real joke here is that if Republicans came out for abortion on demand, the left would be shouting from the rooftops that abortion kills mostly children of color.
Anti abortion stances are not morally right if you disagree that life starts at conception. Which is by no means decided by science or God for that matter, because if a baby could live outside the womb would be the only proof. Oh and if god did not intend for there to be abortions, there wouldn’t be, if you believe in the all mightyness
It is, in fact, more important to be on the right side of history re: child sacrifice than to win power.
Good points. The vast majority of the world has reached a reasonable compromise on abortion. Most countries have a cutoff of about 10 to 12 weeks of pregnancy, allowing abortion on demand up until that point and making abortion difficult after that.
The Roe v. Wade decision was similar until the Democrats neutered it (although that decision did not itself regulate abortions in the later trimesters, but only allowed states to do so if they wished). Now the Republicans are demanding no abortions at all after an egg has been fertilized, and the Democrats insist that any fetus can be killed at any time until it has exited its mother’s body.
We need less polarization and more compromise. We need to consider other people’s opinions instead of just forcing our own opinions on them. The abortion issue is a perfect one to demonstrate that. Too bad both Republicans and Democrats refuse to be reasonable.
Isn’t it the case that, far from a vast majority of countries allowing abortion within a certain period, most countries actually restrict abortion access unless childbirth is a danger to the mother?
Democrats are not advocating for what you say they are advocating for. They knew that any restriction would be used as a way to totally restrict it, so ergo, because republicans want no abortion (and it is being proved out right now by state legislatures and activist judges) you have to fight for no limitations.
Isn’t it the case that, far from a vast majority of countries allowing abortion within a certain period, most countries actually restrict abortion access unless childbirth is a danger to the mother?
Democrats are not advocating for what you say they are advocating for. They knew that any restriction would be used as a way to totally restrict it, so ergo, because republicans want no abortion (and it is being proved out right now by state legislatures and activist judges) you have to fight for no limitations.
Both Hilary Clinton and Sanders argued that a foetus is not a baby until it leaves the hospital. Now that’s the real nightmare. I think it is a matter of ‘choice’ but how long does it take a woman to make up her mind about whether or not to have an abortion?
The people who mostly get abortions, young poor black and Latino women, are not likely to vote Republican; neither are progressive women. So there is no reason to change position on this issue.
Support for pro-life positions is much higher than polls suggest for obvious reasons.
It is clearly not without strong support that states are restricting abortion access following the overturning of Roe v Wade.
I get the impression that for some on the right it’s more important to be right morally than to win power.
Good points. The vast majority of the world has reached a reasonable compromise on abortion. Most countries have a cutoff of about 10 to 12 weeks of pregnancy, allowing abortion on demand up until that point and making abortion difficult after that.
The Roe v. Wade decision was similar until the Democrats neutered it (although that decision did not itself regulate abortions in the later trimesters, but only allowed states to do so if they wished). Now the Republicans are demanding no abortions at all after an egg has been fertilized, and the Democrats insist that any fetus can be killed at any time until it has exited its mother’s body.
We need less polarization and more compromise. We need to consider other people’s opinions instead of just forcing our own opinions on them. The abortion issue is a perfect one to demonstrate that. Too bad both Republicans and Democrats refuse to be reasonable.
Both Hilary Clinton and Sanders argued that a foetus is not a baby until it leaves the hospital. Now that’s the real nightmare. I think it is a matter of ‘choice’ but how long does it take a woman to make up her mind about whether or not to have an abortion?
The Republicans are almost no better than the Democrats. They are so captured by a fringe minority of hard right activists that they cripple themselves with stupid policies like abortion. The republicans could absolutely own the abortion debate, if they simply adopted a policy legalizing abortion up to 16 weeks, something 80% of the population supports. The Democrats have some truly bizarre ideas about abortion, legalizing it past the third trimester, something virtually no one supports. Yet here we are – a party pursuing a policy option they know virtually no one supports.
I am firmly pro-life. However I basically agree with this article.
Politics is downstream of culture, and one of the first rules of politics is to take what you can get when you can get it. Right now, the Right has public opinion on its side against wokeness. USE IT!
Abortion is a hard issue to get soundbites on, since while most Americans “favor abortion”, they also believe there ought to be limits. Americans don’t want a complete ban, but they also don’t like ripping out 38 week babies. As such, it’s complicated and will require real negotiation. Negotiation can can’t take place right now because the issue is still too raw and polarizing.
