Say it with me: "the Democratic party's brand is being terrible at politics."
On a less repetitive note, this kind of thing is really frustrating to me as a generally pro-life voter who can at the same time recognize that the pro-choice crowd has some really good arguments. I think I could be on board with a law that targets where the median voter (not to mention supposed liberal utopia Europe) is on this issue, even though I'd probably be somewhat uncomfortable with the level to which such a compromise would protect abortion access.
I'm certainly not on board with the sheer insanity coming out of some "pro-life" legislatures, like telling women with ectopic pregnancies that they have to "carry it to term" (whatever the flying fuck that means).
I really, really wish we could just have people be normal. Calling yourself "pro-abortion" isn't normal - basically everyone who isn't on NARAL's payroll acknowledges abortion is not an uncomplicatedly good thing, even if they fiercely believe it should be legal. Banning abortion of ectopic pregnancies isn't normal. Where are all the normal people?
It really does seem like political malpractice to not put up a bill banning rape and incest exceptions. It would sail through the House, and sure, it would probably be filibustered in the Senate but what a great vote to clobber Republicans with before the election this fall. What possible downside is there? What am I missing?
This is particularly outrageous because PP isn't just some nonsense pressure group. They are a huge, very important healthcare provider that gets half a billion dollars from the government every year.
I don't understand why the Democratic Party (and even its more-progressive base) can't understand this very simple concept about the Real World: you can either win small, or lose big.
If "lose big" was the goal.....well I dare say they are doing a great job.
I feel like the fact that nonprofits aren't, like, subjected to market forces or keeping score in any way that they can spend time and energy on semantics instead of trying to achieve their ostensible goals. It makes falling victim to the Iron Law of Institutions inevitable. (https://medium.com/@jesse.singal/the-iron-law-of-institutions-and-the-left-333c42c246af)
I'm gonna be devil's advocate for a minute here and say I don't think this terminology is something marginal voters are paying attention to. I read about politics all day long, and I am very engaged, and I haven't heard any of this terminology Josh is talking about, aside from some of the ACLU stuff he mentioned. I am a gay man, and even I was confused about abortion bans disproportionately impacting queers. How, exactly, is that true? Nevertheless I agree with the much broader point Josh makes that "the left" demands total and complete radical change or nothing, and so far it's gotten us mostly nothing.
Surely the failure to not push a "defence of first-trimester abortions" bills is worse than just bad positioning. John Roberts is clearly trying to get the *court* to uphold this as a right, so getting a bunch of republicans to vote with a unified Democratic caucus might just help him sway Kavanagh. Whereas the Senate batting back a maximialist pro-choice bill reassures him that in for a penny, in for a pound
I feel like these language games are pushed by former high school policy debaters who probably racked up a bunch of cheap victories with topicality arguments and are now convinced that they can win that way in the real world, too.
(I'm mostly joking, but in my life, many of the most ardent YOU MUST USE THESE WORDS, AND ONLY THESE WORDS types are former debaters.)
It's so easy to become frustrated by all this unbelievably boring and tedious activism that does nothing especially because in fact the people engaging in it are not the ones likely to be hurt when it backfires and abortion rights are more limited than ever in a bunch of red states. I thought Andrew Sullivan had it pretty right in his newsletter after the leak of the opinion: "In opposition to Roe, many in the GOP want bans on abortion even in cases of rape and incest. That’s in Kentucky, Arizona, Oklahoma and Florida. Talk about a wedge issue! J.D. Vance, the avatar of Republican illiberalism, favors no exceptions. A healthy political party would thrill at this opportunity — a winning issue where the GOP has gone off the deep end. In the states likely to “trigger” total bans if Roe falls, “43 percent of adults on average say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while 52 percent say it should be illegal in most or all cases.” That’s a highly winnable fight. In states which might re-enact some kind of abortion restrictions, “an average of 49 percent of adults say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, compared with 45 percent who say otherwise” — even more promising terrain for Democrats...Leftists, if they could only snap out of their disdain for democracy, can make a powerful case for moderation on this issue against right-extremism. To do that, of course, they will have to back some restrictions on abortion in some states — which some seem very reluctant to do — and even allow some diversity of opinion within their own ranks. There are forces aiming to prevent that — forces that Biden could confront if he hadn’t long been beaten into learned helplessness. But surely someone can take the initiative. So let’s stop the hyperventilation and get back to democracy. Persuade people, if you can. Get them out to vote. Stop demonizing those you disagree with and compromise with them in office, however difficult that may be. What Roe did was kickstart the extreme cultural polarization that has defined and blighted the last few decades of American politics. Maybe the end of Roe can mark the beginning of a return to living together, and negotiating a way to make that bearable. The center, in other words, is now wide open. Will anyone — anyone — occupy it?"
