Fred Clark's posted something I agree with on the reasons why Republicans keep winning elections, in spite of the fact that the nation keeps getting less peaceful and less prosperous under their rule.
Of course, I nearly always agree with Fred Clark, but in this case, he's saying what I wanted to say after I read that book.
It's amazing how many liberals really don't understand. They think these pro-life voters are really anti-sex, or anti-woman, or anti-progress, or that it's a class thing (Tom Frank's argument) or a religious stricture, not having abortions, like keeping kosher if you're Jewish or not cutting your hair if you're Sikh.
But listen, Fred Clark's right. It's not any of those things. Pro-life people really do believe that abortion is murder. It's not a slogan. When they say that, they mean it as a simple statement of fact. How can they support any candidate who sanctions legal murder, whatever their positions on other issues?
Lance Mannion understands too. This is the real debate. Pro-choicers who argue about "not imposing your religion on others" or about women's rights to privacy are fighting straw men, though they don't know it. Knock those religious and misogynistic arguments down if you want. Those aren't the arguments that convince people to vote Republican. The argument that convinces people to vote Republican against their own economic self interest is this one: "Abortion is murder."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm still not convinced that voting GOP is voting against your economic self-interest. First of all, I have no idea what the Democratic Party stands for on economic issues--and neither, apparently, does the Economist, which a few years ago deemed them a slightly anti-capitalist party. I do know that they stand for gov't funded welfare programs, and those haven't gone away after 5 years of Bush. Also, I haven't heard many dems lately talking about repealing the welfare reform of the Newt period, though perhaps a few of the more leftist ones still call for it. What else is there? I guess Tom Frank is a protectionist and anti-free trader, but Bush has been blamed (often by democrats and by the EU) for arbirtray protectionist policies, such as the steel industry subsidy. So I don't really see how Kansans would benefit truly from voting democrat. I do know this: the ideological wars of the 20th century are over, and they have proven that the best way to reduce poverty is to foster a vibrant free market, rather than through state-driven programs and enterprises.
SXR
Maybe... The Democrats don't know what they stand for either, these days, but the Republicans are solidly in the corner of the wealthy. Look what they've done to bankruptcy laws.
I don't know much about bankruptcy laws, but want I am wondering is, are the republicans "in the corner of the wealthy" by virtue of being pro-capitalist, or pro-business, or what? Does support for international free trade agreements make you pro rich or pro poor?
SXR
I'm a fan of international free trade agreements. Mainly because I think they benefit the poor in other countries. But I'm opposed to the new bankruptcy law, "tort reform", privitizing social security, brutal treatment of immigrants, incarcerating nearly 1/3 of young black men and generally using drugs as an excuse to punish the poor, shutting down efforts to solve crises such as heating oil shortages and Hurricane Katrina, union busting, corporate welfare, tax policy that disproportionately benefits the rich, and niave, Ayn-Randian attitudes that blame the poor for their own poverty. As if anyone would choose to be poor.
Here's the best stuff about Republicans and the wealthy, from Fred Clark.
Post a Comment