James Joyner warns of the dangers of particularism:
Schaller's mindset -- and the Republican counterpart that seeks to build 50 percent plus one through a divide and conquer strategy -- is incredibly dangerous however. In its extreme, it's a recipe for another civil war.To be sure, the nation was founded on the realization that a large country would have diverging interests, whether regional or economic or class based. We've generally managed to work as a polity, however, by having numerous overlapping interests that caused the coalitions necessary to get anything done in the legislature to constantly shift. We have, in other words, what political scientists term "cross-cutting cleavages," which are contrasted with the very dangerous "reinforcing cleavages."
One of the clichés of developing world politics is that "the election is a census, and the census is an election." We don't want that to happen here. When it does, those who lose elections see it not, as a temporary ideological setback but as a threat to their culture (or, in extreme, their life). Those who lose elections are given powerful incentives to cry "foul," calling the legitimacy of the system into question. Absent that, they're willing to take up arms to protect their interests.
We've got a lot of institutional safeguards in place to make extreme outcomes unlikely here. Many of those, however, were in existence in 1860, too.
It strikes to me that this vice is on the rise right now for several reasons:
- Increasing geographic assortation--liberals are moving to be with liberals, while conservatives move to be closer to conservatives.
- Increasing communication--we know more about what is going on in different geographical areas. As the divides get sharper, the magnitude of the differences comes to seem unbearable.
- Increasing federalisation of law--Those weirdos elsewhere are making more decisions for you--or you feel compelled to make decisions for them. The hard-core pro-choicers concentrated on the coasts give relatively little thought to the state of abortion law in Ireland, but are outraged by the thought that women in Alabama might live under different abortion regulations than they do.
Interesting how y'all started to worry about "civil war" and divisiveness just as the Democrats began to gain traction.
Don't worry, Reconstruction won't be so bad.
I doubt that one could prove that politics are unusually geographically segregated by politics compared to other times in American history.
Gilded age? Reconstruction? Civil Rights Era?
Americans have almost always lived near people who share their voting patterns.
Those who lose elections are given powerful incentives to cry "foul," calling the legitimacy of the system into question. Absent that, they're willing to take up arms to protect their interests.
Remember that Democrat riot in Florida '00 to prevent the recount? They sure showed them who's boss.
Oops.
Never mind.
(since hyperlinks are not friendly to this site, I invite any and all to do their own Google search on "Brooks Brothers Riot". And lest you think I'm not bipartisan, you may also do a Google on "Frank Hague" and have a fun time exploring the exceedingly soiled past of Jersey City)
Although I happen to agree with your view of abortion federalism, I am *once again* alarmed by your constant pooh-poohing of abortion rights people, even as you yourself support abortion rights.
I mean, I think its far more obvious that people in Alabama care what (mainly gay and women) people in DC, LA, and NY do than vice versa, but you immediately go the other way in your example. It's very curious, given your pro-choice viewpoints and your own city-liberal past.
Right now, that's the relevant example. The pro-life movement, in overturning Roe, is seeking to return the issue to the states. One could make the opposite argument about the partial-birth abortion ban or DOMA; I just seized on the first thing that came to mind.
And perhaps that is an effect of my city-liberal past (and present); my neighbours display an odd obsession with what is being taught in the schools in Kansas, or erected on southern town squares at Christmastime. If I lived in Ohio, I'd ask "Why do you care whether people in Massachussetts let gay people marry?"
This strikes me as another DC-bubble. Yea, we might care all this stuff, but the rest of the country really doesn't. Huge majorities still don't even vote.
To the list of causes/or observations - I would add the rise of and easier access to non-MSM media. I think we are more aware of strident non-centrist opinions and thus overestimate their reach in society.
For example - it's easy to be a libertarian on the internet and get the impression that the country is ready for libertarian reforms. Getting out and talking to people will quickly disabuse you of any such notions.
I also doubt the reach of 51 % campaign strategies. Nearly all Representatives and most Senators win by much more convincing margins. The same is true of legislators at the state level.
I'm not even sure that such campaign strategies are that significant for presidential elections either. GWB's campaigns have been focused on turnout not divide and conquer platforms.
Red/Blue divides are a great media story and the rise in partisanship seems pretty evident. But I think the red/blue divide breaks down pretty quickly once you start polling on most individual issues.
