Why do conservatives love Sharia and Saudi Arabia so much?

[TJ in Oregon]

Donald Trump, the Canadian Conservative Party, Netanyahu, Theresa May etc. Obviously the conservative mindset is one that sees a likemind in the dystopian theocratic petrostates of the Gulf, and an inclination towards prostating oneself towards a corrupt and capricious royal family. This inclination is, of course, based on some form of masochism given the scale of the damage the Saudis have inflicted upon the outside world, or perhaps on a perverse vicarious sadism when the Saudis inflict cruel punishments on their regional rivals and guest workers. They key questions we must ask ourselves, it seems, is whether the conservatives' hostility to democracy in the Middle East (as indicated by their strong ties with some of the most regressive factions of the region) is evidence of cultural relativism or of their genuine dislike of democracy in general?

ding ding ding

Republicans are right to this day still trying to make it harder for people to vote. Their entire political strategy is premised on weakening democracy. Even if you agree with them on other areas of policy, I was hoping at least you would have the lucidity/intellectual honesty to recognize that.

It's quite the logical jump to go from voter ID laws to the House of Saud.

[ingemann]

Honestly this love for the most Saudi aren't only a Conservative problem, we don't see liberal media either cover the atrocities of the Saudi in Yemen, and while those same newspaper sell the Saudi talking point in Syrian Civil War, Trudeau's government didn't have a problem selling weapons to the Saudi, it was only the Saudi overreaction to the pure empty fluff, which Trudeau truly master, which have created the existing crisis. Clinton was everybit as much in the pocket of the House of Saud as Trump is. Obama was the one of the few American politician who mostly ignored Saudi wishes and interests.

[DC Al Fine]

Donald Trump, the Canadian Conservative Party, Netanyahu, Theresa May etc. Obviously the conservative mindset is one that sees a likemind in the dystopian theocratic petrostates of the Gulf, and an inclination towards prostating oneself towards a corrupt and capricious royal family. This inclination is, of course, based on some form of masochism given the scale of the damage the Saudis have inflicted upon the outside world, or perhaps on a perverse vicarious sadism when the Saudis inflict cruel punishments on their regional rivals and guest workers. They key questions we must ask ourselves, it seems, is whether the conservatives' hostility to democracy in the Middle East (as indicated by their strong ties with some of the most regressive factions of the region) is evidence of cultural relativism or of their genuine dislike of democracy in general?

ding ding ding

Republicans are right to this day still trying to make it harder for people to vote. Their entire political strategy is premised on weakening democracy. Even if you agree with them on other areas of policy, I was hoping at least you would have the lucidity/intellectual honesty to recognize that.

It's quite the logical jump to go from voter ID laws to the House of Saud.

Precisely.

Even granting the issue at hand, citing one policy of one party in one country as proof of an entire ideology's supposed tendencies is a farce. It's cherry picking armchair psychology. The NDP of Alberta has restricted the right to peaceful protest. What am I to conclude about Tony's beloved social democracy? Clearly they're all a bunch of goose stepping thugs

[Antonio the Sixth]

Admittedly I had mostly the GOP in mind, but it is worth noting that conservative parties throughout the Western world were the last to accept democracy, and only ever did so tentatively. As for the GOP, there are many policies I could cite: closing down polling locations in opposition-heavy areas, reducing early voting, refusing to give statehood to DC or PR, an aggressive and scientific use of gerrymandering (and spare me the "both sides to it" refrain. Yes, but not nearly to the same extent or with the same minutious effort - seriously, look at Illinois and tell me it compares to the old PA map or the current OH one), refusing to even consider an opposition President's judicial nominations, refusing to do anything about incredibly vulnerable election infrastructure, and of course, the obvious elephant in the room of Bush v Gore. That you can dismiss that so casually is deeply saddening, but then again I'm reminded that you defended Orban, so maybe I'm the one who has unfounded expectations.

[DC Al Fine]

Admittedly I had mostly the GOP in mind, but it is worth noting that conservative parties throughout the Western world were the last to accept democracy, and only ever did so tentatively. As for the GOP, there are many policies I could cite: closing down polling locations in opposition-heavy areas, reducing early voting, refusing to give statehood to DC or PR, an aggressive and scientific use of gerrymandering (and spare me the "both sides to it" refrain. Yes, but not nearly to the same extent or with the same minutious effort - seriously, look at Illinois and tell me it compares to the old PA map or the current OH one), refusing to even consider an opposition President's judicial nominations, refusing to do anything about incredibly vulnerable election infrastructure, and of course, the obvious elephant in the room of Bush v Gore.

