Had the 1968 radicals refused to compromise, they would have lost. They actually did lose... until they changed tactics. They gave up being out and loud and adopted a gradualist "long march through the institutions", and then won every major battle for the next 60 years.
The American people today are not where we are as Christians. We thought they were; after Dobbs, it's clear they're not. But given elected leaders willing to use power for conservative ends, that can be slowly altered. Imagine federal funding of non-abortion, pregnancy centers all over America. Imagine pro-family PSAs created by the AdCouncil and run for free by FCC mandates on TV and radio all over America. We can do that, but only if we win political power.
It was refreshing to hear Trump in the debate articulate this fact when discussing abortion: "you've got to get elected". I'm a post liberal. I'm open to really radical things (like monarchy) in defense of the common good. But for now, we have a republic, and in a republic, the first step to political change is to get your team elected.
Don't turn your back on the good by waiting for the perfect. There is no 100% perfect candidate. There never has been. There never will be.
The core problem is that in an agrarian society, a couple usually won't see a relative drop in their standard of living by having an additional child, and in fact may become more productive as the child can start working on the farm at a fairly young age (assuming it lives that long). In an urbanized, industrialized, and capitalist society, where income is distributed by factor payments to workers and asset owners, any non-working family member (whether child, elderly adult, or disabled) will become a significant economic drain on the working family members. It will always be financially stupid on an individual level to have kids under these conditions, even if morally that's the right thing to do. The incentive will always be to be a DINK (dual income no kids), who have 2 workers earning income and no dependents.
A right-wing government running PSAs can't reverse this dynamic. Its not going to go Pol Pot and kill off 80% of the population and revert to a Jeffersonian agrarian society, and if it did it would be swiftly conquered by a more technologically advance state. On a very fundamental level, modern society is nothing like its historical precedents. The age of Mozart and George Washington had more in common with the Middle Ages and classical antiquity than the present day. And this new system is constantly changing, and this process of change is outside the control of any government or social movement. Conservatives don't grasp this because they take earlier stages of industrialization and capitalism, like the Victorian Age or the post-war US, as "normal" when they were no more freakish in this historical sense than anything that has come later.
Yeah, I'm an economist by training and even I don't really accept that the West's increasing childlessness is an economic thing.
I was at a small book signing for Rob Henderson (the luxury beliefs guy) about 3 months ago. He was asked about birthrates and said something very interesting. Paraphrasing: What if we don't have an instinct to have children? We have an instinct to have sex (especially men). And we have an instinct to take care of the resulting babies (especially women). Until very recently, that combination resulted in an instinct to reproduce, but pharmacological birth control interrupts that connection.
I suspect Rob is onto something here.
However, since our topic is actually abortion (not birthrates), I completely reject the premise that abortions are driven primarily by economics.
You ignore the fact that a large majority of Americans support abortion and treat the Kansas and Ohio referendums as "temporary stumbling blocks" when they are in fact signs of a fatal weakness in the pro-life movement. Barring a massive shift in public opinion, pro lifers will ALWAYS lose when the matter comes to a vote outside the very deepest red bible belt states. Crucially, a few bible belt states banning abortion will not effect the overall abortion rate due to the freedom of movement within the US, and this is supported by data since Dobbs. If the pro life movement cannot achieve a federal ban that is consistently and strictly enforced throughout the country, the entire strategy of trying reduce abortion by banning it is a waste of time.
Just because Trump and the GOP are marginally better on abortion does not mean fewer abortions will occur when they are in power. Its possible more abortions would occur due to their hostility to the welfare state. Even if we got a federal late term ban (which is not being promised), that's maybe 5,000-10,000 abortions a year. A Democratic president could promote late term abortions but strengthen the social safety net and therefore reduce abortions on net. The situation is morally ambiguous and tied up with prudential decisions over the economy. Catholics can vote their conscience. The idea that Catholics are morally obliged to vote GOP and need to go to confession if they vote Democrat or third party is ridiculous given these facts. GOP political operatives are exploiting religious OCD for votes.
This isn't a political issue, even though the left wants it to be. This is a problem of the hearts and minds of the American citizens. Until the majority realize that abortion is evil and the undoing of a life, it will not matter who we put in office. You named off all the things that Trump did for Prolife, but yet people still want their right to abortions. We are a doomed Republic.
I've said some for of this on 3 venues today...
Had the 1968 radicals refused to compromise, they would have lost. They actually did lose... until they changed tactics. They gave up being out and loud and adopted a gradualist "long march through the institutions", and then won every major battle for the next 60 years.
