It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. More than 40 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973, and these are not randomly distributed across the population. Black women, for example, have a higher abortion ratio (percentage of pregnancies aborted) than Hispanic women, whose abortion ratio in turn is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. Since blacks vote Democratic in far greater proportions than Hispanics, and whites are more Republican than Hispanics or blacks, ethnic disparities in abortion ratios would be sufficient to give the GOP a significant boost--surely enough to account for George W. Bush's razor-thin Florida victory in 2000.Taranto goes on to suggest that this process has become something of a vicious circle for the Democratic Party:
It seems self-evident that pro-choice women are more likely to have abortions than pro-life ones, and common sense suggests that children tend to gravitate toward their parents' values. This would seem to ensure that Americans born after Roe v. Wade have a greater propensity to vote for the pro-life party--that is, Republican--than they otherwise would have.There was another article I read a while back that made a similar argument about the well-publicized drop in the nation's crime rate; i.e. that the reduction in crime was due, in part, to the fact that the poor had a disproprtionately large number of abortions. My guess is that one could probably make a similar argument with regard to welfare: since the poor have more abortions per capita than the rich, and since the children of the poor are much more likely than children of the rich to be on welfare, abortion is the answer to the problem of welfare and, indeed, to poverty itself! Far from being a "bad" thing, it seems, abortion may be the key to solving many of the nation's most intractable problems.
In case you are wondering, I think all of this is nonsense. Moreoever, even if abortion has produced some collateral benefits, there is something profoundly depraved about thinking of abortion in these terms. Still, there is an enormous irony in Taranto's piece that made me smile. If he is right, then the Republican position on abortion is an act of attempted political suicide. If they succeed in making abortion illegal again, their "reward" will be a tide of poor, Democratic-voting, welfare- abusing criminals. One can almost hear Karl Rove tellling his acolytes: "We have to appear to be opposed to abortion to keep the 'base' happy, but the very last thing we ever want is for abortion to actually be limited." If the Democrats had soimebady like Karl Rove, of course, he would be saying the converse.
As they say, be careful what you wish for.
4 comments:
Interesting thought. Interesting and morbid.
In the same vein, shouldn't democrats be against college scholarships while republicans send everyone they can find to college because the resulting higher incomes correlate well to voting for W and company? And how does the whole thought process correlate to the democratic ideal of elevating those in one of its most supportive demographic to higher, more conservative eschelons?
At least the republicans have it right on one account - the wars they start with the support of wealthy consituents will always be primarily fought and suffered through by the demographics that more often than not vote for the other guy. There are the "patriatism" and "service" taglines that soldiers cling to as they're fed from above - taglines I'm sure to be immersed in as I'm writing from concrete Army barracks. I shouldn't judge; I know the Country's behind me and shares my sacrifice - I saw plenty of yellow ribbon magnets on the back of Cadillac Escalades as I drove to work today.
Hadn't thought about the yellow ribbons on the Escalade, but it is a bit ridiculous, isn't it. Funny war. Except for those fighting it.
You nervous, Billy? If so, I can't say I blame you.
I think we have to stick this one out regardless of the fact that I want to impale the guy who put us there. But that is awfully easy for me to say. What's your take? Should we bring 'em home and hope for the best? Or stick it out and keep putting ribbons on the Escalades while young men (and women) die?
I'm a little nervous. While I hope I don't need to go, I made a commitment and I'll go. Not because I believe in the war, but because I believe in the commitment and understand that I didn't sign up only to fight the fights I agree with. That said, I have wondered about the legal argument one would have , OK - I would have, if I tried to revoke my enlistment on the grounds that I joined a military I believed followed the Geneva Convention but now clearly does not. (I wouldn't try this, but for discussion's sake, I wonder - maybe a more legal mind than mine could shed some light?)
You know how I feel about the war, but as for where to go from here, I'm deeply torn. One thing I know for sure is that we need new leadership that can say, "We messed up, didn't do it right, and need to look forward." Bush, Cheney, and Rummy's recent reiterations of the justness of their war is reminiscent of Sadam's spokesman (his name escapes me) insisting they were winning the war as Americans rolled into Baghdad. Along with that, their constant maneuvering, "WMD!" "Tyranical Regime!" "Terrorism!" "Democracy!" would make Mr. Orwell proud.
OK, now that I got that off my chest - where to go from here? I think we have three options:
1. Leave and let the Iraqis (and Syrians, Iranians...) sort it out.
2. Stay and try to make this World War I approach work.
3. Leave and use the Israel model - give lots of money, guns, and other military paraphernalia to the side we want to win.
I guess there's a fourth option of staying and trying something new, but I feel the methods and pretense we used to go in have precluded this one.
And here's how I see 1-3 playing out...
