The Bulwark positions themselves as a centrist organ, "focuse[d] on political analysis and reporting without partisan loyalties or tribal prejudices". Charlie Sykes today published a piece about the failure of yesterday's abortion ban referendum in Kansas and what it means going forward in the ongoing politics of abortion. The important points:
- Pro-choice advocates stuck to messaging about government medical mandates, linking them to unpopular mask and vaccine mandates.
- They also stayed away from the crazier "men can get abortions, too" nonsense, avoiding "scratch[ing] their ideological id."
- They mentioned that abortion is already highly regulated in Kansas.
- The measure lost even in some counties that voted for Trump in 2020.
Pro-choice people will have to model this messaging going forward, though
the details will differ depending on locale. It probably helped immensely that the bill was a radical measure
that would ban abortion under all circumstances, which is a
consequence of conception personhood. It really highlights just how unpopular conception personhood really is once people consider its logical conclusions: under this rubric, abortion has the same valence as first-degree homicide (laying in wait). This underpinning ideology is fine if you need to get activists worked up, but it's a positive hindrance if you need to speak to people outside your tribe, i.e. if you need to actually govern. In that vein, it's pretty significant that the measure's advocates felt the need to use confusing language to hide what a "yes" or "no" vote actually meant.
With Roe v. Wade now a matter for the history books, latitude for sweeping, polarizing gestures politicians don't have to worry about because, Supreme Court, has suddenly collapsed. San Clemente might try to make their city a "sanctuary for life", but did anyone actually ask people living there what their opinions on the matter might be?
No comments:
Post a Comment