Dave Brockington
Paul Campos
- Website
- CV
- Blog Posts
- Blogroll
- My Other Blogs
Erik Loomis
Robert Farley
SEK
Scott Lemieux
Dave Noon
DJW

You are here: Home » Archives for

Author Page for Scott Lemieux

Douthat and Public Opinion on Abortion

[ 33 ] February 7, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

As you might expect, Ross Douthat is unhappy about the backlash against the Komen Foundation’s decision to defund Planned Parenthood. Much of his argument consists of assertions of media bias that are difficult to respond to, since he cites no examples (let alone systematic evidence.) As Sarah Kilff notes, there’s no reason to believe it was true in this specific case. And while it’s plausible to assume that the typical journalist is more socially liberal (as well as more economically conservative) than meidan public opinion in general, I would argue that this is actually less true with respect to abortion than with other kinds of social issues. Punditry dismissing the importance of Roe v. Wade and reproductive rights, in particular, is so common as to be banal.

In addition to this argument about media bias, Douthat also cites public opinion data sowing about abortion, focusing in particular on “as many Americans described themselves as pro-life as called themselves pro-choice” and that a “combined 58 percent of Americans stated that abortion should either be “illegal in all circumstances” or “legal in only a few circumstances.” John Sides objects to Douthat’s cherry-picking:

As I’ve argued before, one cannot divide the public into “pro-life” and “pro-choice” camps based on the kinds of survey questions he cites. These questions fail to capture the true complexity and the ambivalence in most Americans’ attitudes toward abortion. Most Americans approve of abortion in certain cases and oppose it in others. Juxtapose, for example, abortion in the case of rape with abortion for the purpose of sex selection. At best, a small minority—perhaps 20% but likely smaller—would approve of or oppose abortion in every case.

While I agree that Douthat’s use of public opinion is tendentious, I think the problems are different and worse than the ones that John cites. The most obvious problem, if you click through to the poll Douthat is discussing, Douthat first combines two categories to create what looks like an anti-choice majority, adding the 20% who want abortion banned to the larger number who believe that abortion should only be legal under “a few circumstances.” Since these “circumstances” aren’t specified and presumably mean many different things to different people, to combine the two numbers is fundamentally misleading.

This brings us to a larger problem with this kind of conflation, which advances the interests of the minority who want abortion to be criminalized. I agree with John that many people have an intuitive sense that abortion should be legal for the “right reasons” but not for the “wrong reasons,” which is reflected in the public opinion data that shows a great deal of support for abortion only being legal in certain unspecified circumstances. The problem is that these distinctions are completely irrelevant to public policy. There’s no way of crafting abortion laws that only makes abortions women obtain for certain reasons illegal. “Centrist” abortion regulations such as waiting periods or requiring the approval of panels of doctors don’t ensure that women will get abortion for the “right reasons”; they just produce contexts in which affluent women can obtain abortions for any reason and poor women — especially those outside major urban centers — find it difficult or impossible to obtain abortions for any reason.

I don’t think “women should only be able to obtain abortions if Ross Douthat approves of their reasons for doing so” is a normatively attractive basis for abortion policy either, but whatever one thinks of the argument it’s irrelevant to making abortion policy. The public may strongly oppose abortion for sex selection, but since there’s no way of specifically targeting such abortions with an enforceable law it’s neither here not there. Getting these kinds of selective moral judgments mixed up with abortion policy confuses matters in ways that work to the benefit supporters of abortion criminalization. A fair fight between the actual policy alternatives would strongly favor pro-choicers, as the public’s overwhelming support for Roe v. Wade reflects.

A Reliable Barometer

[ 27 ] February 7, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

If Karl Rove hates something, I would indeed inclined to support it if I didn’t already.

Kindly Old Ron Paul

[ 55 ] February 6, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

His campaign is still working with white supremacists. But, anyway, this stuff (whether past or present) just represents “character defects,” like adultery or something. He’s great on civil liberties for someone who doesn’t believe the Bill of Rights applies to the states (and, of course, civil liberties that belong to women aren’t real civil liberties), so it’s fair to say that progressives could find considerable appeal in his vision of restoring the Articles of Confederation.

Imperialist Crackpot of the Day

[ 60 ] February 6, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

Niall Ferguson.

Defending terrible ends using embarrassingly unserious arguments is Ferguson’s specialty, so it’s hard to isolate any particularly argument as being especially bad. One can start with his inability to decide whether a war would create a massive spike in oil prices or not (whether a “Saudi spike” will mostly cover things depends on what argument he’s making at the time.) Still, I think I’ll have to go with this:

Wait. We’re supposed to believe that a revolutionary Shiite theocracy is overnight going to become a sober, calculating disciple of the realist school of diplomacy … because it has finally acquired weapons of mass destruction?

He seems to think there’s some kind of contradiction here, but there isn’t. The regime that governs Iran has proven, in fact, quite adept at maintaining its hold on power. What is the evidence, exactly, that Iran’s political elites are irrational or indifferent to the survival of the regime? Apart from the not-very-thinly-veiled racist implications (scary Muslims! Probably suicide bombers!), there’s nothing here.

And now, the punchline:

It feels like the eve of some creative destruction.

What a wit! Join us next week for the next installment of Niall Ferguson’s Warmongering Comedy Classics, which will involve smashing watermelons that are clearly Shiite. Featuring musical guest star John McCain.

The End of American Decency

[ 37 ] February 6, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

Oh no, won’t someone pleeeeeeeeeeese think of the children? Nobody could ever go broke investing in American fainting couch retailers.

The FCC is really going to get upset if someone starts looking at the lyric sheet of “Like A Prayer” closely….

And Now, Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Topics

[ 68 ] February 6, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

Kindly old Ron Paul has some, ah, thoughts about abortion and something called “honest rape” in which reprehensible moral sentiments and utter incoherence struggle valiantly for the upper hand.

