Culture vs. economics: Huckabee's challenge

So, is Huckabee a Harry Truman Republican?

What is most aggrivating for me is that any national radio or tv broadcast station reduces Huckabee's supporters to simply "Evangelicals", as if its a homogenous political club.

Indeed, I think Rick Warren (The Purpose Driven Life) has it right, saying "My greatest regret is that for many people today, "evangelical" is a political term. I'm sad about that. It doesn't represent a political view, it represents a view of God."

(hat tip to http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/12/american_is_rea.html)

I'm not an "Evangelical", at least by the standards of 21st Century Evangelical Christianity, but I can still be excited about Huckabee. It's the politics of the man that sets him apart from the otherwise inferior crop of GOP candidates.

I really don't see how this is any different from "compassionate conservatism." In Huckabee's case, there's simply no content to his policies, all of which seem to be poorly considered reactions to something sad in the world.

Joel's comment on the kookiness of Huckabee's statement on energy policy highlights my point. Our long-term solution to our dependence on imported oil is not going to be found in being "free of energy consumption," but rather some combination of *reduced* energy consumption (through self-discipline and improvements in efficiency) and alternative sources for energy. That combination has a complicated solution, many pieces of which are not yet visible on the horizon.

Huckabee's statement completely ignores the complexity the problem. It's unreasonable to expect the President, acting alone, to come up with solutions. Rather, the position calls for an attitude that leads to policies that support the development of a solution.

What we don't see in Huckabee is the philosophical awareness needed to do this.

"I really don't see how this is any different from "compassionate conservatism."

In other words, "Meet the New Boss / Same as the Old Boss."

Huckabee's two-week transformation on immigration speaks volumes about both his values.

Daniel, although I suspect we probably disagree on every aspect of the immigration issue, I'm inclined to agree with you on this point. I'm skeptical that his carbon-copying of Krikorian et al's immigration policy is anything more than window-dressing.

I'm not too concerned with Huck's knowledge of energy issues. He was president of the IOGCC (Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission)for 2 years as governor. And I believe they dealt with the development of cutting edge solutions to improve energy efficiency. But I have no way of knowing if it's a corrupt group. I seem to remember something done by 60 Minutes?

I AM however seriously concerned that he might now be buddy buddy with those same oil and gas people who've gotten us into the mess in Iraq. I'm not looking for another president who's a good friend to the oil and gas industry.

AND my impression of the 'new'Minutemen from over here in New England, is that they were a bunch of kooks loosely affiliated with the Montana militias. So I did NOT see that endorsement as a positive.

for the right, it raises the question of whether the culture war that so many conservatives have embraced as a political cause is really what they care about, or if, in the end, it was just a useful set of slogans and attitudes to mask a pro-business agenda.

If conservatives haven't asked that question by now despite decades of evidence, they are unlikely to start asking it in the future.

Why are people even considering a guy who is blisteringly ignorant of the most important issues at hand? Are we really that desperate?

If by 'we' you mean 'the Republican party'...um, yeah. You guys really are that desperate. Not your fault, you were presented with horrible choices.

Huckabee's two-week transformation on immigration speaks volumes about both his values.

It shows he actually got a 'handler' or started listening to an existing one. Too bad. He was actually interesting, if somewhat less than knowledgeable about stuff.

For quite some time, I've been saying that 'socially conservative' Christians should abandon the right (and the issue of abortion, which will never get anywhere) and move to the left and try to get people like Huckabee there. 'Progressivism' with a Christian backdrop, like it started out with.

And, with Huckabee, it actually sorta looked like one was going to win on the right. Which would demonstrate I was wrong about the Christians needing to leave the right, but be very nice if we ended up with two parties who thought a legitimate function of the government was to help people as much as the population is willing to help them, instead of one crying 'socialism' and 'government stealing our money' at every turn. We could have nice long debates about how to help people and how to prevent abuses and what our ultimate goals are and whatnot.

Sadly, it apparently was pointed out to him that he was not acting insane enough for the right's base, and needed to start doing some crazy stuff. As he's moral enough that he can't argue for torturing more people or bombing more places, he had to pick ranting about immigration.

For all this talk about culture wars vs. conservative economics, it does seem the one and only thing Republicans agree on this year (now that Huck has converted) is to be brutal on immigration issues.