Wokeness is simple: Should 8 year olds see strip shows? Should race be used to decide whether people get hired? Should parents be kept in the dark about sexual content in schools? These are easy questions to gain traction on.
So we need to shut up about abotion for a while, and run witih the wind at our back against wokeness.
How long exactly are we to stay shut up?
Read my REPLY to Brian….
Long enough to take the win on wokeness and then come back to this issue. No national compromise on abortion is possible right now — Dobbs is too fresh.
Dobbs is too fresh? Cute… as if not followed by many states putting in way more than a 12 week ban, and activist judges. This is exactly why democrats are pissed… this was not about states rights, it is about total ban. And many voters are putting in measures to avoid that.
Dobbs is too fresh? Cute… as if not followed by many states putting in way more than a 12 week ban, and activist judges. This is exactly why democrats are pissed… this was not about states rights, it is about total ban. And many voters are putting in measures to avoid that.
Read my REPLY to Brian….
Long enough to take the win on wokeness and then come back to this issue. No national compromise on abortion is possible right now — Dobbs is too fresh.
Fellow Patriot, the issue is 50 y.o. this January. Negotiation has to happen NOW for us to limit our electoral losses, defeat Gallego in AZ, Tester in MT and throw Biden out, all in 24. So, the suggested comp is 12 weeks w/ exceptions for r., i. & lotm. Agreed?
I would prefer fetal characteristics to a hard date. I like fetal heartbeat, but would be open to other options. However you’re absolutely right that something like this IS going to be the political solution, unless the Republicans keep sitting on their hands while the Dems push through 38-week or bust bills.
Ability to live outside a womb. Which is about 20 weeks right now being very generous (24 weeks is more in line with scienxe) and 100% in any case of rape, incest or med needs. It was not easy, even under roe beyond 12 weeks anyhow so it was a ruse anyhow
Ability to live outside a womb. Which is about 20 weeks right now being very generous (24 weeks is more in line with scienxe) and 100% in any case of rape, incest or med needs. It was not easy, even under roe beyond 12 weeks anyhow so it was a ruse anyhow
I would prefer fetal characteristics to a hard date. I like fetal heartbeat, but would be open to other options. However you’re absolutely right that something like this IS going to be the political solution, unless the Republicans keep sitting on their hands while the Dems push through 38-week or bust bills.
Perhaps if we stop using the left’s euphemism and call it what it is….killing unborn children, we might change the sentiment. Even Chris Rock realizes this in his latest show.
How are those gun laws coming to protect children? Having a gun in your home is more likely to kill them then actually protecting them. Hypocrit.
How are those gun laws coming to protect children? Having a gun in your home is more likely to kill them then actually protecting them. Hypocrit.
How long exactly are we to stay shut up?
Fellow Patriot, the issue is 50 y.o. this January. Negotiation has to happen NOW for us to limit our electoral losses, defeat Gallego in AZ, Tester in MT and throw Biden out, all in 24. So, the suggested comp is 12 weeks w/ exceptions for r., i. & lotm. Agreed?
Perhaps if we stop using the left’s euphemism and call it what it is….killing unborn children, we might change the sentiment. Even Chris Rock realizes this in his latest show.
I am firmly pro-life. However I basically agree with this article.
Politics is downstream of culture, and one of the first rules of politics is to take what you can get when you can get it. Right now, the Right has public opinion on its side against wokeness. USE IT!
Abortion is a hard issue to get soundbites on, since while most Americans “favor abortion”, they also believe there ought to be limits. Americans don’t want a complete ban, but they also don’t like ripping out 38 week babies. As such, it’s complicated and will require real negotiation. Negotiation can can’t take place right now because the issue is still too raw and polarizing.
Wokeness is simple: Should 8 year olds see strip shows? Should race be used to decide whether people get hired? Should parents be kept in the dark about sexual content in schools? These are easy questions to gain traction on.
So we need to shut up about abotion for a while, and run witih the wind at our back against wokeness.
My cynical theory is that the Dems and the Republicans are, at heart, now one globalist uniparty. The main goal of the deep-pocketed funders of both parties is globalization and maximization of corporate profits and, inevitably, enhancing the wealth of the rich.