Finally, I would add that a 51% strategy is pretty doomed if your goal is to impact policy. It's awfully hard to move anything significant through Congress with a 51% margin. In the recent Republican majorities, the only significant thing that comes to mind that passed by a narrow margin is the Medicare Prescription Drug bill. I'm sure someone will correct me on the many horrors imposed on the American people by strictly partisan votes, but they escape me right now.
Well...as an Alabamian by family association....I have more than a passing interest in Red State politics mainly because of the 'presience' of the founders who allocated power to those rural (back then Southern) constituencies via the U.S. Senate. Why someone like Jeff Sessions can be elected should concern all of us.
My libertarian sensibilities hold me back from making too many negative comments while I'm at 'home' until some wannabe theocrat starts telling me how the U.S has "turned away from its Christian roots." I always love replying with the story about Jefferson excising the parts of the Bible he disliked with a knife.
Yes, I too am disturbed that the red states only seem to get more so, but apparently urbanization and pro-environment attitudes are turning the tables in Colorado so perhaps it can happen elsewhere.
I read once that the corridor from Grants Pass in southern Oregon north through Seattle to the border was economically closer to Vancouver and Tokyo than to Chicago. Will economics and increasingly larger divides over political orthodoxy cause a 'loosening' of the states within the Federal structure. It's a fascinating question for those willing to think 50-100 years down the road.
Sorta seconding Curmudgeon's post above... I think the far more significant divide in this country is between people who care A LOT about politics (perhaps more than they should) and the far bigger number of people who hardly care AT ALL.
The large numbers and lack of interest of this second group make me think that a civil war is pretty unlikely. Although I do think a major political nerd/political apathy schism could be dangerous in its own way.
Joyner is crying "civil war" over the possibility that Democrats might accept a situation in which they consistently win the support of only 40-odd percent of the white male vote.
As for the decisions by the GOP over the past 40 years which have resulted in their consistent inability to win even 15% of the black vote...well, it's understandable. It's just SO HARD for Republicans to convince black people that they have their best interests at heart. Anyway, black people are prejudiced against Republicans.
Increasing geographic assortation--liberals are moving to be with liberals, while conservatives move to be closer to conservatives.
No they're not but i suspect you know that and can not say.
Red/Blue divides are a great media story and the rise in partisanship seems pretty evident. But I think the red/blue divide breaks down pretty quickly once you start polling on most individual issues.
Depends on which individuals you ask.
I always wonder what the outcome would be if campaign slogans plastered on bumper stickers read:
"I't the Demographics Stupid"
Megan,
It isn't just the federalization of law, it's the politicization of nearly everything. The most troubling development in American politics over the past century is the insertion of government in things that aren't remotely the government's business. So you have fights over things that should be cultural and personal choices, like food, media, religion, smoking, and on and on, ad infinitum.
Basically it all goes back to a basic misunderstanding by the overwhelming majority of Americans as to what the actual purpose of government is. Government is only supposed to protect its citizenry from force and fraud. Everything else is superfluous. So until we reduce the scope of government power in our lives (highly unlikely) we will see increasingly partisan behavior.
The American Experiment was fun while it lasted.
Mark,
I simply meant that polls on specific policy issues rarely reveal a very narrow divide. For that matter depending on how you write the questions, you can get large majorities on both sides of the question.
As to the bumper sticker, I'm afraid most people would think you're against the Demographics Party.
The hard-core pro-choicers concentrated on the coasts give relatively little thought to the state of abortion law in Ireland, but are outraged by the thought that women in Alabama might live under different abortion regulations than they do.
On second look, this strikes me as an extremely weird thing to say. Is citizenship supposed to be meaningless? Am I supposed to consider that Alabama is not a part of my country, and is as foreign to me as Ireland? Who is it that makes such a claim? This is a claim for secession. And then somehow the onus of having divided the country is laid at the feet of those who think this ought to be one country, rather than at the feet of those who think people from "the coasts" have no business interfering in "Alabama"? Are we doomed to keep refighting the Civil War and the Civil Rights struggle forever?