For all I know, this may be the right short-term policy, given our lack of border security in an era rife with terrorists, some of whom have tragically already attacked America.

In the long run politically, as Karl Rove has pointed out, it could lead to the very elimination of the Republican Party. (And given Latino demographics, "long run" could be as little as 30-40 years.)

Given what could replace the Republicans (an American "Christian Democratic" Party?), what should be a thought of glee for me is hardly the case. (Besides the fact that some Democrats could shift to the new party in the realignment.)

Maybe you are right, but he can't get elected. The country has an entirely different view of Baptist preachers than Baptists do. Sorry Rod, but it is true. I am not attacking them en masse, just in this one particular case. I don't think I could ever vote for the man because of the division he has encouraged between Evangelicals and Mormons and by extension, most of the rest of the nation. You just can't use religion as a test of worthiness for the presidency. It splits the country too badly. It is important to acknowledge God as a private source of strength. But when you start making people fear you will use your own private brand of religion as a guide for conducting official business, people get scared. The world is full of examples of how that thinking has lead to disaster. Most of the country believes Bush's religious views got us into Iraq. Remember? If Huck is nominated it will be a Democrat landslide, maybe of monumental proportions. Bill and Hillary certainly think so. And I am inclined to agree.

There was and never has been anything progressive about Bush's economic and tax policies. Let's start there. Your second paragraph completely contradicts your first statement.

Huckabee actually specifically repudiates No Child Left Behind.

My more formal argument on it I published a week ago: http://vox-nova.com/2007/12/06/maybe-its-not-the-compassionate-conservatism/

I don't address immigration, but I do address the presciption drug benefit that is often mentioned.

FYI, the unabreviated Atlantic article to which Rod linked, on the impact of cultural issues on American politics, is available here: http://www.mywire.com/pubs/TheAtlantic/2003/01/01/377113?page=1.

There is nothing anti-conservative to a prescription drug benefit for elderly folks; I could actually make a conservative argument for it. It does violate libertarian biases however, and libertarianism is the supposed authentic conservatism. If one happens to believe as I do that there is a very real difference between libertarianism and conservatism, then it is very frustrating to have everything that isn't the former called "compassionate conservatism." "Compassionate conservatism" was actually very limited.

Mr. Forrest, I liked your distinction between Huckabee and "...the three establishment candidates running as a competent Bush." [copying disabled on the website, may not be verbatim] I also share your amusement in the lack of attention being paid to it.

From my POV, and having observed the legislative process from the receiving end (I was an ERISA and pension law professional in my first career), I would oversimplify the cases as follows:

Conservatives tend to take a counter-intuitive* approach to social issues.

Liberals tend to take an intuitive** approach.

That conservatives are capable of producing intuitive legislation, and liberals counter-intuitive, is just a hair-pulling commentary on the quid pro quo method of governance in the US. I hasten to add that both sides are capable of passing bad legislation, regardless of the motivation behind it.

* One size fits all.
** Micromanaging the details.

;-D

I think a major difference between Huckabee and Bush is that Huckabee's highest allegiance is not to the UBER-Rich.

"Besides Daniel, how would you know conservatism if it has landed on your head?
Assuming that you still have a head."

You must be fun at parties.

I should have said "face an uphill challenge to change things?"

The problem is social conservatives are also really tired of the Halliburton-loving/Pro(any corrupt)Lobbyist//Katrina Mismanaging/Pre-emptive Iraq war promulgating/Big Spending/dollar deflating/Skyrocketing Cost-of-living creating Current Republican administration.

And some of us are questioning whether getting the Roberts appointment as Chief Justice was/is sufficient enough of an accomplishment for Pro-lifers to move on to other serious issues.

[If only the Democrats didn't hate orthodox church goers so much. It'd be easier to do.]

This is the problem isn't it? We each are convinced members of the "other side" in the abstract not only disagree with us, they actually hate us.

Jim - your words bring to mind a recent post by George Friedman:

"Let me provide my definition of civility, which is also my definition of a civilized society. It is the state in which human beings can hold views sincerely while being open to the possibility that their views might in error. The converse of that view is to be open to the possibility that the other person is right. These days, the most prized emotional standpoint is passionate conviction. My view is the most prized stance is cautious conviction, a conviction that can be changed. What goes with that is attributing the best motives to those you disagree with, not the worst, barring evidence to the contrary."