Policies that promote wealth redistribution, potentially reduced payments to health care organizations/providers under a more socialized system, increased corporate taxes to fund infrastructure/social programs, etc, all undermine the globalist agenda which, fundamentally, takes no account of national cultures or the wishes of national electorates.
So both parties are driven not by a desire for policies that benefit their electorate, but by fringe issues that do not directly threaten the globalist agenda. My interpretation of modern US politics sounds distinctly paranoid/conspiratorial when written in plain black and white. I didn’t believe it five years ago, but I believe it now.
Btw, the author provides a link to another, lengthier article he wrote on cultural socialism (the civilisational autoimmune disease I call cultural socialism,). I read it and it’s a fine article, imo.
And on a lighter note, the award for phrase of the week goes to: “evangelical parachurch organisations.” I gotta go find me a parachurch organization. 🙂
Great post.
I share the same cynical sentiment. I think the answer lies in outsider populist parties.
3rd party/rail/whatever are all cop-outs. Get with it, vote straight-ticket GOP, tell strangers to do the same. Got it, Julian?
3rd party/rail/whatever are all cop-outs. Get with it, vote straight-ticket GOP, tell strangers to do the same. Got it, Julian?
Damn right we don’t support redistribution and socialism. That’s a DEM thing. I am PRO-LIFE!
I disagree with the 2nd paragraph, as I’m sure we both agree that the true, committed Globalists are left-of-center.
Committer globalists are left of center? Insert laughing, then almost puking… and which one is it… are the globalists you refer to communists or evil profit driven monsters. I love it when people talk in their eco chamber using phrases that have no meaning and literally use words that contradict each other.
Committer globalists are left of center? Insert laughing, then almost puking… and which one is it… are the globalists you refer to communists or evil profit driven monsters. I love it when people talk in their eco chamber using phrases that have no meaning and literally use words that contradict each other.
Great post.
I share the same cynical sentiment. I think the answer lies in outsider populist parties.
Damn right we don’t support redistribution and socialism. That’s a DEM thing. I am PRO-LIFE!
I disagree with the 2nd paragraph, as I’m sure we both agree that the true, committed Globalists are left-of-center.
My cynical theory is that the Dems and the Republicans are, at heart, now one globalist uniparty. The main goal of the deep-pocketed funders of both parties is globalization and maximization of corporate profits and, inevitably, enhancing the wealth of the rich.
Policies that promote wealth redistribution, potentially reduced payments to health care organizations/providers under a more socialized system, increased corporate taxes to fund infrastructure/social programs, etc, all undermine the globalist agenda which, fundamentally, takes no account of national cultures or the wishes of national electorates.
So both parties are driven not by a desire for policies that benefit their electorate, but by fringe issues that do not directly threaten the globalist agenda. My interpretation of modern US politics sounds distinctly paranoid/conspiratorial when written in plain black and white. I didn’t believe it five years ago, but I believe it now.
Btw, the author provides a link to another, lengthier article he wrote on cultural socialism (the civilisational autoimmune disease I call cultural socialism,). I read it and it’s a fine article, imo.
And on a lighter note, the award for phrase of the week goes to: “evangelical parachurch organisations.” I gotta go find me a parachurch organization. 🙂
Clearly more an American concern (as Pro Life no real electoral leverage in UK). But the theme of activists driving silly policy that then unravels is similar across the Atlantic.
From a distance seems the GOP keeps making big strategic mistakes as it keeps looking inward at it’s base. Tories done much the same here in the UK.
But the one saving grace in democracies is eventually you are forced to look outward and rebalance.
I see scant evidence that the Tories are ‘looking inwards’ at it’s base – quiet the opposite, in fact!
Electing Clown Bojo and then Mad Liz as leaders – I rest my case
Just checking: Was delayed/denied acceptance of Rishi racist and/or culturist, mate?
It was delayed recognition that they kept punching themselves in the face by asking membership to determine their leader. So essentially they got to the point in the end and driven by the broader democratic need. In fact a v good example, so appreciate you helping illuminate.
It was delayed recognition that they kept punching themselves in the face by asking membership to determine their leader. So essentially they got to the point in the end and driven by the broader democratic need. In fact a v good example, so appreciate you helping illuminate.
Just checking: Was delayed/denied acceptance of Rishi racist and/or culturist, mate?
Electing Clown Bojo and then Mad Liz as leaders – I rest my case
Mate, please help save us from our gratuitously self-destructive socio-political selves by telling us how exactly we (Tory) Yanks ”look outward and rebalance?”