You've expanded it to multiple policies by one party in one country while missing the point entirely.  Any hack can come up with a list of their opponents sins as evidence for some alleged pathology, but the same logic is never applied to one's own politics.

Multiple progressive parties in Canada have moved to restrict civil liberties. Maduro is still running around. I'm sure you'd object to me tarring you with the same brush as them. Hell, there's a ten page thread about anti-Semitism in UK Labour. Am I to conclude you socialists are all a bunch of Jew haters? That thread is quite a bit longer than your list of Republican sins

Let's see this line of reasoning for what it really is; silly hackery.

That you can dismiss that so casually is deeply saddening, but then again I'm reminded that you defended Orban, so maybe I'm the one who has unfounded expectations.

As I said at the time, I support Orban's anti-abortion stance. This progressive tendency to refuse to engage with the pro-life movement on its own terms is rather tedious.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I’d like to note that no one in this thread has come up with an even half-decent defense against CrabCake’s allegations re:conservative parties and politicians in Western countries so strongly and consistently supporting Wahhabi Arabia.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You've expanded it to multiple policies by one party in one country while missing the point entirely.  Any hack can come up with a list of their opponents sins as evidence for some alleged pathology, but the same logic is never applied to one's own politics.

So you're just going to ignore the first sentence and pretend I didn't clarify what the scope and point of my argument was? Okay.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Civil liberties" is an amorphous and inherently contentious concept whose bearing to democracy is only partial. Of course you need a basic freedom of speech, association, etc. in order to have a meaningful democracy, but beyond that, one's "civil liberties" are often another's unjust imposition of power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maduro is not left-wing in any meaningful sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you want to make an argument that anti-semitism is a core element of Labour's political strategy and/or an unspoken consequence of their ideological outlook, by all means, go ahead. Also, if you really want to play that little game, the "Voting Rights" thread on US general discussion is quite a bit bigger than the Labour antisemitism thread, and 80% of it is dedicated to the GOP's efforts to undermine democracy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

oh wow u really got me here

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seriously?

You can be as pro-life all you want, but if you're so dedicated to the cause and so despicably consequentialist about it that you're willing to throw democracy under the bus, I'm going to call you out on this. I've done the same with people on the left who defended Lenin and the like (or hell, even with people who argued that Democrats should resort to gerrymander more often).

[All Along The Watchtower]

Donald Trump, the Canadian Conservative Party, Netanyahu, Theresa May etc. Obviously the conservative mindset is one that sees a likemind in the dystopian theocratic petrostates of the Gulf, and an inclination towards prostating oneself towards a corrupt and capricious royal family. This inclination is, of course, based on some form of masochism given the scale of the damage the Saudis have inflicted upon the outside world, or perhaps on a perverse vicarious sadism when the Saudis inflict cruel punishments on their regional rivals and guest workers. They key questions we must ask ourselves, it seems, is whether the conservatives' hostility to democracy in the Middle East (as indicated by their strong ties with some of the most regressive factions of the region) is evidence of cultural relativism or of their genuine dislike of democracy in general?

ding ding ding

Republicans are right to this day still trying to make it harder for people to vote. Their entire political strategy is premised on weakening democracy. Even if you agree with them on other areas of policy, I was hoping at least you would have the lucidity/intellectual honesty to recognize that.

It's quite the logical jump to go from voter ID laws to the House of Saud.

I agree.

I don't recall anyone in the Saudi-loving Bush family pushing voter ID laws (maybe Jeb! did as Governor of Florida, I don't know).

[2952-0-0]

During the anti-Canadian hate fest unleashed by Saudi state propaganda, the Liberal Party of Canada was accused of being infiltrated by Zionists to damage Muslims, proving that at their core, the Saudis remain virulently anti-Semitic.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

During the anti-Canadian hate fest unleashed by Saudi state propaganda, the Liberal Party of Canada was accused of being infiltrated by Zionists to damage Muslims, proving that at their core, the Saudis remain virulently anti-Semitic.