Methinks a nontrivial proportion of those engaging in political discourse nowadays would do well to take this concept to heart.

I don't mean to paint everyone with a broad brush. I came to the Democratic campaign with an open mind because I was against the War.

These were just a couple of many anti-catholic, anti-christian slurs I experienced while working on the last Democratic Presidential campaign. And those were tame. People just assumed everyone was on the same page about faith and they weren't afraid to slam faithful people. The bigotry was fairly openly expressed esp. in the Kerry camp. And I don't recall anyone ever objecting to it. Not sure why I stayed.

The best example I've seen this campaign cycle was when an Edwards staffer was forced to resign last Feb after posting some really vile hatred about Catholics on a website. Originally Elizabeth E. wanted to let her off with a warning. Open bigotry does lead one to think they're hated solely for the groups they belong to.

NOTE:The only campaign I've visited this time is Obama and I haven't experienced the bigotry at all. Maybe his staff knows better.

I think that's right.

Socially conservative Christians believe that abortion is murder, and a brutal form of murder at that. Considering said belief, how in the world would it make any sense for them to abandon this issue, even though they clearly face an uphill challenge to do so?

Because it's actually a belief derived from misunderstandings and paganism, from plant fertility cult religion.

Judaism rejects the 'traditional' (i.e. syncretic) Christian doctrine that abortion is murder outright. Scripture does as well: sanctioned use of an abortifacient is described in Numbers 5:11-29.

I think the fact that the left won't abandon their positions on things like abortion and gay marriage to attract social conservatives who are more to the left on economics shows how the priorities of the left have changed since the late 1960s from helping the poor to defending the sexual revolution.

If it weren't those two issues, social conservatives would simply dig up others to maintain a barrier and assertion of moral objection and superiority against the spiritual egalitarianism of Modernity. Social conservative doctrine is, after all, at bottom based in selfcongratulatory and selfserving beliefs of demonic possession to explain painful racial/ethnic/tribal/religious differences, criminality, sociopathy, homosexuality, mental illness, nonconformity or insubordination, desertion of the tribe/clan, and (of course) atheism or liberalism.

'The Left' hasn't changed its priorities. The American political landscape simply changed in the Seventies in a way such that social issues have to be settled before economic issues can be settled. Look at the wonderful efficacy of social 'wedge issues', whose real utility to conservatives has been to derail efforts to make economic changes.

In U.S. history there's a quite logical sequence, repeated about every 75 years, of Major War ended > Constitutional amendments or permanent Constitutional doctrine changes are implemented > permanent social changes are made > permanent economic changes are made > minimum ethical standards in government and public life ratchet up. We're now a few years from the end of the phase that began roughly coincident with Pearl Harbor, 66 years ago. If the previous cycle was a good model for the present one, we may well be at the equivalent of (1865+66)1931 in the way the politics work out.

"Because it's actually a belief derived from misunderstandings and paganism, from plant fertility cult religion."

But why would that make it a false belief? I'm sure plant fertility cult religious practitioners know a lot more about plants and fertility than the average stock broker.

Jillian's biblical argument has been responded to ad nauseum. In fact, I did so myself in a 1991 piece: "A Critical Appraisal of the Theological Arguments for Abortion Rights," Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (July-September 1991): 337-355.

You can find it on my website at the bottom of this page: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/downloads.htm

I've had occasion to see with my own eyes on 2 occasions,the ultrasounds of 5 week old human embryos (aka beating grains of rice).

I've also had the chance to see those little beating grains later at their 1st birthday parties. Choose to accept it or not. Abortion extinguishes a human life.

Or as a fearless politically incorrect teenager once emblazoned on his radical t-shirt.
"Abortion is Homicide. Deal with it."

Reader Johnny Come Lately catching up here.

Joel | December 12, 2007 10:21 AM: Why are people even considering a guy who is blisteringly ignorant of the most important issues at hand? Are we really that desperate?