And what an especially strange thing to say about abortion. A liberal from "the coasts" has no right to tell someone from "Alabama" whether she can prohibit someone else from Alabama from making her own decision about whether or not abortion is morally justifiable? What a strange kind of freedom this is, the freedom to force other people in your neighborhood to do as you tell them, without interference from outsiders.
brooksfoe...nevermind that most NYers have a much better chance of visiting Ireland than Alabama....
Seriously, it is not strange to think about the state of abortion elsewhere especially when casting about for something more than the usual constitutional (read: weak) pro-choice arguments. Other countries' experience can be illuminating, and that's the way I considered Megan's remark. Those among the Intellectually Curious will, and do, look beyond our borders for new ideas or to refute old ones.
Other countries' experience can be illuminating, and that's the way I considered Megan's remark.
I'm pretty sure Megan's remark referred to the fact that abortion is still completely banned in Ireland, and that one might think American liberals would be as up in arms about that as they are about the possibility that it will be banned in many American states if Roe v. Wade falls.
As for the illumination provided by the Irish experience, I think the chief illuminating fact is the thousands of Irish women boarding the ferry to Britain to get abortions each year, and sometimes facing legal jeopardy on their return.
brooksfoe...I agree...you add to my point. You and I (and presumably Megan) understand what might be learned from Ireland (presuming we're all pro-choicers). Of course, we'd all take away something to reinforce our position but we'd be forced to re-look our assumptions in a different environment.
"As for the illumination provided by the Irish experience, I think the chief illuminating fact is the thousands of Irish women boarding the ferry to Britain to get abortions each year, and sometimes facing legal jeopardy on their return."
I'm really not quite sure what your point is. Could you explain it to me? It seems as if you are advocating that when it comes to laws, what is good for one country should be good for us all, otherwise, we can just hop over the border, do something that would otherwise be illegal in our own country and then come back home having thwarted "the system".
So Ireland should change its laws to make it unncessary for a certain class of its citizens to be required to go elsewhere to accomplish something that is illegal in their own country?
brooksfoe, the issue that led to the Civil War was that there were people who, ya' know, were physically prevented from leaving Alabama when they quite reasonably decided that they were tired of being treated extremely poorly in Alabama. In fact, when they tried to leave, they were dragged back, and tortured for attempting to leave. Now, for a little more than 20 hours of minimum wage labor, one can leave Alabama, and go to places far, far, different from Alabama. Given that U.S. society is more mobile than ever, there is a better case to be made for a real federalist approach than ever.
Hmm, on further reflection...
Why should we (wherever "we" are located right now) care about what Alabamians decide about abortion (presuming we aren't actually IN Alabama) anymore than we should care how they do it in Ireland. I think that's the real point.
You and I may dislike the law, but it's their law...whether in Alabama or Ireland, and the weak right to privacy constitutional argument is not sufficient to impose our views on the Alabamians.
Megan,
I think the more relevant modern political comparison is gay marriage (which, btw, is the FMA rather than DOMA). But to believe in overturning Roe the Republicans are looking to bring abortion back to the states is patently insane. They're looking to overturn abortion to ban abortion, and the first step is overturning Roe (although I personally doubt that a federal law banning abortion is likely to pass Congress anytime soon).
Michael W, Alabama is in the United States. Ireland is not. The law in Alabama is not "their" law where it infringes on fundamental rights. Again, do we have to refight the Civil War and the Civil Rights struggle forever? It was "their" law that kept black kids out of white schools and made it a crime for a black man to marry a white woman. "We", the rest of the American people, decided that the rights of those Americans who were being oppressed by "their" laws were "our" business.
There is a place for regionalism and federalism, but the rights of women to control their own decisions about pregnancy and reproduction is not that place.
Agree with Justin.
Brooksfoe - You're going too far. When it infringes on on the 13th and 15th amendments, then, yes, we do have the right to step in and say "that law cannot be", but as much as it might enrage you, the 19th amendment might have given women the right to vote, but it did not specify a right to abortion.
This will never be settled until it's settled locally or with a constitutional amendment..and fat chance on the latter.
It should also be noted that the same view of enumerated powers of national government which made much of the New Deal legislation constitutional is what also allows Federal laws banning certain abortion procedures. Funny how leviathan just won't stay reliably loyal.
"...the 19th amendment might have given women the right to vote, but it did not specify a right to abortion."