Likud still likes them because they're pro Shiite genocide.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Most people don't know anything about Saudi Arabia.  Normal conservatives who know about Saudi Arabia hate it.  A GOP politician has different priorities than the average Republican voter.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Donald Trump, the Canadian Conservative Party, Netanyahu, Theresa May etc. Obviously the conservative mindset is one that sees a likemind in the dystopian theocratic petrostates of the Gulf, and an inclination towards prostating oneself towards a corrupt and capricious royal family. This inclination is, of course, based on some form of masochism given the scale of the damage the Saudis have inflicted upon the outside world, or perhaps on a perverse vicarious sadism when the Saudis inflict cruel punishments on their regional rivals and guest workers. They key questions we must ask ourselves, it seems, is whether the conservatives' hostility to democracy in the Middle East (as indicated by their strong ties with some of the most regressive factions of the region) is evidence of cultural relativism or of their genuine dislike of democracy in general?

ding ding ding

Republicans are right to this day still trying to make it harder for people to vote. Their entire political strategy is premised on weakening democracy. Even if you agree with them on other areas of policy, I was hoping at least you would have the lucidity/intellectual honesty to recognize that.

It's quite the logical jump to go from voter ID laws to the House of Saud.

I agree.

I don't recall anyone in the Saudi-loving Bush family pushing voter ID laws (maybe Jeb! did as Governor of Florida, I don't know).

Jeb! conducted massive purges of the voter rolls that probably allowed his brother to "win" the presidency. muh moderate republican nice guy ff

[EPG]

I’d like to note that no one in this thread has come up with an even half-decent defense against CrabCake’s allegations re:conservative parties and politicians in Western countries so strongly and consistently supporting Wahhabi Arabia.

I am still waiting for evidence that Hollande or Schroeder, or Instagram-era heroes like Ardern, supported boycott, sanctions or war against KSA.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Re attempts to paint oppressive governments as “hardly left-wing”, such is as morally and intellectually honest a stance as that of the neo-Reaganists who attempted to define conservatism as simply democracy + capitalism and, in doing so, ignored their own realpolitik. You don’t have the right to disown every “problematic” government while tying every force of the other side into some vast network of anti-democratic conspiracy.

I’d like to note that no one in this thread has come up with an even half-decent defense against CrabCake’s allegations re:conservative parties and politicians in Western countries so strongly and consistently supporting Wahhabi Arabia.

I felt like you did.

[DC Al Fine]

You've expanded it to multiple policies by one party in one country while missing the point entirely.  Any hack can come up with a list of their opponents sins as evidence for some alleged pathology, but the same logic is never applied to one's own politics.

So you're just going to ignore the first sentence and pretend I didn't clarify what the scope and point of my argument was? Okay.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Civil liberties" is an amorphous and inherently contentious concept whose bearing to democracy is only partial. Of course you need a basic freedom of speech, association, etc. in order to have a meaningful democracy, but beyond that, one's "civil liberties" are often another's unjust imposition of power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maduro is not left-wing in any meaningful sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you want to make an argument that anti-semitism is a core element of Labour's political strategy and/or an unspoken consequence of their ideological outlook, by all means, go ahead. Also, if you really want to play that little game, the "Voting Rights" thread on US general discussion is quite a bit bigger than the Labour antisemitism thread, and 80% of it is dedicated to the GOP's efforts to undermine democracy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

oh wow u really got me here

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seriously?

You can be as pro-life all you want, but if you're so dedicated to the cause and so despicably consequentialist about it that you're willing to throw democracy under the bus, I'm going to call you out on this. I've done the same with people on the left who defended Lenin and the like (or hell, even with people who argued that Democrats should resort to gerrymander more often).

I'm on mobile so you'll have to forgive the lack of formatting.

1) Conservatism by definition is going to be resistant to change. Since democracy was an "innovation" it follows that conservatism would resist it. This is a vice when a change is positive, and virtue when rapid reform would cause problems or when a change is negative, but there isn't anything inherently pro or anti democratic about one's attitude to change.

2) Re civil liberties and anti-Semitism. Again you're missing my point entirely.  I'm not arguing that socialism is inherently anti-democratic or anti-Semitic. I am simply pointing out that if making sweeping generalizations about socialism based on UK Labour's (or another single party's) actions is absurd, then the same should apply to the GOP and conservatism.

