The Sacred Order of the Shrill
By …welcomes Kevin Drum.
I think that Roy’s post about the difference between writers and political operatives might be useful in explaining how I talk about abortion (as well as many other issues.) Every time I post a critique I can expect a comment or three about how I don’t pay enough respect to whatever bad arguments are used to defend irrational and inequitable abortion regulations because peoples’ views are just messy or some such. Well, I don’t afford these arguments any respect because they don’t deserve any respect. Giving a scary name to a medical procedure and banning it while permitting other procedures that produce exactly the same outcome but less safely doesn’t become a rational argument just because it’s a politically effective ploy. And worse, these arguments always end up with the same outcome–abortion-on-demand for the wealthy, highly restricted abortion access for the poor–which is indefensible from any serious a priori position on the abortion issue. It doesn’t matter to me, in this context, how many public opinion polls suggest that this is what the public wants. The thing is, I’m not running for office, so I don’t care. That a majority of the public holds incoherent positions that produce highly undesirable outcomes doesn’t prove that these positions are reasonable, any more than the fact that The Phantom Menace made oodles more money than Raging Bull makes it a better movie. I’m under no obligation to pretend that risibly illogical arguments that collapse on the slightest scrutiny are reasonable, or to pretend that reprehensible ethical self-dealing and double standards are consistent with democratic principles. Politicians, or people who aspire to be “opinion leaders,” may have to take such things into account; I don’t.
This is the same reason that my writings about the Alito nomination were much more critical of “reasonable centrists” like Ann Althouse than with real conservatives, even if the former share much more in common with my views. Supporting Sam Alito because he’s a very able judge who shares your very conservative jurisprudential principles is a reasonable position worthy of respect; I will explain why I believe these principles are wrong, but these people are not playing their audience for fools; they’re making a serious, consistent argument. On the other hand, taking to the pages of the New York Times to tell your readers that Alito is a moderate with no evidence whatsoever, or arguing that Alito was picked for the court not because he shares long-held conservative views but because he rejects them (although, oddly, none of his supporters thought he was a squishy moderate before he was nominated), isn’t a serious argument; it’s the argument of an operative, not a thinker. And it’s the same thing with the “keep abortion nominally legal but let states pass every half-baked regulation of abortion for certain classes of women they want because aborton is so so wrong even if I think my sister should be allowed to get one” crowd. I’m here to tell you what I think, not to win votes.