It also did not specity that abortion was illegal. And what it DID specify was that people could not be denied their Constitutional rights on the basis of gender; which you would think would include their rights to control their own bodies.
The critical difference that pro-lifers refuse to see:
-If I pass a law saying abortion is illegal, you have to break the law to have one.
-If I pass a law that says abortion is legal, you are NOT breaking the law when you DON'T have one.
It's the difference between the state legislating morality and individuals being responsible for their own moral choices. Pro-lifers want to use the power of the state to FORCE people to follow their (pro-life) morality rather than letting people decide for themselves if abortion is right for them. It's an ironic reversal for the party of rugged individualism and self-reliance to interfere in individual choice this way.
Another problem with these strategies built on writing off certain demographic groups is that while they may be successful in winning elections, they're unlikely to produce sufficient consensus to actually do much (other than get ready for the next round of elections). Perhaps this would be okay in the context of an actual federal system where the powers of the national government are limited, but it seems rather bad in a system where the national government is expected to be energetic.
"Given that U.S. society is more mobile than ever, there is a better case to be made for a real federalist approach than ever."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
"Ethnic cleansing refers to various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory in order to create a supposedly ethnically "pure" society."
Of course, we're talking more of a "political cleansing" than ethnic, but the idea is the same.
liberalrob, every law prohibiting the ingestion of certain intoxicants, state or federal, conflicts with the notion that the state cannot regulate what people do with their bodies. Same thing with laws banning organ sales from live donors.
"Funny how leviathan just won't stay reliably loyal."
As long as society in general decides it is what they want, it's not a case of "leviathan" being disloyal. While the minority might feel oppressed, in the end it's proper for the majority to rule. There are safeguards in the American system to restrict tyranny of the majority; no system is perfect, of course. Equally to be avoided however is the tyranny of the MINORITY; and in the case of the fundie pro-life movement, that's what we're faced with.
Michael W, you're wrong: this will never be settled, period. If conservatives succeed in overturning Roe, there will be efforts by feminist and family planning organizations to help women in states that ban abortion to travel to other states to seek abortions. The abortion-ban states will seek to outlaw the provision of medical information or aid to travel outside the state for an abortion. Pro-choice advocates will fight those laws on free-speech grounds. People trying to distribute abortion information or provide financial aid to women seeking abortions will end up in jail. You'll have people running around whispering about "shmashmortions" and so on.
It can't be settled locally because it remains an individual rights issue for the people affected.
"liberalrob, every law prohibiting the ingestion of certain intoxicants, state or federal, conflicts with the notion that the state cannot regulate what people do with their bodies."
That's because we've allowed "morality" to be legislated in those areas. Just because certain laws are on the books does not mean they are good laws. You have the obvious example of Prohibition. That worked well.
Of course the state intervenes in personal choices. It does it all the time. But when it intervenes in choices of lifestyle or "morality" that's quite different than intervening on the basis of scientific fact. The state SHOULD intervene to protect its citizens from harm; but the determination of harm should be based on solid evidence, not personal morality, and the manner of intervention does not necessarily have to be prohibition of the harmful behavior.
liberalrob, every law prohibiting the ingestion of certain intoxicants, state or federal, conflicts with the notion that the state cannot regulate what people do with their bodies.
Extremist liberal moonbats like William F Buckley Jr. have been arguing for the right to toke up on libertarian grounds for years. Probably decades now. So I'm glad that you find consistency in liberalrob's line of reasoning.
That is why you made that statement, right?
henry evans wrote:
Another problem with these strategies built on writing off certain demographic groups is that while they may be successful in winning elections, they're unlikely to produce sufficient consensus to actually do much (other than get ready for the next round of elections).
I'm sorry, I just can't get over this. Republicans never get more than 10-15% of the black vote. They used to be limited to about 20% of the hispanic vote; they briefly bumped up to near 30% in the late '90s, but the immigration debate has undone that, and now they'll be lucky to get 20%.
The Democrats never get less than 35% of the white male vote; Jimmy Carter got 47%. But it's the Democrats who are being accused of "writing off" a demographic group? Because the one ethnic group whose vote one must always compete for a majority of is white males; otherwise we're talking civil war, here.
I mean, this is ridiculous.