3) Re: Maduro. Cath has already made the point here.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

You could replace conservatives with leftists/intersectionalists just as easily in that question.

[DC Al Fine]

Now as for the abortion/democracy question, I would turn the issue around. How murderous does a democratic government need to be before continued refusal to consider anti-democratic options amounts to throwing the right to life under the bus? Is it not 'despicably consequentialist', to solemnly nod along out of fear of undermining democracy when two wolves and a sheep vote on what to eat for lunch?

One of the fundamental duties of the state is to protect people from violence. Thankfully, that rarely conflicts with democracy, but when they do conflict, one must weigh competing priorities. Like many progressives and/or pro-choicers you seem very well versed with the problems with opposing abortion in spite of X, but it doesn't seem like you are giving much consideration to the reverse.

[parochial boy]

Well, if you're opinion is that restricting abortion is more important than democracy (which is what your argument reads as?) then that is your perogative, but it doesn't really insulate you from the argument that the right is reluctant to accept democracy. I mean, you could make the same argument about a leftist who defends Maduro because he is anti-neoliberalism, at the end of the day it suggests a level of scepticism in democracy.

Anyway, the problem I see with your rationale is that it is defending people who are already in a position of power - so it is hardly a defence of the beleaguered minority in the face of the tyranny of the majority.

[EPG]

This conservative argument is two steps away from supporting, or empathising with, vegan terrorism against omelette shops.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1) Conservatism by definition is going to be resistant to change. Since democracy was an "innovation" it follows that conservatism would resist it. This is a vice when a change is positive, and virtue when rapid reform would cause problems or when a change is negative, but there isn't anything inherently pro or anti democratic about one's attitude to change.

That's a reasonable interpretation, and I'm sure it is true of a few conservatives, but when looking at the actual rhetoric and stances of conservative and reactionary forces from 1789 to, honestly, 1945, it doesn't stand to scrutiny. Conservatives have in fact been perfectly willing to accept novel ideas whenever they worked in their favor. The article I linked, which I assume you didn't read, talks about Tories fomenting sectarian unrest in Ulster as a way to thwart Irish Home Rule efforts, hardly something that someone whose chief political instinct is prudence and caution would do. It's also worth remembering that nationalism was itself an innovation of post-Enlightenment Europe that conservatives emphatically coopted as soon as they figured out they could use it as a cudgel to beat down socialists with. And finally, I can't see many conservative parties who showed much resistance to embracing neoliberalism when it burst into the intellectual scene - in fact, a "Conservative" Prime minister was the one who introduced it into the political mainstream.

When you actually listen to the 19th-century opponents of democracy, their arguments rarely ever revolve around calls for caution for caution's sake, or claim to agree with democratic goals but consider it a utopia. Even in countries where democracy was well-established, like early 19th century France, conservatives were still aching to overthrow it. That's because they didn't oppose democracy because it was a "new" idea: they opposed democracy in and of itself. Their arguments usually revolved more around the inherent inequality in human beings and the fact that society's elite is naturally suited to rule while the "dangerous classes" ought to be ruled for their own good. We could discuss to no end whether modern conservative parties have truly excised these attitudes, or if they simply don't say them out loud anymore for fear of public backlash, but it does you no good to deny that they were once widespread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I'm telling you that there is a difference between attitudes and views that are incidental to a political party's current leadership and attitudes and views that are rooted in their fundamental ideological principles (as in the example above) or in their basic strategy to acquire and preserve political power (as in the modern GOP's example). If you want to argue that Labour antisemitism or Liberal disdain for "civil liberties" in general is in the latter category, that would be relevant to my point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is a fair argument to be made that some dictators (Lenin, Castro, Vargas, Sankara, etc.) were "left-wing". These leaders genuinely sought to push forward policies that we can all agree to call "left-wing" (that is, that sought to destroy existing social hierarchies and bring about greater equality). There is, however, simply nothing in Maduro's actions that suggests he has any policy priorities beyond the preservation of his own regime. The idea that we should take any regime self-proclaimed ideology at face value is just as ridiculous as the one Cathcon talks about.