Three things, and no payment necessary. 1. Talk to more folks who don’t share your views. 2. Get outside the Tribe you feel comfortable within sometimes and be inquisitive. 3. Recognise that success rests on building broad coalitions and thus some compromise inevitable.
Don’t say you don’t get anything out of Unherd.
Three things, and no payment necessary. 1. Talk to more folks who don’t share your views. 2. Get outside the Tribe you feel comfortable within sometimes and be inquisitive. 3. Recognise that success rests on building broad coalitions and thus some compromise inevitable.
Don’t say you don’t get anything out of Unherd.
Both Trump and Biden are walking/ shuffling adverts for abortion.
I see scant evidence that the Tories are ‘looking inwards’ at it’s base – quiet the opposite, in fact!
Mate, please help save us from our gratuitously self-destructive socio-political selves by telling us how exactly we (Tory) Yanks ”look outward and rebalance?”
Both Trump and Biden are walking/ shuffling adverts for abortion.
Clearly more an American concern (as Pro Life no real electoral leverage in UK). But the theme of activists driving silly policy that then unravels is similar across the Atlantic.
From a distance seems the GOP keeps making big strategic mistakes as it keeps looking inward at it’s base. Tories done much the same here in the UK.
But the one saving grace in democracies is eventually you are forced to look outward and rebalance.
It helps to remember that the Republicans have not been a unified party in a long time. For most of my lifetime, the Republicans were basically a coalition of three major groups, the Republican half of the “centrist” uniparty favoring big business globalism (low taxes, free trade, etc.), small government libertarians, and evangelicals concentrated in the south and rural midwest. The Trump movement pretty effectively destroyed the centrist big business wing of the party, leaving just two of the old factions standing. The anti-globalist, anti-corporate populist wing of the party that is driving Republican popularity is still young and not well established especially in terms of lobbying and donor organizations. It doesn’t help that Trump tries to monopolize the movement and center it on himself, demanding absolute loyalty like a wannabe Mussolini, and actively undermining anyone who threatens him personally. Libertarians don’t approve of the concept of donors and lobbyists influencing the party at all, so they have been and remain the weakest faction. Evangelicals at the moment are the only well established faction in terms of grassroots funding and lobbying, so they wield disproportionate power, punching well above their political weight. Further, Roe was a bad decision. It was an overreach on a court that happened to be extremely progressive at the time and it basically established a policy that no state legislature would have even touched, let alone passed, thus bypassing the decades long organic political process of states and voters resolving this issue in state legislatures. It was basically sneaking through the back door a policy that had zero chance getting through the front door. So now, it’s overturned, but in a vastly different political environment, and we’re having to frantically sprint through what should have been an organic decades long political process The entire abortion issue will one day be a case study in why it is unwise for courts to rule on sensitive topics that touch on culture and values. One last thing, I think signing this bill is political strategy for 2024. Either he’s decided not to run and signed this because he doesn’t really need to worry about how the country views abortion, just Florida, which is both older and trending more conservative, or he’s basically pandering to evangelical donor organizations because it’s impossible to run a campaign without money and he can’t self-fund like Trump did. If he plans on running as a true populist, it’s even more critical to get a source of funding because the entire corporate world and the super rich oligarchs would unite against him. Like them or hate them, evangelicals are the one group that is basically independent of the the globalist blob.
Good comment. I am one of the reviled “pro-life” conservatives, and agree that Roe was a horrible piece of judicial legislation that short-circuited what should have been legislative work in the 50 states. Dobbs was way overdue, but we’re in an era when anything short of abortion up to birth is painted as forcing back alley abortions. Additionally, if you look at support for abortion in the USA, it falls off a cliff pretty much after the first trimester, which aligns with many “more enlightened” European countries. And yes, those who are truly pro-life are not beholden to the corporatist globalist blob. Big business would sell its mother in a heartbeat for a few more bucks.
Good comment. I am one of the reviled “pro-life” conservatives, and agree that Roe was a horrible piece of judicial legislation that short-circuited what should have been legislative work in the 50 states. Dobbs was way overdue, but we’re in an era when anything short of abortion up to birth is painted as forcing back alley abortions. Additionally, if you look at support for abortion in the USA, it falls off a cliff pretty much after the first trimester, which aligns with many “more enlightened” European countries. And yes, those who are truly pro-life are not beholden to the corporatist globalist blob. Big business would sell its mother in a heartbeat for a few more bucks.