1. Sadam-Episode 2 won't be far behind. The country is so divided that either a dominating regime will keep it together or civil war will erupt and lead to follow-on wars.
2. Well, how is this one working now? More Americans will die, more Iraqis will die, and our military will shrink as enlistment continues to fall off and those retained by "stop losses" will be killed off or move to Canada. I have to believe there will be a magical number of American deaths that will so enrage America that any politician who fails to find another way will be dead in the water (with approval ratings below 40%, perhaps?). I would have thought 1,000 deaths would do it, and soon enough we'll see how 2,000 works. Maybe we'll need to equal the number dead on Sep. 11th to see the breaking point. I hope not.
3. The lesser of three evils? I think this one worked the first time, and continues to work today, because of religous stratification and the political influence in America of one of those factions. It's too bad Southern Baptists don't claim Baghdad as their promise land - could we convince them? On a less-insinuative note, I really have to favor this option. Maybe it involves splitting Iraq up to overcome colonial time-bombs set long before W had his fun, maybe not. I know it won't be pretty, but if we let our chosen faction get away with half of what we've allowed Israel, this one could work relatively quickly with only residual terrorism to contend with later. (It's a good thing W doesn't start wars against those who break UN resolutions or we'd be in Jerusalem by now, or would we...)
I think what's missing from the current debate is a realistic vision of where we want to get Iraq. "We'll leave when the Iraqi forces can maintain peace on their own..." We have the most powerful military in the world, and we can't do it. How will they? I think it needs to be accepted that the historical rifts are too deep to be forged by us. Civil war may be inevitable. Maybe Iraq can divide relatively peacefully before civil war. Of course, who gets the oil? No one will sit back and let the other guy control it (including W). Either way, I don't think having American soldiers trick-or-treating in Baghdad will help the situation. We need to separate certain individuals' and groups' hatred for us from the real issues facing Iraq. We aren't going to put out the fire anytime soon, but maybe we can at least stop feeding it and help keep it contained. As for our vision of where we think Iraq can realistically get, Bush isn't on the right track. Baghdad will not be Toledo anytime soon, dare I say ever. So what do we hope for? Chechnya? Israel? I think either one is optimistic, so we need to reevaluate.
Along with finding a better goal, I think we need to dig a little deeper to address the roots of the problems over there. (Tony B is doing a much better job of this than our boy.) The war is obviously our problem, but looking at terrorism, the problem is not the psychology of extremist muslims or nationalistic Iraqis. It's poverty. Suicide bombers are not choosing their profession over med school or even working the counter at McDonald's, they're choosing it over roaming the streets trying to find food, education, a life. How hard is it to convince a hungry homeless man to hate when you can blame his hunger on the fat man in the Escalade driving by? Bush claims to be headed in the right direction on this one as he scolds the "liberal media" for not publicizing the schools being built. But the media's not focusing on the schools because AMERICANS ARE DYING. Lots of us. I know I won't be able to be excited about the little Iraqi girl who goes to school for the first time until I know it won't be me being killed at the checkpoint she passed on her way there.
I don't know, Bill, it's such a tough one. I'll go back to what I started with. We need new leadership (preferably someone without attachments to The Project for the New American Century). I also think we need to ASK the world to help, starting with ideas.
I've ranted enough... what do you think?
(I feel inclined to insert a perhaps misfit quote here that speaks for itself and my feelings about our international policy..."If this was about freedom terrorists would be bombing Sweden")
On a lighter note, pass on my thanks for the book. I'm thoroughly enjoying it!
I can't offer you much (any) hope on your legal theory. It was tried and lost during the Viet Nam War. And those people were being drafted.
What should we do? I am always attracted to the solution provided by a Special Forces Captain in response to a similar question about Somalia: "We should train them well, arm them to the teeth and seal the borders." But I haven't quite gotten there yet. Perhaps that's option 4.
My fear is that your options 1 and 3 will both lead to the same result: a state controlled by something like the Taliban. In opting for option 3, you have more confidence than I do that: (1) we can identify who we want to win; or (2)we can assure that the side we back will win; or (3) that the side we back will end up being friendly once they do win. Our track record on all of these is hardly comforting.
I have not yet joined the "bring-em home now" club. However remote it may seem, I still think that the US military has a chance to succeed. It's gonna be a long, tough road, and a lot more than 2,000 Americans are going to die in the effort. But it is the only option I can see that has any hope of achieving some level of stability without creating something far more dangerous to us than Sadam ever was.
My anger at the men who put us (and men and women like you) in this situation is boundless. But, having made the mess, I just don't think we can abondon the effort to clean it up.
Bill
PS: I gather you are not a big Israel fan. I actually am (believe it or not). Maybe we can find something to disagree on here.
Post a Comment