Because abortion has been coming up quite a bit lately (for obvious reasons), I thought I'd suggest an article topic: In a previous article, Josh more or less said that while he favors abortion rights, he's not 100% on "whether embryos and fetuses have relevant moral interests." I've always loved articles / essays where the writer starts with a question, and then spends the essay trying to answer it for him/herself. I would be interested in Josh side-stepping the politics of abortion (which he's said himself is an easier topic) and diving into the weeds of what makes it moral / immoral -- not just in terms of the rights of the embryos, but in terms of the impacts of outlawing it.
Abortion is another one of those issues where (even more than most) the two sides are simply talking past one another, never really addressing what the other is saying. E.g. Pro-choice activists don't tend to address limits on abortion, and anti-abortion activists don't tend address the issue that outlawing abortion doesn't actually make it go away, but less safe. I'd like to hear from Josh, specifically, because he seems at least somewhat on the fence here, but also because he's got a kind of heterodox approach to things in general.
Anyway, just a thought. With all that said, I liked todays article a lot as well.
You could side step that whole discussion and just focus on whether have the choice to have abortion makes women and society better or worse off. The pro-choice argument is obvious, the anti-choice argument is either that making a child a choice reduces willingness to support mothers (your choice, your cost) and the conservative argument that choice undermines structures which are socially stabilizing (marriage, families, extended family). A very serious conversation about social impact is more amusing than an intractable philosophical debate.
It is a little too spicy to attach one's legal name to this take, but... isn't this kind of a broader problem of Dem worship of black women specifically? The VP and the only SCOTUS justice Biden will appoint were chosen largely because they were black women. I see the same pattern by some blue state governors; to use an example, NJ Governor Phil Murphy also has a black woman as Lt. Governor and appointed a black woman to the state supreme court. Black women head the NJ Department of State, Department of Education, and Civil Service Commission. I am not suggesting that all (or any!) of these individuals are undeserving, but it certainly seems like a concerted effort.
Black women are the backbone of the party. I don't object to striving for a representative cabinet, and that often requires using demographics as something more than a tiebreaker. But when it plays such a significant role in decisionmaking, I can't help but think it's detrimental.
Substituting meritocracy, even imperfect meritocracy, for identitarian deference does not strengthen institutions.
I don’t think Kamala was the ideal person, but it’s not substantively different than picking a VP because they’re from the south or whatever, or the GOP choosing Clarence Thomas because he was a Black man. There are a lot of qualified people and I think choosing people for political reasons is as old as time. The problem is when you choose badly (for what it’s worth I think the recent Supreme Court pick looks great, while Kamala is not great).
I agree this is entirely stupid, but so much in today's politics is stupid that this didn't stand out. but for what it's worth (which is very little) I favor changing the name to pro-abortion, and those against abortion should be anti-abortion. Then everyone understands where everyone stands. Choice vs life is a meaningless debate. Take a similar issue, gay marriage. You were either pro gay marriage or anti gay marriage. It wasn't called pro-sanctity vs pro-fairness or whatever. If it's an issue you care about, you should be comfortable saying what you mean.
You might be right, but my point is that both sides need to clarify their stance. I agree that pro-choice is fuzzier than pro-life, but they're both pretty fuzzy. I don't think anti-abortion is a winner over pro-life either. Both are dumb and distracting from the issue at hand.
Because it’s an incredibly complicated moral issue, especially with todays technology. I’m pro life, but I support exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother. That’s a “ fuzzy” position. It’s not a 💯 pro life. But for me, one that I’m comfortable supporting.