Now as for the abortion/democracy question, I would turn the issue around. How murderous does a democratic government need to be before continued refusal to consider anti-democratic options amounts to throwing the right to life under the bus? Is it not 'despicably consequentialist', to solemnly nod along out of fear of undermining democracy when two wolves and a sheep vote on what to eat for lunch?

One of the fundamental duties of the state is to protect people from violence. Thankfully, that rarely conflicts with democracy, but when they do conflict, one must weigh competing priorities. Like many progressives and/or pro-choicers you seem very well versed with the problems with opposing abortion in spite of X, but it doesn't seem like you are giving much consideration to the reverse.

For someone who whines so much about how pro-choicers don't understand you, you don't seem to take very seriously the fact that not everyone actually agrees with your definition of personhood, and that other people might have legitimate moral intuitions that lead them to have different beliefs from yours, which in turn lead them to advocate different policies. If you took seriously the fact that what you see as murder, someone else might honestly not see as such, you might have the humility of recognizing them the same right as you have to try to influence public policy based on their own moral beliefs. To say that you're ready to throw away democracy in order to get your abortion ban in place doesn't just mean you view abortion as murder, it means you view abortion as murder and believe your view to be inherently superior to anyone else's. So yes, I have absolutely zero sympathy for people like you and, if all pro-lifers were actually like you (which, thankfully, they are not), I wouldn't be nearly as interested in constructive dialog with them as I in fact am.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What I was trying to communicate, and what I am unsure was taken correctly, was that for a number of people during the Bush era (and beyond), there was a mental definition of conservatism as being pro-democracy. Republicans, after all, had helped to destroy the Soviet Union, they opposed Saddam Hussein, they were "spreading democracy" to parts of the Middle East, etc. Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats seemed to push back against this. To, say, fourteen-year old me, offering that there had been Republican governments that knocked out left-wing democratic leaders in various parts of the world during the Cold War almost didn't make sense. I would have likely responded one of two ways--either "I'm sure they had some justification for that", or "violating democracy implies they weren't following the principles of conservatism strictly enough". In some left-wing circles today, you can see analogous versions of both of these arguments; justification on the one hand, disowning on the other. Now, hopefully more mature than I was at age fourteen, I understand that conservatism as we know it takes place in a tradition that is not necessarily democratic. Even in the United States, where some form of Republican rules was a given from 1789 or earlier, there was conservative resistance to expanding the franchise. During the Cold War, we chose some values over others in running our foreign policy.

Now, as for your comments about Maduro specifically, I'll admit, Latin America in general is not my forte. That said, I don't know what "hardly left-wing" is supposed to mean. Yes, he may be desperately trying to maintain his own power at the expense of all else, but I'm unsure what that means for one's politics. I would be hardly surprised to see someone in an analogous right-wing situation not still being supported by the right and largely pilloried by the left, and presumably for good reason. While perfect examples fail to come to mind, perhaps the Shah or various governments of South Vietnam might suffice (of course, for those that desire to distinguish politics only by who has power and who doesn't, I guess we could call Maduro conservative).

That said, maybe you think that by the time Stalin was at the height of his power, we couldn't rightly call him left-wing. Surely by the 1960's the Communist Party was in many ways simply a bureaucratic entity, devoid of the ideology that once defined it. Regardless, they still upheld a way of life that had been crafted by a consciously left-wing and "revolutionary" government. Moreover, in foreign affairs, with the exception of a brief interval from 1939 to 1941, the Soviet Union was more consistently "anti-fascist" than probably any other country. It supported revolutionary and anti-Western movements the world over during several phases of its existence. Maduro's regime, so far as I know, is defended only by some corners of the left; moreover, it has Cuba in its corner, a self-identified socialist state (at least I think). Maduro has been positioned against the international system of norms that include democracy and capitalism (we could call this liberal or conservative if we wanted to plop ourselves into a theoretical rabbithole, but for clarity's sake, we can at least understand it as not-left-wing). He even raised the minimum wage three thousand percent! For all effective purposes, per my understanding, he can be categorized as left in this case.