We’re also considering a patent creep who said in a prior run for Vice President that if Dubya hadn’t blocked stem cell research (which, of course, never happened - and maybe Edwards said "blocked federal funding"), Christopher Reeve would be alive and dancing the limbo today. Ignorant demagoguery is the political rule, not the exception. I prefer Huckabee’s to Edwards’ (which may be no more than damning Huckabee with faint praise).

************************

rr | December 12, 2007 3:34 PM: I think the fact that the left won't abandon their positions on things like abortion and gay marriage to attract social conservatives who are more to the left on economics shows how the priorities of the left have changed since the late 1960s from helping the poor to defending the sexual revolution ….

Amen to that. The Democrats lost their way in 1972 and haven’t regained it. But the expansion of the Democrat tent in their 2006 congressional success is a hopeful sign.

************************

Sheilagh | December 12, 2007 6:34 PM: And 4 years ago, when I was a John Edwards supporter, b/c noone was running against GW, I heard US congressional staffers mocking those 'crazy' evangelicals….

This may be a bit off the exchange Sheilagh and Jim were enjoying (?), but as an ex-Evangelical, I can see a lot that is crazy there – more every additional year I’m away, actually. I try to be as tolerant of Huckabee's evangelicalism as I am of Romney's Mormonism.

************************

DavidTC | December 12, 2007 7:40 PM: You probably were thinking I was exaggerating when I said abortion 'will never get anywhere'. You thought I meant 'in a reasonable amount of time' or 'without a lot of work that the Republican party is not willing to do'.

It's an easy mistake, but I actually meant that literally. It. Will. Never. Get. Anywhere. Abortion will never be outlawed, at least not to any major extent or over any significant amount of time. Without Roe v. Wade, a few states might step in for a few months, but I urge you to look at South Dakota and what happened there….

One vote in South Dakota when passage would have created another constitutional test case (at considerable expense to the voters and with no realistic chance of success at that time) tells me nothing about what can literally … never happen. But if I thought DavidTC was correct, it would be gratifying to have the Court reverse itself and return the issue to the political process where it belongs (and where I tend to agree that it take “a lot of work the Republican party is not willing to do.”).

Huckabee strikes me as a man enamored with the worst sorts of nanny-statism. He's spoke approvingly of the NYC transfat ban and has called for a nationwide ban on public smoking. His every speech on social issues seems based on the premise that "I know what's best for you".

Great. An even more condescending version of W.

How did this get to be an abortion discussion?

OF COURSE Huckabee opposes abortion. He's a Baptist preacher. Ipso facto.

But actually, in that sense, it may make pro-choicers MORE, not less, comfortable with Huck. At least they know his stance is out of genuine religious faith instead of political convenience or a desire to repress women.

quote: "As was pointed out by MI, this is somewhat a goofy analogy, as it is possible that slavery never would have been outlawed without half the country wandering off and the remaining half quickly outlawing it while they were gone. (And thus I win the 'Most flippant way to describe the deaths of 600,000 people and tearing the country in half' award.)"

Me: Of course I realize that it took a very dramatic event, i.e. the Civil War to sway the country to ban slavery. That being said, my point still stands. In 1848, the American public, both North and South, wasn't remotely interested in outlawing slavery. The notion an amendment would be added to the Constitution outlawing slavery would have been laughed at by most.

quote: "However, more to the point, outlawing slavery was something that all of western civilization had drifted towards for over 400 years at that point. It's worth pointing out that even the founders knew slavery would be outlawed, which is why they rigged the Constitution to disallow it until a certain date, I forget what date. Anyone who thought it was 'hopeless' in 1848 simply wasn't paying attention."

This is hardly the case, as scholarship of the African Diaspora clearly shows. The Transatlantic slave trade didn't start declining until the early 19th century, and some of the heaviest trading occurred towards the end. Moreover, slavery was quite profitable until the later part of the nineteenth century. Brazil only abolished slavery in 1888, a move that was ironically driven by slave owners who no longer saw slavery as profitable.

quote: "Whereas outlawing abortion is something that all of western civilization has been drifting away from for about 40. This is, not coincidentally, basically the entire time abortion's been a medically safe procedure. The second it stopped being incredibly dangerous for women, the second it was likely to kill only the embryo, the tide started turning and within a few decades it was legal in a good 98% of the world."