The American people today are not where we are as Christians. We thought they were; after Dobbs, it's clear they're not. But given elected leaders willing to use power for conservative ends, that can be slowly altered. Imagine federal funding of non-abortion, pregnancy centers all over America. Imagine pro-family PSAs created by the AdCouncil and run for free by FCC mandates on TV and radio all over America. We can do that, but only if we win political power.
It was refreshing to hear Trump in the debate articulate this fact when discussing abortion: "you've got to get elected". I'm a post liberal. I'm open to really radical things (like monarchy) in defense of the common good. But for now, we have a republic, and in a republic, the first step to political change is to get your team elected.
Don't turn your back on the good by waiting for the perfect. There is no 100% perfect candidate. There never has been. There never will be.
The core problem is that in an agrarian society, a couple usually won't see a relative drop in their standard of living by having an additional child, and in fact may become more productive as the child can start working on the farm at a fairly young age (assuming it lives that long). In an urbanized, industrialized, and capitalist society, where income is distributed by factor payments to workers and asset owners, any non-working family member (whether child, elderly adult, or disabled) will become a significant economic drain on the working family members. It will always be financially stupid on an individual level to have kids under these conditions, even if morally that's the right thing to do. The incentive will always be to be a DINK (dual income no kids), who have 2 workers earning income and no dependents.
A right-wing government running PSAs can't reverse this dynamic. Its not going to go Pol Pot and kill off 80% of the population and revert to a Jeffersonian agrarian society, and if it did it would be swiftly conquered by a more technologically advance state. On a very fundamental level, modern society is nothing like its historical precedents. The age of Mozart and George Washington had more in common with the Middle Ages and classical antiquity than the present day. And this new system is constantly changing, and this process of change is outside the control of any government or social movement. Conservatives don't grasp this because they take earlier stages of industrialization and capitalism, like the Victorian Age or the post-war US, as "normal" when they were no more freakish in this historical sense than anything that has come later.
Yeah, I'm an economist by training and even I don't really accept that the West's increasing childlessness is an economic thing.
I was at a small book signing for Rob Henderson (the luxury beliefs guy) about 3 months ago. He was asked about birthrates and said something very interesting. Paraphrasing: What if we don't have an instinct to have children? We have an instinct to have sex (especially men). And we have an instinct to take care of the resulting babies (especially women). Until very recently, that combination resulted in an instinct to reproduce, but pharmacological birth control interrupts that connection.
I suspect Rob is onto something here.
However, since our topic is actually abortion (not birthrates), I completely reject the premise that abortions are driven primarily by economics.
Why choose between two effectively pro-choice candidates? Vote Peter Sonski!
https://www.petersonski.com/
You ignore the fact that a large majority of Americans support abortion and treat the Kansas and Ohio referendums as "temporary stumbling blocks" when they are in fact signs of a fatal weakness in the pro-life movement. Barring a massive shift in public opinion, pro lifers will ALWAYS lose when the matter comes to a vote outside the very deepest red bible belt states. Crucially, a few bible belt states banning abortion will not effect the overall abortion rate due to the freedom of movement within the US, and this is supported by data since Dobbs. If the pro life movement cannot achieve a federal ban that is consistently and strictly enforced throughout the country, the entire strategy of trying reduce abortion by banning it is a waste of time.
Just because Trump and the GOP are marginally better on abortion does not mean fewer abortions will occur when they are in power. Its possible more abortions would occur due to their hostility to the welfare state. Even if we got a federal late term ban (which is not being promised), that's maybe 5,000-10,000 abortions a year. A Democratic president could promote late term abortions but strengthen the social safety net and therefore reduce abortions on net. The situation is morally ambiguous and tied up with prudential decisions over the economy. Catholics can vote their conscience. The idea that Catholics are morally obliged to vote GOP and need to go to confession if they vote Democrat or third party is ridiculous given these facts. GOP political operatives are exploiting religious OCD for votes.
This isn't a political issue, even though the left wants it to be. This is a problem of the hearts and minds of the American citizens. Until the majority realize that abortion is evil and the undoing of a life, it will not matter who we put in office. You named off all the things that Trump did for Prolife, but yet people still want their right to abortions. We are a doomed Republic.
I give this a perfect 10 for mental gymnastics.
Trump or Biden, I guess it isn’t gonna make any difference to the babies - they will continue to die. Sad beyond belief.