It helps to remember that the Republicans have not been a unified party in a long time. For most of my lifetime, the Republicans were basically a coalition of three major groups, the Republican half of the “centrist” uniparty favoring big business globalism (low taxes, free trade, etc.), small government libertarians, and evangelicals concentrated in the south and rural midwest. The Trump movement pretty effectively destroyed the centrist big business wing of the party, leaving just two of the old factions standing. The anti-globalist, anti-corporate populist wing of the party that is driving Republican popularity is still young and not well established especially in terms of lobbying and donor organizations. It doesn’t help that Trump tries to monopolize the movement and center it on himself, demanding absolute loyalty like a wannabe Mussolini, and actively undermining anyone who threatens him personally. Libertarians don’t approve of the concept of donors and lobbyists influencing the party at all, so they have been and remain the weakest faction. Evangelicals at the moment are the only well established faction in terms of grassroots funding and lobbying, so they wield disproportionate power, punching well above their political weight. Further, Roe was a bad decision. It was an overreach on a court that happened to be extremely progressive at the time and it basically established a policy that no state legislature would have even touched, let alone passed, thus bypassing the decades long organic political process of states and voters resolving this issue in state legislatures. It was basically sneaking through the back door a policy that had zero chance getting through the front door. So now, it’s overturned, but in a vastly different political environment, and we’re having to frantically sprint through what should have been an organic decades long political process The entire abortion issue will one day be a case study in why it is unwise for courts to rule on sensitive topics that touch on culture and values. One last thing, I think signing this bill is political strategy for 2024. Either he’s decided not to run and signed this because he doesn’t really need to worry about how the country views abortion, just Florida, which is both older and trending more conservative, or he’s basically pandering to evangelical donor organizations because it’s impossible to run a campaign without money and he can’t self-fund like Trump did. If he plans on running as a true populist, it’s even more critical to get a source of funding because the entire corporate world and the super rich oligarchs would unite against him. Like them or hate them, evangelicals are the one group that is basically independent of the the globalist blob.
What was that story about a wolf in sheep’s clothing? This article cleverly advocates for the pro-abortion cause by promoting it as matter of political prudence. It attempts to marginalise pro-life voters by dismissing them as a crackpot minority, while assuming that the well-propagandised, often unthinking ‘majority’ is the ‘voice of the people.’ This approach fails to recognise, or ignores, the fact that if pro-life voters such as evangelicals, and others are ignored, they will have no one else to vote for, thus Republicans will lose their support. Morality, not just political manoevering, has a place in politics, too.
From the comments, it would appear that a good number of the writer’s followers have written in to add support to his ideas.One of them uses Minnesota as an example of strong, correct opinion, while this is far from the case. States such as Texas, Montana, and others hold as much if not far more sway.
I hope readers will not fall for the specious reasoning that makes up the opinions presented by Mr. Kaufmann.
Indeed, I found the piece unpersuasive–at best.
Indeed, I found the piece unpersuasive–at best.
What was that story about a wolf in sheep’s clothing? This article cleverly advocates for the pro-abortion cause by promoting it as matter of political prudence. It attempts to marginalise pro-life voters by dismissing them as a crackpot minority, while assuming that the well-propagandised, often unthinking ‘majority’ is the ‘voice of the people.’ This approach fails to recognise, or ignores, the fact that if pro-life voters such as evangelicals, and others are ignored, they will have no one else to vote for, thus Republicans will lose their support. Morality, not just political manoevering, has a place in politics, too.
From the comments, it would appear that a good number of the writer’s followers have written in to add support to his ideas.One of them uses Minnesota as an example of strong, correct opinion, while this is far from the case. States such as Texas, Montana, and others hold as much if not far more sway.
I hope readers will not fall for the specious reasoning that makes up the opinions presented by Mr. Kaufmann.
Good. The Republicans should be Pro-Life. If the average American votes for the Democrat Party just so babies can be killed right up to birth, that’s up to them. They will have to live with the consequences which will be far- reaching .
Agreed. It always amazes me that whenever budgets are discussed anywhere, the Democrats say that Republicans only want to throw grandma off the cliff and starve children. Yet, it is ok to simply kill them instead.
Indeed.
Roe vs Wade was decided in 1973. There were no consequences. Roe vs. Wade did no result in up to the moment of birth abortions. It’s overturn will.