Me: Yes, western civilization has largely been drifting away from outlawing abortion in the last 40 years. But things have begun public support for abortion has begun to wane in the United States in the last decade or so (the 2007 CBS poll on the article you cite gives 47% wanting it outlawed in most cases), and technology (advanced ultrasounds, care for premature babies, etc.), not to mention low birth rates in Europe, may change views on this in the future. It may not happen, but I don't think it is quiet as impossible or inevitable as you suggest.

quote: "But I don't really care how you 'fight' it, as long as you accept it will never be illegal. The minute you accept that is the minute you, and many other Christians, stop voting for anyone, no matter how morally depraved, who calls themselves 'pro-life'."

Me: I do think abortion can be fought outside of the political arena, and it certainly isn't just a political issue. That is why I give money to crisis pregnancy centers, who easily have done more good than the GOP has on this issue. But still, I'll never accept the legality of abortion, and I suspect neither will my fellow Christians. Murder is murder, and supporting abortion is many, many times more depraved than all of Bush's terrible mistakes like Iraq. Sorry, but in my book "pro-choice"=automatic disqualification from public office. And yes, if Guilani gets the GOP nomination I'll either stay home or vote third party.
Of course, as Reader John has said, the Republicans often like to talk a good talk about abortion, while doing little about it. That's a real problem, but the Democrats are firmly wedded to supporting abortion, so they simply aren't an option.

rr

RR,

...if I was an atheist I wouldn't care about morality. But since I am a Christian I do care.

With the periodic claims/complaints about Christian haters, I respectfully ask you to look in the mirror and ask yourself the following question:

Will I ever trust a non-Christian?

I know plenty of atheists who are moral people. I know plenty of Christians who are immoral people (unless you also insist that despite their immoral acts, they remain moral by confessing and repenting).

Or, you could claim the standard restatement of your quoted text: a person claiming to be Christian really isn't if he acts immorally.

Trust is a two-way street.

Me: Of course I realize that it took a very dramatic event, i.e. the Civil War to sway the country to ban slavery. That being said, my point still stands. In 1848, the American public, both North and South, wasn't remotely interested in outlawing slavery. The notion an amendment would be added to the Constitution outlawing slavery would have been laughed at by most.

Slavery was not outlawed via a constitutional amendment. Slavery was (mostly) outlawed by executive order, the 'Emancipation Proclamation'.

This is hardly the case, as scholarship of the African Diaspora clearly shows. ... Brazil only abolished slavery in 1888, a move that was ironically driven by slave owners who no longer saw slavery as profitable.

Brazil is not 'western civilization'. Brazil was, and to some extent still is, a weird mix of European and native civilization. The US, although a New World colony, was much more European in thought than anywhere else (except Canada). Slavery fell, basically, in the order of 'Europeanness'.

It was a clear and steady progression, and so obvious it was going to happen that the Constitution actually contains a provision it couldn't happen before 1808. I.e, at the time of the writing of the constitution in 1797, there was a question if slavery would make it another twenty years. Which was reasonable, as England had outlawed it within England itself (But not the colonies) in 1772.

I know the US doesn't really want to think about this, and I too heard lies in school about how it was a few brave Americans who stood up to slavery and cause it to be go away, with no mention as to how we were behind everyone who could vaguely be considered 'our peers' and that England had decided slavery was unlawful before we left. It's a little story we tell ourselves, how 'no one' in the entire world realized there was anything wrong with slavery until, suddenly, half our nation got religion and outlawed it, but that is just a story.

So outlawing slavery was not some magic spark that appeared out of nowhere that you can hope will happen for abortion. It was an inexorable tide that western civilization had been fighting since the Enlightenment, and the US, thanks to a unique national structure of state and federal rights, managed to fight it so long it snapped in half when it happened.

Abortion isn't anything like that. If anything, it's going the other way.

Yes, western civilization has largely been drifting away from outlawing abortion in the last 40 years. But things have begun public support for abortion has begun to wane in the United States in the last decade or so (the 2007 CBS poll on the article you cite gives 47% wanting it outlawed in most cases), and technology (advanced ultrasounds, care for premature babies, etc.), not to mention low birth rates in Europe, may change views on this in the future. It may not happen, but I don't think it is quiet as impossible or inevitable as you suggest.