Look, I get it, and my point is probably too academic and not real world. But pro choice just means I can have coffee or tea. it has nothing to do with abortion until it became a marketing slogan. And these women who say they are pro choice really are pro-abortion, not in the sense that they want every fetus aborted of course, but in the sense that they want it to be available. Similarly, anti abortion advocates aren't really pro life, they are pro life in the specific situation where an abortion is being considered. it's identical to being pro or anti birth control or interracial marriage. why can't we say what we mean when it comes to abortion? You're either for it or against it. people who are pro birth control don't mean you have to use it all the time, they mean it should be available. It's identical to abortion. We just feel the need to hide behind meaningless slogans when it comes to abortion.
David French over at the Dispatch mentions (every chance he gets) that the plurality of Americans - including those who are pro-choice - do not see abortion as a desirable outcome. So if your party slogan is "buy one abortion, get one free", you're probably not gonna get many votes.
I am pro choice. I am pro access to abortion. I am pro abortion being legal. I am not pro abortion; I am deeply conflicted about abortion even though I am 100% sure that it should be legal in at least some circumstances. While I agree that current labels are a little silly, I refuse to identify myself as pro abortion.
It is outright good when two gay people who love each other choose to secure the rest of their lives together. Nearly every abortion is a least-bad option, a later offramp than would have been desirable. It is hard to take your comment credibly that these two issues are similar.
The issue isn't the issue. Instead of gay marriage, make it war, you can be pro war or anti war, and everyone knows where you stand on a war, or pro or anti stem cell research, etc etc etc. I don't care what issue you choose, I just think these marketing euphemisms just hide what you're really arguing about and confuse the issue. But I really don't care if you find me credible.
Say it with me: "the Democratic party's brand is being terrible at politics."
On a less repetitive note, this kind of thing is really frustrating to me as a generally pro-life voter who can at the same time recognize that the pro-choice crowd has some really good arguments. I think I could be on board with a law that targets where the median voter (not to mention supposed liberal utopia Europe) is on this issue, even though I'd probably be somewhat uncomfortable with the level to which such a compromise would protect abortion access.
I'm certainly not on board with the sheer insanity coming out of some "pro-life" legislatures, like telling women with ectopic pregnancies that they have to "carry it to term" (whatever the flying fuck that means).
I really, really wish we could just have people be normal. Calling yourself "pro-abortion" isn't normal - basically everyone who isn't on NARAL's payroll acknowledges abortion is not an uncomplicatedly good thing, even if they fiercely believe it should be legal. Banning abortion of ectopic pregnancies isn't normal. Where are all the normal people?
I am generally pro-choice and with a few minor tweaks, what you wrote is exactly what I think.
It really does seem like political malpractice to not put up a bill banning rape and incest exceptions. It would sail through the House, and sure, it would probably be filibustered in the Senate but what a great vote to clobber Republicans with before the election this fall. What possible downside is there? What am I missing?
The Groups would shriek that you, a man, are compromising away their fundamental rights, and you are afraid of a primary challenge.
I can hear Twitter melting down from here.
The only word I need is "malarky".
I can't imagine how pissed I'd be if I donated to Planned Parenthood and found out they were spending their money on this nonsense.
They still have that article about why Planned Parenthood supports "defund the police" up on their website: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/blog/defunding-the-police-what-it-means-and-why-planned-parenthood-supports-it. If you were running for office, would you want their endorsement?
This is particularly outrageous because PP isn't just some nonsense pressure group. They are a huge, very important healthcare provider that gets half a billion dollars from the government every year.
I don't understand why the Democratic Party (and even its more-progressive base) can't understand this very simple concept about the Real World: you can either win small, or lose big.
If "lose big" was the goal.....well I dare say they are doing a great job.
I feel like the fact that nonprofits aren't, like, subjected to market forces or keeping score in any way that they can spend time and energy on semantics instead of trying to achieve their ostensible goals. It makes falling victim to the Iron Law of Institutions inevitable. (https://medium.com/@jesse.singal/the-iron-law-of-institutions-and-the-left-333c42c246af)
I'm gonna be devil's advocate for a minute here and say I don't think this terminology is something marginal voters are paying attention to. I read about politics all day long, and I am very engaged, and I haven't heard any of this terminology Josh is talking about, aside from some of the ACLU stuff he mentioned. I am a gay man, and even I was confused about abortion bans disproportionately impacting queers. How, exactly, is that true? Nevertheless I agree with the much broader point Josh makes that "the left" demands total and complete radical change or nothing, and so far it's gotten us mostly nothing.
But, like, where do LatinX people stand on this issue?