Having said all that, I supported the late-term abortion ban. Just because we SHOULD legislate on the basis of science doesn't mean we always WILL. There are grey areas everywhere, no absolutes, and the last guy who wasn't a hypocrite in some way or other got nailed to a cross...
Here's another way to look at it. The 19th Amendment was mentioned. We can go back further...
Consider the Leviathan that we have created. It needs to be fed. Therefore, one of the compelling interests in the Law for the Federal government is that of the taxpayer.
There are two ways to create taxpayers: through birth and through immigration. The States have no authority in determining the Immigration Policies of the U.S.
The 16th Amendment institutes the federal income tax. Forget the issue of when life begins...more important to the Federal Government is: "when is a (potential) taxpayer created?" A taxpayer who could very well move between states any time after conception.
Even if Roe was wrongly decided, as, for example, Justice Ginsburg agrees, there may be no guarantee that the issue will go back to the States.
Solution: repeal the 16th Amendment (after Roe is overturned.)
And then each state can decide in their own legislatures through their elected representatives whether or not they want to have restrictions on abortion. Just like some of the States (New York, California) started to do before Roe came along.
Christina said this:
I like this. This is should be the philosophy of the government in general and the Federal government in particular.
The problem in general is that the phrase "there ought to be a law" is being used too often and taken too seriously. And then applied Federally. It's one thing if my city bans this or mandates that. I can move to another city. There are enough cities in the country that I could probably find one I like. But when the Federal government makes a law, I have to leave the whole country if I don't like it (or suck it up).
As far as abortion goes, the problem with the argument about abortion (and many on both sides seem to ignore this) is that both sides believe that it is about the right to control your own body. The problem is that one side thinks of the women and the other thinks of the fetus. No one has a problem with making it illegal to kill your children. The question is when they become your children... I'm not going to argue the answer, just point out the fallacy if saying that "Women should control their bodies, therefore abortion should be illegal, obvioiusly." BTW, "controlling your body" is not a Constitutional right, per se.
EI
EI - you bring up a good point. There are a lot of bad faith arguments about abortion, and in my view the two most silly are that it is either about controlling your own body or saving a life. Wittgenstein taught us that you're much better off looking at a person's actions, rather than their words, to understand what they believe.
If Robert DeNiro were to gain 50 pounds in order to play a fat character in a movie, and then lost it all when the movie filming was over, no one would much care. Now suppose Demi Moore were to get pregnant to play a role in a movie, and then got an abortion after she finished filming, I'm fairly certain this would be a highly unpopular move, even (maybe even especially) among pro-choicers. But if it really is just about controlling your own body, then the above examples are identical. But they're not.
At the same time, pro-lifers are guilty of at least as much hypocricy. If you REALLY believed that each abortion was a murder, if you REALLY believed that there was a holocaust of 1.5 to 2 million people EACH YEAR, would you just sit back and support certain candidates or write a check or two to certain organizations? Would that be considered a principled stand if it was say, a German during the Nazi era who objected to the killing of Jews and decided to send a $10 to a save the Jews organization? Obviously not. Now there are a few people who have taken up arms against abortion doctors, but their profile indicates their more like angry and violent young men looking for an excuse to kill someone, and this "cause" provides it for them, rather than budding Herr Schindlers.
In both cases people don't behave as if they believe their own arguments. Personally, I think the argument is way more about attitudes toward sex, and attitudes toward women and whether they should face consequences for out of wedlock sex.
liberalrob...you've never been to rural Alabama..as ethnically pure and segregated as it's every been. Legislating morality is much like legislating non-discrimination. It's a societal issue which will change over time and not with the stroke of a pen. Thankfully, I still have the ability to see that the majority is not always correct. A "majority" of Americans elected the moron in the Whitehouse (in '04 at least).
brooksfoe...I suppose I'm not making my point very well. As a pro-choice person I believe I've arrived at the same conclusion as you regarding the status of seeking an abortion as one of individual choice and exercise of liberty. I love the mountains of Utah but I'll never live in a state run by a cult. I'm sure they'd outlaw abortion. The skiing is almost as good in the pacific NW where abortion is just as likely to remain legal. The women of Utah would have to make a choice and some that aren't in the right tribe might leave. Wow, again exercising choice.