Abortion polling is one of those things that makes no sense. You get different answers depending on what questions you ask. 66% support it in the first trimester yet 47% be opposed to it except in cases of rape or incest. Hrm.

And, I'm sorry, but 5% of people do not think that a mother should be forced to die to stop an abortion, especially considering that in 95% of those cases, the child will die also. No one thinks that, even the most pro-life person in the world thinks it's better to almost certainly save the mother then to maybe save the child, it is a nonsensical crazy belief, yet it's polling at 5%.

What is actually happening here is that people have repeatedly and consistently been misinformed by the GOP about when and what kind of abortions happen in this country. (Ironically, I actually wrote some about this in my last post, but deleted it as it was getting too long.)

People on the right then turn around and say 'Hey, look at all the people who want abortions to be more tightly regulated', when what some of them actually mean is they don't want third trimester 'partial birth abortions'. People have internalized the idea that many abortion rules 'are too lax', and oppose them being 'too lax', without ever quite knowing what these rules are.

Don't presume that these people want to outlaw abortion. They want to outlaw the mythological excessive late-term abortions that they have been told are happening. (And the 5% is because people have been misinformed that doctors pretend that abortions can be 'medically necessary' for mental health reasons, and thus get around time rules.)

When actually asked about specific times, requiring a bit of knowledge and no PR to answer, people are mostly okay with the first trimester, and somewhat okay with the second. Like I said, somewhere between 12-20 weeks, probably varying by state.

quote: "Slavery was not outlawed via a constitutional amendment. Slavery was (mostly) outlawed by executive order, the 'Emancipation Proclamation'."

Me: No, this is incorrect (sorry, I'm a historian by profession, and have just finished grading my exams, where details like this were important). The Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime measure that ONLY freed slaves in the states in rebellion against the union. Hence, border states like Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, West Virginia, and Maryland were not affected. Slavery was not finally outlawed until, as I said, an amendment was added to the constitution.

quote: "Brazil is not 'western civilization'. Brazil was, and to some extent still is, a weird mix of European and native civilization. The US, although a New World colony, was much more European in thought than anywhere else (except Canada). Slavery fell, basically, in the order of 'Europeanness'.
It was a clear and steady progression, and so obvious it was going to happen that the Constitution actually contains a provision it couldn't happen before 1808. I.e, at the time of the writing of the constitution in 1797, there was a question if slavery would make it another twenty years. Which was reasonable, as England had outlawed it within England itself (But not the colonies) in 1772."

Me: It depends on who you ask concerning Brazil and "western civilization," but I won't argue with you on this. Nonetheless, my point stands that "western civilization" wasn't moving away from slavery in the 400 years before the Civil War. The British and French were making a lot of money off the slave trade and were heavily involved in it up until they started moving away from it in 1807. Slavery also became increasingly unprofitable in the Caribbean (where it was much more important than in the United States) as the nineteenth century wore on. For the United States though, yes, it was moving towards abolishing slavery in the very early days of the republic. The invention of the cotton gin, however, changed all that.
One could argue that slavery would have, in time, become unprofitable in the South. But it wasn't moving away from it quiet in the manner you describe.

quote: "So outlawing slavery was not some magic spark that appeared out of nowhere that you can hope will happen for abortion. It was an inexorable tide that western civilization had been fighting since the Enlightenment, and the US, thanks to a unique national structure of state and federal rights, managed to fight it so long it snapped in half when it happened."

Me: Well, I should say that I don't believe in notions "historical progress," or that much of anything in history is "inexorable." The Enlightenment's record with respect to slavery is also a mixed one.
Of course outlawing slavery did not happen with some "magic spark" that appeared out of nowhere. It took a major crisis, the breakdown of the union and the Civil War (plus a northern victory) to do this.

quote: "Abortion isn't anything like that. If anything, it's going the other way."

Me: I don't think it is "going the other way." Polls show younger people are more pro-life today than in the past. But even if it is "going the other way," there is no reason why it couldn't turn around. This would take time, and perhaps even a major change in technology or a political crisis of some sort. But it could happen.

quote: "Abortion polling is one of those things that makes no sense. You get different answers depending on what questions you ask. 66% support it in the first trimester yet 47% be opposed to it except in cases of rape or incest. Hrm."

