Can one be a pro-choice social conservative? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2024, 05:14:31 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Can one be a pro-choice social conservative? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Can one be a pro-choice social conservative?  (Read 6774 times)
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,506


« on: August 10, 2016, 04:36:05 PM »
« edited: August 10, 2016, 10:30:30 PM by who, unfortunately, did. »

In places where lax abortion laws are an established part of the political and moral tradition, yes. (Japan, where pro-life politics is seen as a somewhat fringe rights issue primarily of interest to disabled people, would be an example of this.)
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,506


« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2016, 10:05:03 AM »

Yes.  Backing forced childbirth is an increasingly fringe issue.

Even Donald Trump has effectively disowned the forced childbirth movement. Sad!

Getting a secular nationalist to back away from a socially conservative position that he was obviously only pandering to in the first place is not a very impressive accomplishment.
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,506


« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2016, 11:50:52 AM »

To be serious about this, obviously you can. Abortion's contemporary alignment on the liberal-conservative axis was by no means inevitable. Prescott Bush, who was attacked in his early 1950's campaigns as a supporter of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut, I doubt had many particularly liberal instincts, in keeping with his background. I'd even argue that there would be conservative--though somewhat "ugly"--reasons for backing abortion: maintenance of stable populations and stable nuclear households, a crime and poverty-reduction measure, ensuring that the "surplus population" doesn't get too out of hand, and so on. One need not even use the tired "limited government" pleas in order to make this case. How many times do you hear random white kids joke about African-American families' perceived overabundance of children and tie it to reliance on welfare? This type of conservatism could have been especially prevalent if the GOP stuck to a "managerial" path. Population politics, which played at least some part of each president's policy from Johnson to Carter, seem to have utterly disappeared after 1980. Conversely, Jill Stein's comments on abortion might seem more mainstream in this world.

I haven't gone through and combed fifty-year-old policy statements to confirm or deny this, but I've been told that between, say, the sixties and the nineties, you see Ted Kennedy and Bob Dole 'evolving' on abortion in diametrically opposed directions.
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,506


« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2016, 10:09:42 PM »

If not for Roe v. Wade, the modern GOP would not have a chance in elections, and I'm not referring to pro life single issuers.

It seems like you mean something very dark by this, but I can't quite put my finger on what.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 13 queries.