Agreed. It always amazes me that whenever budgets are discussed anywhere, the Democrats say that Republicans only want to throw grandma off the cliff and starve children. Yet, it is ok to simply kill them instead.
Indeed.
Roe vs Wade was decided in 1973. There were no consequences. Roe vs. Wade did no result in up to the moment of birth abortions. It’s overturn will.
Good. The Republicans should be Pro-Life. If the average American votes for the Democrat Party just so babies can be killed right up to birth, that’s up to them. They will have to live with the consequences which will be far- reaching .
Republicans should listen to voters if they want to win elections. Nevertheless just because one side gives up the fight doesn’t mean abortion stops being a political issue. Humza Yousaf had committed to legalising abortion up to birth in Scotland, and there is undoubtedly a majority in the Scottish parliament to do just that. Fighting the good fight on abortion and other issues, however challenging that is, narrows the window of what is politically achievable by the other side.
Republicans should listen to voters if they want to win elections. Nevertheless just because one side gives up the fight doesn’t mean abortion stops being a political issue. Humza Yousaf had committed to legalising abortion up to birth in Scotland, and there is undoubtedly a majority in the Scottish parliament to do just that. Fighting the good fight on abortion and other issues, however challenging that is, narrows the window of what is politically achievable by the other side.
All part of the utter corruption of US politics by the enormous sums of party donor money. Sadly creeping over the Pond where one quarter of Tory Party money comes from property developers.
I’m not convinced that donors are driving the Republicans on abortion. Maybe I’m wrong. How much abortion money can possibly be out there? I think it’s possibly the evangelicals, which is weird too, because they make up a very small percentage of the electorate. Whatever it is, the Republicans are idiots.
Not exactly. There are a lot of voting evangelicals. The problem is they are already voting Republican anyway because they don’t like Tammy the tomboy being told she should become Tim. What they need are independents and they tend to go out and vote to protect abortion access.
Jim, I suspect that you’re right. I think the problem, worldwide, is the ever diminishing membership of political parties. It leaves the control of branches, selection of candidates etc. to the extremely motivated – the evangelical religious and the newly religious woke. They don’t care as much about winning as sticking to their beliefs, which are out of sync with the majority population.
You’re so right, Brother Patriot. And, sorry that you’re running ”-1.”
You’re so right, Brother Patriot. And, sorry that you’re running ”-1.”
Not exactly. There are a lot of voting evangelicals. The problem is they are already voting Republican anyway because they don’t like Tammy the tomboy being told she should become Tim. What they need are independents and they tend to go out and vote to protect abortion access.
Jim, I suspect that you’re right. I think the problem, worldwide, is the ever diminishing membership of political parties. It leaves the control of branches, selection of candidates etc. to the extremely motivated – the evangelical religious and the newly religious woke. They don’t care as much about winning as sticking to their beliefs, which are out of sync with the majority population.
I’m not convinced that donors are driving the Republicans on abortion. Maybe I’m wrong. How much abortion money can possibly be out there? I think it’s possibly the evangelicals, which is weird too, because they make up a very small percentage of the electorate. Whatever it is, the Republicans are idiots.
All part of the utter corruption of US politics by the enormous sums of party donor money. Sadly creeping over the Pond where one quarter of Tory Party money comes from property developers.
The irony about abortion is that it’s pushed by the hard left. The same hard left who are too stupid to realise that the demand for abortion is exacerbated by hard right policies. Converse applies.
The abortionistas also try to caricature those who, like me, are opposed to abortion as being religious extremists. Even though I’m agnostic and follow no creed. See also:
https://secularprolife.org/2023/03/opposing-abortion-is-not-about-controlling-adults-its-about-protecting-children/
The irony about abortion is that it’s pushed by the hard left. The same hard left who are too stupid to realise that the demand for abortion is exacerbated by hard right policies. Converse applies.
The abortionistas also try to caricature those who, like me, are opposed to abortion as being religious extremists. Even though I’m agnostic and follow no creed. See also:
https://secularprolife.org/2023/03/opposing-abortion-is-not-about-controlling-adults-its-about-protecting-children/
Whatever the ‘cultural socialism’ is, if it is worse than the exchange that follows, I can’t even start thinking how bad it is.
