Pro-life..?
Yup, this has always been a problem with the "economic issues" conservative and "religious issues" conservative being in the same coalition. A basic ethics difference between the USA left and right is this: what kind of death is society responsible for? The left and the right both agree, if a foreign army comes and kills an American on our soil, that's a death that the government should have prevented if it could have. But, if an American gets sick and can't afford medicine, is that the government's business? If someone is homeless or starving, is that the government's business? Left says yes, right says no. Except that American Christians have a long history of charitable works focused on the local poor. If American history ended 100 years ago and I had to guess the rest, I would tell you that religious Americans would be pro welfare.
Abortion is an economically relevant decision a person makes for themselves. And indeed, many libertarians would say that if you don't believe in a medical procedure, even if you can afford it for your kid, you should be allowed to not pay for it. Likewise, if a parent can't afford an expensive procedure for their kid, it isn't the government's right to make doctor's provide the care for free. Under an economically conservative attitude, adults can make medical decisions that result in the death of kids. And so, from both a states rights and economic issues perspective, in a vacuum, abortion should be allowed. Its your body, its your money, its your fetus. Its your personal choice if you think a fetus is alive and regardless of whether it is, surely the useful service these professionals are offering will improve the lots of children and mothers in the long term? The free market provides, in this case it provides family planning and termination of unsafe pregnancies.
So the issue becomes this: what happens when you have these two very alien perspectives in bed with each other? You get a view that makes little sense for either of them. If a fetus dies by abortion, is that the government's responsibility? The religious right's answer is yes... but the problem is that their answer should be yes to all the other cases. If a kid gets sick, if a kid is homeless, if a kid starves, from a pro-life perspective it should be the government's responsibility. They should have done something about it. But that's incompatible with the more mainstream conservative views of small government. As long as you aren't being actively killed by another human, its not big government's place to keep you alive. You should learn to keep yourself alive.
This disconnect is causing Republicans some problems I feel. Their base has so many no-go areas that its difficult to reconcile them, and that makes expansion of the base risky. For example, as the narrative has shifted towards liberals being moralistic, dropping the morals legislation and switching to a demographics blind libertarian perspective could break into a lot of demographics. "I don't hate black people, I think its wrong that rich district's taxes should go to poor district's schools. Some poor schools are white." I really do think a lot of minorities currently afraid of Republicans would feel much happier with them. But that would lose the religious element of the base, which currently intersects greatly with the economic aspect. Likewise, if the party dropped the jobs rhetoric and the condescension towards poor people, they could go hard on appealing to Roman Catholics as a way to bring in the Latino vote. A platform of "its our good Christian duty to ____" could appeal to religious people without losing athiests. Something like "as Jesus healed the sick, so too should we see to our wounded" would not really offend me if the end result was socialized medicine. It would also let them isolate the sexuality and gender issues aspect of the democratic coalition. It would split the democratic party in two, as many democrats don't actually give a shit about bodily autonomy or the LGBT community and basically just want the government to do its job. Imagine a Republican party that could say that its against abortions and gender dysphoria is fake, but its for welfare and anti-war. A Republican party that can walk into a liberal area, and proudly quotes bible passages while making a speech that *isn't* about hate. That Republican party would be a force to be reckoned with, but it can't happen because of the economic issues Republicans. And the racism.
Democrats by comparison have some mobility with their platform. Environmentalism, gay rights, planned parenthood, socialized medicine, the 1% stuff; its all pretty much separated out. A good example of this is how the democratic party turned on a dime when it comes to the war on drugs. It really didn't have much to do with the rest of the platform so the party can change with the base. The Republicans on the other hand show much more divisiveness on the war on drugs, because for the war on drugs are the moral issue Republicans and the racists, but against it are the economic issues Republicans. Its not the norm, but there are libertarians who believe you should be able to buy Meth at a convenience store. And so what's a Republican candidate to do? The answer is that for them, its best to say as little as possible about the war on drugs. And that's what happens when your coalition includes people that should be disagreeing with each other.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4262752 times)