My points are (1)--and this has already been discussed--ideologies in their ideal or idealized forms cannot be taken as their only iteration; and (2) that, yes, I do think (even self-assigned) labels matter. If we want to characterize certain entities such as the Soviet Union only as--I think Moshe Lewin used this term--"bureaucratic despotisms", thus sapping them of ideology and even perhaps rendering them conservative in the process (after all, they have power, the opposition does not), it completely shatters our ability to map anything on a left-right axis. The conservative movement of the second half of the twentieth century stole not only rhetoric, but ideas from its enemies; deregulation was once the province of anti-mercantilist liberals, after all. But we still acknowledge what today is hardly an ideological thing at all as right-wing, if not reactionary.

EDIT: Now, if you would want to classify Maduro as simply some sort of overzealous populist or something--I guess Duterte is who I'd have in mind--I would have to respond that Maduro is still trapped by circumstance, as the rearguard of a consciously ideological government.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sorry, but I am not going to renounce defining political ideologies based on, you know, ideas. Accepting that ideology is just a matter of who your allies and enemies are is just too big a concession to the Schmittian understanding of politics than I'm willing to make (even if, admittedly, Schmitt's view makes a lot more sense to me now than it used to a few years ago). We do need a vocabulary to describe the pattern of political alignments that effectively occurs in the real world, sure (and if the current vocabulary is inadequate I'm all for starting a systematic reflection on this point), but we also do need a vocabulary to describe coherent patterns of normative thought, and I think the vocabulary of political ideology is here for that. Of course, we all know that no ideal-typical definition of left and right is every going to match the empirical reality of these terms, but to me, that's not a problem. Remember that I'm a metaphysical idealist, so to me ideas not only have a reality of their own, but actually a higher reality than physical objects.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm tempted to quip how, if one wanted to specialize in the study of things that will never exist, one might have been better recommended to focus on Greek mythology, but that would be needlessly abrasive. I am curious, nevertheless, if you would extend the same courtesy, and consideration toward nuance and ideas to non-"left-wing" governments. From certain far left perspectives, any government that is authoritarian, or male-dominated, or religious, and so on would be considered right-wing by mere virtue of implicit inequality. Does there exist a category for non-ideological or amoral despotisms? And if so, how do we characterize their opposition?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm tempted to quip how, if one wanted to specialize in the study of things that will never exist, one might have been better recommended to focus on Greek mythology, but that would be needlessly abrasive. I am curious, nevertheless, if you would extend the same courtesy, and consideration toward nuance and ideas to non-"left-wing" governments. From certain far left perspectives, any government that is authoritarian, or male-dominated, or religious, and so on would be considered right-wing by mere virtue of implicit inequality. Does there exist a category for non-ideological or amoral despotisms? And if so, how do we characterize their opposition?

If you truly think ideas don't actually exist, why exactly do you spend time exchanging ideas on the internet?

I think it's perfectly fair to have a category for non-ideological authoritarian regimes. In fact, I'd guess that a plurality of authoritarian regimes fall into that category. There is a strong left-wing argument to be made that, based on the definition you mentioned of the right as a fundamental tendency to defend and support the existing structures of power and domination, these regimes are in fact right-wing. I do think there is a lot of truth to this definition, but I also believe it's important to differentiate regimes that develop this tendency out of natural inertia from regimes that pursue a conscious political agenda, so in this spirit I am willing to restrict the category of "right-wing regimes" to cases like Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, or Pinochet's Chile. How we categorize their oppositions obviously depends on what values and policies these oppositions are actually advocating for.

[DC Al Fine]

Well, if you're opinion is that restricting abortion is more important than democracy (which is what your argument reads as?) then that is your perogative, but it doesn't really insulate you from the argument that the right is reluctant to accept democracy. I mean, you could make the same argument about a leftist who defends Maduro because he is anti-neoliberalism, at the end of the day it suggests a level of scepticism in democracy.

No that's not quite it. I am arguing that when democracy and human rights conflict, one can balance the two without automatically being anti-democratic. I think most pro-choicers could conceive of a hypothetical however extreme, where they would decide that democracy needed to be compromised as the "least bad" option, and I don't think that makes them anti-democratic.

To pro-life eyes, abortion in many places is a conflict between democracy and human rights. That doesn't mean I think banning abortion > democracy, but it does mean we need to balance the two competing values in certain circumstances.

Anyway, the problem I see with your rationale is that it is defending people who are already in a position of power - so it is hardly a defence of the beleaguered minority in the face of the tyranny of the majority.

I'm not quite sure I follow. The beleaguered minority are the unborn children, no?