Luckily, the self-validating comments, exchanged within a narrow circle of ‘fellow White male conservatives’ (no joke)), will never give birth to anything that makes world go round. As the Nature tends to abort the cognitive impairments.
Whatever the ‘cultural socialism’ is, if it is worse than the exchange that follows, I can’t even start thinking how bad it is.
Luckily, the self-validating comments, exchanged within a narrow circle of ‘fellow White male conservatives’ (no joke)), will never give birth to anything that makes world go round. As the Nature tends to abort the cognitive impairments.
Chis Cuomo used the example of the dog chasing the car to analogize the Republicans’ relentless efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The Republicans know no more what to do now that they have won than the dog would if he had caught the car!
I suspect the big-bucks contributors whom the author blames for the Republican abortion “victory” are in truth almost as shocked by it as the Democrats are. No, it is the grass roots, at least the men among them, who are celebrating. This corner of the electorate is the same one that is fighting to the last school child to protect its access to weapons of mass murder.
No matter what Biden does, no matter how much he and Hunter have plundered their way to riches, no matter how many Americans die from Mexican fentanyl or progressive prosecutors, as long as abortion bans and AR-15s are the Republicans’ platform, they’ll lose.
Overturning Roe vs. Wade could be the most pyrrhic of all victories. It will ultimately extend abortion rights beyond the womb and end AR-15 ownership, understood to mean anything that can fire more than four balls per minute.
Correction: I referred to Minessota in my comment. This should have been Wisconsin. Thank you.
As with gay marriage, the pro-life advocates got their long fought-for victory not at the ballot box, but at the Supreme Court.
The difference is that after the judicial dictat gay marriage quickly had majority support in polls and wide public acceptance; but pro-life has not consolidated its legal victory into wider support. It has in fact started to lose referenda in even Red states.
That’s why the pro-life groups must be squelched. Unlike gay rights, the anti-abortion position is a loser.
People don’t mind sharing rights with others. They do mind having rights taken away from themselves.
As with gay marriage, the pro-life advocates got their long fought-for victory not at the ballot box, but at the Supreme Court.
The difference is that after the judicial dictat gay marriage quickly had majority support in polls and wide public acceptance; but pro-life has not consolidated its legal victory into wider support. It has in fact started to lose referenda in even Red states.
That’s why the pro-life groups must be squelched. Unlike gay rights, the anti-abortion position is a loser.
People don’t mind sharing rights with others. They do mind having rights taken away from themselves.
Wow, a whole lot of men with opinions WHEN THEY CANT HAVE BABIES. Maybe focus on creating a culture where being a good dad is the plan. Many women would have those babies if they had good fathers… emotionally and financially. And if the relationship did not work out, that they guess what… still were good fathers emotionally and financially. Most men cannot even take the pain of one period. So maybe go experience that before throwing your hat in the ring mansplaining something that you cant even experience and many of you shirk your responsibilities when asked to step up.
The Democratic wins in Wisconsin demonstrate that abortion can greatly influence election results, but thankfully Republicans are too ideologically blinkered to adjust course.
Hmm, you’re the only recognizable Leftists in the thread….
Interesting comment by ole Walter. I guess now possessing a love for life is being “ideological”. I can only forgive people like this as he does not know what he is doing.
Interesting comment by ole Walter. I guess now possessing a love for life is being “ideological”. I can only forgive people like this as he does not know what he is doing.
Ah yes, killing unborn children should just be brushed under the rug. Perhaps genocide should be allowed next? (just so you know, that is another euphemism for the widespread killing of a particular group of people). I wonder what your opinion would be if your mother “chose” differently?
Hmm, you’re the only recognizable Leftists in the thread….
Ah yes, killing unborn children should just be brushed under the rug. Perhaps genocide should be allowed next? (just so you know, that is another euphemism for the widespread killing of a particular group of people). I wonder what your opinion would be if your mother “chose” differently?
The Democratic wins in Wisconsin demonstrate that abortion can greatly influence election results, but thankfully Republicans are too ideologically blinkered to adjust course.
Just think.. Trump and Bidens mothers could have had abortions.. if only?!
There is something very wrong with you.
Yes, I am allergic to brain dead and moronic observations.
But thank you for your incisive, piercing and erudite comments
But thank you for your incisive, piercing and erudite comments
Yes, I am allergic to brain dead and moronic observations.
There is something very wrong with you.
Just think.. Trump and Bidens mothers could have had abortions.. if only?!