If the majority believe it should be legal, then get it in the constitution. Every poll I read says most Americans think some form of abortion should be legal ergo why not put it in writing. Until then, it will remain an issue used for strictly political purposes at the federal level. If we agree it won't realistically be put into the document on which our government is based then it should be decided at the state level. Yes, then we'd have a bunch of white guys throwing verbal 'molotov cocktails at each other and generally looking stupid. Perhaps then more women would run for office (and win). It wouldn't be pretty, but it might be democratic. Regardless, I still wouldn't live in Utah.
"The problem is that one side thinks of the women and the other thinks of the fetus."
Not quite, I think the problem is rather that one side wants to enlist the power of the state on the side of the fetus and the other side wants the state to leave the choice up to the women. The most powerful pro-choice argument in my opinion is that women can choose NOT to have an abortion. If the moral argument is so persuasive, women should avoid having abortions in droves. It should not be NECESSARY to legislate against abortion.
But that doesn't fit in with the moralists who think everyone should be forced to live according to THEIR conception of morality.
And so we get back to just what people think government is FOR. Is it to promote and establish the "good society?" What IS "the good society?" What if my conception of "the good society" is different from yours? Ultimately that's what it all comes down to.
jonathon, I don't understand your question. I thinl all laws regulating what people do with their bodies to be ill-advised at the very least. I merely noted that the assertion that abortion regulation is illegitimate because it regulates what women can do with their bodies necessarily means that drug prohition and organ prohibition are illegitimate as well.
liberalrob says....."What IS "the good society?" What if my conception of "the good society" is different from yours? Ultimately that's what it all comes down to."
Outstanding point at the end rob and there's very few in DC I'd trust with making this decision for me. Lots of good intentions but often encumbered by poor educations, narrow points of view, and political expedience.
Before I'm put in the category of Rand-Loving Nut Case, let me just say the common good is a very good thing. My need to be Left Alone extends to needing government restrictions on things such as pollution, for example.
Getting back to the point of what to do about the white male portion of the electorate. If we're going to keep this large, diverse country together over the long-term we're going to have to acknowledge and live with the knowledge that not everyone thinks alike and allow them to go about their business (as long as it does no harm to you or I). I detest the ignorance of many of my former neighbors in Alabama but as long as their excesses are kept in check (against the law to throw your trash on my yard whether you think it's ok or not), I'm not harmed. I want them to change, and the way to do that is education and continuing the democratic process. If we really cared about changing minds in Alabama we'd be clamoring for making sure every child was getting the best education possible (a government function I can strongly support as well) instead of mandating every aspect of their lives.
'Bubba' will always live on I suppose, and is what makes things like our all-volunteer Army possible. I think the Dems are right not to court that vote overtly as it would ring hollow and drive away even more Bubbas.
liberalrob, what, in your view, are the legitimate limits to majority power?
Gee thanks. So the only way I can see abortion as the destruction of life is if I take up arms against the government?
FWIW if the government took my daughter/wife/neighbor and forced them to have an abortion you can be certain I'd be part of the armed revolt.
At the same time, pro-lifers are guilty of at least as much hypocricy. If you REALLY believed that each abortion was a murder, if you REALLY believed that there was a holocaust of 1.5 to 2 million people EACH YEAR, would you just sit back and support certain candidates or write a check or two to certain organizations?
Speaking as a pro-lifer, I don't think of abortion as murder; I think of it as a special case of unjust war. That's why it is more suitable to protest it with sit-ins and picket lines.
As for hypocrisy, I have strong opinions on hypocrisy. I'm for it. Hypocrisy made it possible for the Declaration of Independence to be written.
liberalrob wrote: Equally to be avoided however is the tyranny of the MINORITY; and in the case of the fundie pro-life movement, that's what we're faced with.
Michael W wrote: Every poll I read says most Americans think some form of abortion should be legal ergo why not put it in writing.
Both nominally correct, but missing a bit of nuance. The last time Gallup did a major poll on this issue (long since retreated behind a tall paywall, unfortunately), the outcome broke down roughly like this IIRC:
-- 20% basically favor what we have now (any time, reason, and method);
-- 20% are basically opposed, with most angling pre-Roe (banned, but life of mother exemption); and
-- 60% favor abortion under some cases, but not to ends of unlimited convenience. Notably, support in this 60% sector is almost unconditional during the first trimester; drops gradually across the second; and becomes increasingly opposed as the third trimester progresses, with strong opposition to extreme methods like partial-birth unless the life of the mother is in jeapordy.