Me: I agree with you here. The polls often don't make much sense. Polls frequently show wide disapproval of abortion, with some showing majorities believing that abortion is murder. But you're right that majorities don't support making it illegal in the first trimester.
Perhaps the public simply doesn't want to face the issue head on. If Roe v. Wade were overturned and the issue was returned to the states, this would likely change, as could possibly the dynamic of the entire debate on this issue.
I could be wrong on all this. But we simply won't know until abortion is returned to the people to make decisions on its legality through their duly elected state legislatures instead of unelected judges calling the shots.

rr

P.S. I'm not sure how much more time, if any, I can continue to devote to this conversation.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime measure that ONLY freed slaves in the states in rebellion against the union. ...

I know that, I was trying to not make my posts as absurdly long. The point is that slavery was mostly outlawed by fiat, not via the electoral process. Even the amendment was passed at gunpoint.

But it wasn't moving away from it quiet in the manner you describe.

400 years is probably an exaggerating, but 100 years isn't. But, anyway, the point I'm making is that abolishing slavery was something that was expected from the very founding of the US as the whole world was moving that way, whereas that is not so with abortion.

And, on top of that, because of our unique government structure, we're even resistant if that actually was happening, as evidenced with what happened with slavery. (That's not the only example. We've refused to sign on with the ICC, although I don't wish to get into that right now. In general, we have a serious case of 'not invented here', due to 150 years or so of general isolation, whereas the rest of the modern world is used to continually interacting with each other and exchanging ideas.)

I can imagine a world-wide push to outlaw abortion that eventually results in a constitutional crisis in the US or an amendment passed over the threat of secession, or even an actual shooting civil war. But that is not the world we live in, and it is a not a foreseeable future of this world.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned and the issue was returned to the states, this would likely change, as could possibly the dynamic of the entire debate on this issue.

Oh, I'm sure it would, although, I suspect, in entirely the opposite direction you think it would, and I have no objection to Roe v. Wade being overturned regardless. I actually think it would be a good thing on general principles, as that's an idiotic court decision. (If the courts want to argue that we have the right to do whatever we want to our own body, I'd like someone to explain exactly how they get off outlawing certain drugs.)

However, that's not the issue. The issue is that a good 20-30% of the population have been supporting a party that is allowed to do anything, up to and including torturing people, simply because they are 'pro-life', when that issue is simply never going to get resolved the way they want it. Ever. There are problems they could actually make a difference in solving if they'd bother to spend any political capital on them, but nooooo.

Like, for a truly horrible example, the mentally ill being forced to live on the streets. Thanks to Reagan and his 'pro-life' stance.

Watching pro-lifers is like watching someone spend ten dollars on scratch-off lottery tickets when they owe you $50. Yeah, if by some chance, they won, they could pay you back entirely, but that doesn't actually make it useful behavior.

The Republicans had their chance to outlaw abortion. 25 years or so. Obviously they either can't or won't do it. Why don't you pick some other single issue, for five years, like, oh, stopping mentally ill people from freezing to death in the streets, and see if the Democrats can do that?

Or, wait, I have a better single issue. Why not see if we can get someone who will stop the US from randomly invading other countries on false pretenses?

The Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime measure that ONLY freed slaves in the states in rebellion against the union. Hence, border states like Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, West Virginia, and Maryland were not affected. Slavery was not finally outlawed until, as I said, an amendment was added to the constitution.

[I’m not a historian by trade; any corrections to the following are welcome.]

The E-P was indeed a wartime measure, whose legality (IIRC) was highly questionable at the time. As I understand it, one purpose of the Thirteenth was to “ratify” the E-P, thereby ensuring that (say) the Supreme Court didn’t strike it down at a later date (as occurred with Ex Parte Milligan, for instance).

However, I think my larger point - that the abolition of slavery by 1865 absent the occurrence of the Civil War – still stands. As Simon pointed out, prior to 1861 passage of anything like the Thirteenth was politically impossible; see, for example, the Corwin Amendment. For that matter, a war to “free the slaves” was probably equally impolitic, at least in 1861; if northerners hadn’t been so gung-ho about the sanctity of the Union, they probably would’ve let the South leave in peace. But as the Civil War continued, northerners concluded en masse that slavery was the war’s root cause – and that as such, the only way to prevent a recurrence of war was to abolish slavery – so they enacted the Thirteenth Amendment. Then they imposed it on the South at gunpoint via conquest & Reconstruction, and the rest is history.