Congrats to the Giants

[ 145 ] February 5, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

I’ve been wrong about a lot of things, but Eli Manning was at the top of the list. Today, he (and Manningham) made the plays, and Brady (and Welker, although that really wasn’t a very good throw) missed two pivotal opportunities, and that was a difference. Great game, which for those of us without strong rooting interests is the most important thing.

Super Bowl Open Thread

[ 39 ] February 5, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

I can’t leave any suspense about the pick, since I already placed my low stakes wager on the Giants (money line and +3) the Monday after the championship games before the sharps bet the Giants payouts down more. The line seems like an obvious botch for a relatively even-matched game on a neutral field. The difference in records is largely a product of the Pats’ much easier schedule, and the Giants right now are a different team than the one earlier in the year that didn’t have Osi and only had Tuck in the most formal sense. This isn’t to say that I think that the Giants are overwhelmingly likely to win the game or anything. Eli, while championship quality, isn’t Brady, and the Giants (benfitting from Harbaugh’s inability to adapt to the Ginn injury and a lucky — not wrong, necessarily, but lucky — call on the Brandshaw near-fumble) were just as lucky to win the championship game as the Patriots. Still, I like the macthup of the Giants receivers against the Pats secondary, and while New York’s secondary isn’t a lot better the Gronkowski injury is a huge factor for an offense that lacks a deep threat. Had the Patriots signed a real wideout rather than a reality TV star in the offesason, I’d probably see them winning this game; but they didn’t and I don’t. Certainly, getting points to take the Giants is an easy call.

I am rooting for OT not only because it would mean a close game because I would take a perverse pleasure in Gregg Easterbrook types launching into less-funny-than-Frank-Caliendo routines about the Incredible Complexity of the new postseason OT rules. Here, let me explain it: “it’s sudden death unless the first team to receive a kickoff kicks a field goal in its first possession.” Sooooo complicated! Can I have my PhD in astrophysics from MIT now? Also, I think the rules are fine; certainly infinitely preferable to the abominable NCAA rules, which are almost as bad as penalty kicks/shots. I have little patience for equity whining; If you can’t stop a team from scoring a TD after a kickoff, boo hoo hoo hoo hoo. And that goes triple for Steelers fans inclined to whine; if you can’t beat one of the three weakest playoff teams in NFL history in regulation and then start the OT with a defensive scheme that will allow the other team to score if their QB can make a throw half the tailbacks in the league can make, tough shit. [To clarify, I'm not saying that Steelers fans are uniquely whiny or anything; it's an illustrative hypothetical.]

…Refs deserve a lot of credit for that safety call; obviously correct, and gutsy. Having praised Bellichick, I should not that the first quarter — most glaringly his Don Cherry homage — has been ugly; Patriots looked grossly unprepared.

…Shorter Clint Eastwood: vote for Mitt Romney? Do ya feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?

Modes of Loyalty

[ 13 ] February 5, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

Ah, the Patriots:

So close to the Super Bowl, yet so far.

Wide receiver Tiquan Underwood has been cut by the Patriots less than 24 hours before the big game — bad news for him, of course, but a move that increases the likelihood Chad Ochocinco will be active against the Giants on Sunday.

Which makes me think of this:

Stengel [didn't make an emotional commitment to his players.] With Stengel, you were only as good as your last start. And that was a large part of why he was able to stay on top, year after year, in a way few other managers ever have. It’s not that he wasn’t “loyal” to his players, but his idea of loyalty wasn’t “Joe helped me win the pennant last year, so I owe it to him to let him work through his problems.” It was “these boys are trying to win. I owe it to them to do everything possible to help them win.”

–Bill James, The Bill James Guide to Baseball Managers (170)

I suspect the conclusion many people will draw from the first story is “yikes, is Bellichick ever an asshole.” Which isn’t exactly wrong. But on this, I’m on the Bellichick/Stengel side. A coach’s job is to be loyal to the team and the team’s fans by doing what they feel is necessary to win, not to express loyalty to individual players per se. It’s not an accident that a coach willing to cut a guy the week before a Super Bowl already has five rings.

Union-Busting at the University of Michigan?

[ 49 ] February 4, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

It sure looks like it. Pay particular attention to this comment; apparently the faculty member who fired the activist student without following proper procedures was an outspoken critic of unionization. And, disgracefully, the representative body of the UM faculty is also siding with the administration on the general issue. Most of them, I’m sure are nominal liberals. Liberals in the David Velleman/Ian Shapiro sense: i.e. illegitimate, exploitative hierarchies that we benefit from are perfectly OK!

To Successfully Run For President, You Have to be Running For President

[ 75 ] February 4, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

While the Republican primary was essentially over after Rick Perry’s Ambien-and-Tito’s Vodka debate performance, the stories now emerging about Newton Leroy’s amusingly inept campaign do contain an important lesson. There was this idea, first expressed by some country-fried rubes with respect to Sarah Palin, that in this day and age having a professional, organized campaign was obsolete. With the kids today with their Facebook and the Tweeter and the Citizens United and the waffle irons with phones on them, you just need to show up and Express Ideas and the votes will come, so being too lazy and incompetent to run a real presidential campaign isn’t a big deal anymore. I think we’ve buried this argument for a while. Mittens was obviously extremely vulnerable, but the fact that he was running a serious campaign gave him a certain baseline level of performance, and he was lucky enough to be running against people who couldn’t and/or wouldn’t do the boring work of assembling the kind of state operations that are the difference between winning and losing.

And give Palin this — unlike some of her more clueless supporters, she seemed to understand this. She recognized that just staying home was the more efficient grift. I think Newt started to actually convince himself that he could win, which is pretty pathetic.