Triangulation and abortion and the regressive Y chromosome

A bit of stream of political consciousness.

1. Molly Ivins really doesn't like the Democratic establishment and its strategy of "triangulation". For example:

The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. [And similarly for health care, minimum wage raise, repealing tax cuts, the environment, etc.] That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

And:

I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there.... You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don’t jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater.

2. And the very idea of "triangulating" the "values voters" suffers from a fatal blindspot. In an excellent post, even by his standards, Slacktivist tells us why the "values voters" don't like liberals:

The answer, frankly, is that we're baby killers. ...this is how we are perceived.

Recognizing that means recognizing that lame euphemisms like "values voters" are misleading and confusing. It's not about generic "values," it's not even about religion -- the whole liberals-and-spirituality sideshow is an irrelevant distraction. It's about abortion. Period.

Speaking at religious gatherings, or making a show of religiosity, or some half-assed Saletan-style triangulation to "moderate" (i.e., abandon by degrees) support for abortion rights does little to alter this perception.

He makes this attitude terribly intelligible by comparing it to the attitude that the Good Guys have to pro-torture politicians. Read the post!

3. So we know that "values voters" are passionately opposed to abortion. But it's hard to make sense of that level of passion. Simply saying that they believe that it's murder gives their point of view a label, but I still wonder how you can get so very worked up about a clump of cells (whether they're genetically human or not).

Via Dadahead, here's one possible answer:

Almost none of their [prolife] policies make sense if they really see no difference between the death of a fetus and the death of a four-year-old. However, nearly all their policies make sense if they're seeking to make sure that women who have sex are punished.

And there's a pretty chart to back up that interpretation.

I'd go along with the idea that some (who knows how many) prolifers are straightforward misogynists, but I think it would be a mistake to attribute that motivation to prolifers generally. Then again, that pretty chart does seem to call for some sort of interesting explanation, and at the moment I don't have a compelling alternative.

4. From the same Dadahead post:

Abortion rights seems to be treated as something that women are supposed to worry about; as long as liberal men are on the record as being pro-choice, they feel they've done their part. The only time I ever get questioned about my gender is when I write about abortion; the notion that I could be a woman (I'm not) seems to cross people's minds only when I pay an unusual amount of attention (for a male) to the issue.

Surely not, I thought. But then, in an online discussion, two supposedly liberal men declared that they wished that Roe v Wade would get struck down, on the grounds that it would undercut a significant source of Republican rhetoric and allow the Democrats to focus on other political issues where they can make better progress.

Before I freak out a little, I'd like to note that that obviously wouldn't work. At the moment, the constitutional protection of abortion rights limits the scope within which Democrats and Republicans can fight over abortion. Strike the constitutional protection down, and the political battle over abortion will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

OK, now for a brief freak-out.

W.

T.

FUCK!
Look, I, too, have had occasion to wonder if the abortion issue is really worth it. But I didn't have to spend much time wondering. What's there to wonder about?

These guys agree that a woman has the right to control her own body. They just don't give a damn whether she can actually exercise that right or not--it's just not their concern--they don't have wombs. So, hey, might as well make it a strategic sacrifice in the political game--a pawn, if you will.

These two guys apparently arrived at the same conclusion independently. One can only assume that they are not alone.

5. Did you spot the sci-fi geekery in this post?