One can certainly make the case that, absent the Civil War, slavery could still have been abolished (peacefully) sometime between 1848 and the present day; but if one wishes to validly analogize between outlawing slavery & outlawing abortion, one must first make that case. It’s not enough to simply say, “If we abolished slavery, why can’t we abolish abortion?”

sig:

I second your motion :-)

On the other hand, what we could do is allow women only to vote in this hypothetical referendum, in return for allowing only men to vote in the next presidential election.

"Try again."

No need to. All necessary questions have been answered; the feminist kool-aid has apparently claimed another victim, alas.

"All I'm asking is that women be the ones to decide. Why does that alarm you?"

Simple: As I said above, I do not believe that abortion is a 'women only' issue. Women may be more 'pro-life' than men -- I really don't know. But that's of no import to the question at hand, which is one of principle.

A contemporary comment on slavery and the Constitution:

The Federalist No. 42: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed42.htm

It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren! Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.

-- From the New York Packet. Tuesday, January 22, 1788. James Madison

Just a few more questions for you, Rob G., if you feel like answering them. Because I'm not sure that I have understood what you meant to say. You give two reasons why men should have equal jurisdiction over pregnancies.

A] 50% of the unborn children in question are male You seem to be saying that, if I have conceived a male fetus, you, as a completely unrelated male adult, have some kind of stake in this process simply because both you and the fetus have a Y chromosome. That makes no sense to me, so I'm thinking that maybe this is not what you really intended to convey. Could you perhaps explain this?

B] the unborn children in question most of the time have fathers. This makes slightly more sense, if one assumes that the pregnancy occurred via cooperative effort with a man who was committed to creating and supporting the resulting child. However, in such a case, it seems to me that a man would not have anything to fear from the woman's decision. She would want a child as much as he did. And if she did have second thoughts about continuing the pregnancy, it hardly seems that the correct response from him would be "Well, you're stuck with it because abortion is illegal and I'll have you thrown in jail if you won't bear my child! So HA!" Hardly a good foundation for a happy family life.

More commonly, a man has sex with a woman with no intention or wish to have a child, no intention or means of supporting one. Should he then have control over the woman's actions because he irresponsibly made her pregnant? You seem to be saying that he should--indeed, that men in general rightfully have the final say in whether a woman bears a child. That doesn't seem reasonable, so I invite you to explain how I've misread your statement.

Now I realize that neither of these facts mean anything to a lot of feminists and their self-loathing male fellow-travelers

Again, you haven't made your thoughts altogether clear. Are you saying that feminists don't love 50% of their children? Or that feminists by definition have little care for the fathers of their children? That would surprise my husband and sons . . . . You also seem to be saying that all male friends of feminists hate themselves. Again, that would be rather puzzling to most of my friends. I'm trying to put a charitable construction on this and imagine that you are actually trying to convey meaning here, rather than being gratuitously insulting. Perhaps you spoke hastily and meant something different from what has come across to me . . .?

I've had occasion to see with my own eyes on 2 occasions,the ultrasounds of 5 week old human embryos (aka beating grains of rice).

I've also had the chance to see those little beating grains later at their 1st birthday parties. Choose to accept it or not. Abortion extinguishes a human life.

The less magical thinking-based interpretation of your experience is that of the ultrasound machine used as a crystal ball, to see a Higher Plane in which all is preformed and already known/made.

Then there’s the doctrine of analogy, that the person you see before you is the same thing as what you saw in the crystal ball.

And then there’s the doctrine of willpower, of assertion creating reality and certainty.

Hmmm. You’ve illustrated rather well all three doctrines of occultic belief systems of Eliphas Levi. No wonder you know things no one else can claim certainty of.

In my opinion, your last sentence should properly read “Abortion extinguishes a potential human life”.

Sigaliris, would you also favor a national referendum on welfare and only allow taxpayers to vote? Call me crazy, but I think there'd be some constitutional problems with that.

DavidTC, did it ever occur to you that maybe abortion will prove to be its own undoing? After all, tribes that kill their young tend not to survive (see http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277).