Surely the failure to not push a "defence of first-trimester abortions" bills is worse than just bad positioning. John Roberts is clearly trying to get the *court* to uphold this as a right, so getting a bunch of republicans to vote with a unified Democratic caucus might just help him sway Kavanagh. Whereas the Senate batting back a maximialist pro-choice bill reassures him that in for a penny, in for a pound
I feel like these language games are pushed by former high school policy debaters who probably racked up a bunch of cheap victories with topicality arguments and are now convinced that they can win that way in the real world, too.
(I'm mostly joking, but in my life, many of the most ardent YOU MUST USE THESE WORDS, AND ONLY THESE WORDS types are former debaters.)
It's so easy to become frustrated by all this unbelievably boring and tedious activism that does nothing especially because in fact the people engaging in it are not the ones likely to be hurt when it backfires and abortion rights are more limited than ever in a bunch of red states. I thought Andrew Sullivan had it pretty right in his newsletter after the leak of the opinion: "In opposition to Roe, many in the GOP want bans on abortion even in cases of rape and incest. That’s in Kentucky, Arizona, Oklahoma and Florida. Talk about a wedge issue! J.D. Vance, the avatar of Republican illiberalism, favors no exceptions. A healthy political party would thrill at this opportunity — a winning issue where the GOP has gone off the deep end. In the states likely to “trigger” total bans if Roe falls, “43 percent of adults on average say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while 52 percent say it should be illegal in most or all cases.” That’s a highly winnable fight. In states which might re-enact some kind of abortion restrictions, “an average of 49 percent of adults say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, compared with 45 percent who say otherwise” — even more promising terrain for Democrats...Leftists, if they could only snap out of their disdain for democracy, can make a powerful case for moderation on this issue against right-extremism. To do that, of course, they will have to back some restrictions on abortion in some states — which some seem very reluctant to do — and even allow some diversity of opinion within their own ranks. There are forces aiming to prevent that — forces that Biden could confront if he hadn’t long been beaten into learned helplessness. But surely someone can take the initiative. So let’s stop the hyperventilation and get back to democracy. Persuade people, if you can. Get them out to vote. Stop demonizing those you disagree with and compromise with them in office, however difficult that may be. What Roe did was kickstart the extreme cultural polarization that has defined and blighted the last few decades of American politics. Maybe the end of Roe can mark the beginning of a return to living together, and negotiating a way to make that bearable. The center, in other words, is now wide open. Will anyone — anyone — occupy it?"
Because abortion has been coming up quite a bit lately (for obvious reasons), I thought I'd suggest an article topic: In a previous article, Josh more or less said that while he favors abortion rights, he's not 100% on "whether embryos and fetuses have relevant moral interests." I've always loved articles / essays where the writer starts with a question, and then spends the essay trying to answer it for him/herself. I would be interested in Josh side-stepping the politics of abortion (which he's said himself is an easier topic) and diving into the weeds of what makes it moral / immoral -- not just in terms of the rights of the embryos, but in terms of the impacts of outlawing it.
Abortion is another one of those issues where (even more than most) the two sides are simply talking past one another, never really addressing what the other is saying. E.g. Pro-choice activists don't tend to address limits on abortion, and anti-abortion activists don't tend address the issue that outlawing abortion doesn't actually make it go away, but less safe. I'd like to hear from Josh, specifically, because he seems at least somewhat on the fence here, but also because he's got a kind of heterodox approach to things in general.
Anyway, just a thought. With all that said, I liked todays article a lot as well.
You could side step that whole discussion and just focus on whether have the choice to have abortion makes women and society better or worse off. The pro-choice argument is obvious, the anti-choice argument is either that making a child a choice reduces willingness to support mothers (your choice, your cost) and the conservative argument that choice undermines structures which are socially stabilizing (marriage, families, extended family). A very serious conversation about social impact is more amusing than an intractable philosophical debate.
“It’s just reinforcing the party’s transformation into a loser coalition for people with ill-advised masters degrees.” You NAILED it…so frustrating…
It is a little too spicy to attach one's legal name to this take, but... isn't this kind of a broader problem of Dem worship of black women specifically? The VP and the only SCOTUS justice Biden will appoint were chosen largely because they were black women. I see the same pattern by some blue state governors; to use an example, NJ Governor Phil Murphy also has a black woman as Lt. Governor and appointed a black woman to the state supreme court. Black women head the NJ Department of State, Department of Education, and Civil Service Commission. I am not suggesting that all (or any!) of these individuals are undeserving, but it certainly seems like a concerted effort.