That can certainly become "a majority of Americans favor abortion" after standing in an open washing machine for a while with a pencil jammed in the door switch; but in point of fact, the Roe status quo is favored by only one-fifth of the population, and the rest is reasonablly convinced that the law took a wrong turn somewhere.
There is no tyranny of the minority at stake here. A true overturning of Roe would finally flip the issue back to the states and divide the citizenry up into fifty legislative battlegrounds, where the core of the debate would promptly lose much of its steam.
Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
"As for hypocrisy, I have strong opinions on hypocrisy. I'm for it. Hypocrisy made it possible for the Declaration of Independence to be written."
I just have to say this statement made me laugh out loud. Thank you for bringing some humor into a usually humorless topic.
"The hard-core pro-choicers concentrated on the coasts give relatively little thought to the state of abortion law in Ireland, but are outraged by the thought that women in Alabama might live under different abortion regulations than they do."
Perhaps I'm missing something very obvious here, but why shouldn't those on the coasts give more thought to the state of women in Alabama versus Ireland? They can only have a marginal effect on the rights of women in Ireland, but based on the political choices they make, they can have a much more considerable impact on those women in Alabama or some other state.
Now, as for Schaller's arguments and others like his, please tell me where he is so off base. It's not as if he's arguing for completely ignoring this portion of the electorate. Instead, the thrust of this argument seems to be that we shouldn't waste a lot of time and energy courting a constituency that isn't likely to change its views and isn't likely to vote for us in large numbers any time soon, particularly when this group isn't as vital to electoral success as it used to be.
Brian, you aren't missing anything. The idea works just the same on any issue - including economic policy. Why are liberals outraged about the human rights violations in Tulia, Texas, when they don't stand up nearly as strongly to wrongful discrimination in Senegal? Well, duh.
FWIW if the government took my daughter/wife/neighbor and forced them to have an abortion you can be certain I'd be part of the armed revolt.
No one is suggesting forcing abortion on anyone. The fact that you have the right to do something doesn't mean you must perforce do it.
liberalrob, what, in your view, are the legitimate limits to majority power?
In the end, there are none. This is the foundational principle of democratic government: government by the many, not the few.
Madison explained how the tendency of the majority to oppress the minority unfairly is restrained in the American Federal system of government:
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
But even given the restrictions and checks and balances in our government, the will of the majority will sooner or later come to dominate. And it is fair and just that it do so. The minority should be given a fair hearing and opportunity to sway enough of their opponents to their side to where their interests are protected; but no more than that. Numerical minorities cannot be permitted to unilaterally determine policy for all. That is the description of aristocracy, not democracy. Minorities may SUGGEST policy, and if the majority acquiesces, it may be implemented; but that's not the same thing.
That's also why, to pick up some other threads, I think "kicking it back to the states" is ultimately a bad idea. As Madison pointed out, it's a lot easier for what may be a minority view in the country as a whole to be the majority view in a particular State. Perhaps it may even prevail in more than one state. When that happens, you set the citizens of those states at odds with the citizens of the other states who hold the true majority view, and before you know it you're picking out Billy Yank and Johnny Reb uniforms. It weakens the Republic.
Christina, for such a young lady, you sure are pessimistic.
One of the last stages of partisanship is to reduce the population of those who are unlike you. That has practical limits, say in an area the size of Massachusetts. Up there, if you ain't a liberal no-neck knucklewalker, then you ain't one of us, and you'll get The Euthanizer to call at your home pretty quick.
Likewise, if you live in Idaho, the Kennewick Man progeny will gladly usher out those from Massachusetts, with a friendly hand or the business end of a long skinny thing that has a trigger.
Now, that is just a matter of time. The only question is DC, though. Maybe there they'll just continue to vote themselves in and out of office every 8 years, so they can continue their world of make-believe.
theotokos achor nonfissile foursquareness shopboard unhate mediastinal douceness
http://rubrics.com/ >New Measure
http://www.museumsnorth.org/englehart/