Black women are the backbone of the party. I don't object to striving for a representative cabinet, and that often requires using demographics as something more than a tiebreaker. But when it plays such a significant role in decisionmaking, I can't help but think it's detrimental.
Substituting meritocracy, even imperfect meritocracy, for identitarian deference does not strengthen institutions.
I don’t think Kamala was the ideal person, but it’s not substantively different than picking a VP because they’re from the south or whatever, or the GOP choosing Clarence Thomas because he was a Black man. There are a lot of qualified people and I think choosing people for political reasons is as old as time. The problem is when you choose badly (for what it’s worth I think the recent Supreme Court pick looks great, while Kamala is not great).
Love u Josh. This is spot on, especially “circle-jerk”. Everyone nodding, “ yeah, just say your pro abortion, let’s get T-shirts made”!
I agree this is entirely stupid, but so much in today's politics is stupid that this didn't stand out. but for what it's worth (which is very little) I favor changing the name to pro-abortion, and those against abortion should be anti-abortion. Then everyone understands where everyone stands. Choice vs life is a meaningless debate. Take a similar issue, gay marriage. You were either pro gay marriage or anti gay marriage. It wasn't called pro-sanctity vs pro-fairness or whatever. If it's an issue you care about, you should be comfortable saying what you mean.
I think prolifers would love it if prochoice advocates started calling themselves pro-abortion. Don't hand your opponents easy messaging wins
You might be right, but my point is that both sides need to clarify their stance. I agree that pro-choice is fuzzier than pro-life, but they're both pretty fuzzy. I don't think anti-abortion is a winner over pro-life either. Both are dumb and distracting from the issue at hand.
Because it’s an incredibly complicated moral issue, especially with todays technology. I’m pro life, but I support exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother. That’s a “ fuzzy” position. It’s not a 💯 pro life. But for me, one that I’m comfortable supporting.
See, I think the median voter is kind of muddled and conflicted on the issue so embracing muddled and conflicted language would be appealing.
I think that’s a bad idea. I personally know several women who have said “I’m not pro-abortion but I am pro-choice”. Why unnecessarily alienate them?
Look, I get it, and my point is probably too academic and not real world. But pro choice just means I can have coffee or tea. it has nothing to do with abortion until it became a marketing slogan. And these women who say they are pro choice really are pro-abortion, not in the sense that they want every fetus aborted of course, but in the sense that they want it to be available. Similarly, anti abortion advocates aren't really pro life, they are pro life in the specific situation where an abortion is being considered. it's identical to being pro or anti birth control or interracial marriage. why can't we say what we mean when it comes to abortion? You're either for it or against it. people who are pro birth control don't mean you have to use it all the time, they mean it should be available. It's identical to abortion. We just feel the need to hide behind meaningless slogans when it comes to abortion.
Whether it's fair or not, sloganeering is a big part of politics...and "Pro-Abortion" is really, really, really bad slogan.
Changing a slogan to something a large majority of your advocacy will abandon is a pretty bad way to get political wins.
It's also not true! Lots of people favor legalized abortions but do not think abortions are good!
That's why people would abandon it. Like me.
David French over at the Dispatch mentions (every chance he gets) that the plurality of Americans - including those who are pro-choice - do not see abortion as a desirable outcome. So if your party slogan is "buy one abortion, get one free", you're probably not gonna get many votes.
I am pro choice. I am pro access to abortion. I am pro abortion being legal. I am not pro abortion; I am deeply conflicted about abortion even though I am 100% sure that it should be legal in at least some circumstances. While I agree that current labels are a little silly, I refuse to identify myself as pro abortion.
It is outright good when two gay people who love each other choose to secure the rest of their lives together. Nearly every abortion is a least-bad option, a later offramp than would have been desirable. It is hard to take your comment credibly that these two issues are similar.
The issue isn't the issue. Instead of gay marriage, make it war, you can be pro war or anti war, and everyone knows where you stand on a war, or pro or anti stem cell research, etc etc etc. I don't care what issue you choose, I just think these marketing euphemisms just hide what you're really arguing about and confuse the issue. But I really don't care if you find me credible.
Based.