Remember, I’m offering a rare, limited time only offer this week only to subscribe here for just $8/month. You’ll get exclusive content, podcast transcripts, occasional webinars, and access to my Subscriber Knowledge Base. Please take advantage of this, because it’s a great deal, and I need your support as I
I'm going to disagree with dead in the water. I will agree that there was a Dobbs backlash. But much of this wasn't on opposition to abortion itself; abortion supporters ran campaigns saying things like prolife laws don't have exceptions for the life of the mother—even though they all do. These battles are being fought on ground that actually isn't being contested, and not at all on their real position: unlimited abortions. This is very different from, say, the marriage issue, where simply saying marriage is between a man and woman is instant negative territory.
But the reality is that they can continue having Warren Buffett and Mike Bloomberg fly in $40 million dollars to swamp voters with ads. So, how to address that reality will be difficult, because prolifers don't have an army of billionaires to fly in cash for state referenda. There will have to be a change in strategy in swing states. But in red states, ending Roe v. Wade has not led to a catastrophic backlash, and those groups can very much declare total victory in some cases.
It will be a long, messy road, but I am optimistic once our demographic realities hit hard. Even China is willing to backtrack on abortion policy once reality sets in (though obviously not for the right reasons).
I expect you'll ruffle some feathers with this one. But I largely agree. I'd also guess that, although no politician says this out loud anymore, a lot of people still hold the "safe, legal, rare" view that abortion is generally wrong, but they're not too bothered by women making that choice for themselves.
The Democrats made what turned out to be a persuasive rhetorical case around things like miscarriages turned wrong, because it reached even women who would never consider abortion for themselves. The idea of the healthcare system failing you is very real and very scary, and the idea of other women deciding to quietly kill their own children behind closed doors is pretty abstract, so why, they reasoned, should you risk one to prevent the other?
Maybe it has always been this way, but I'll speculate that the pro-life cause is even more abstract in an atomized society in which we share ever-fewer bonds with our neighbors or countrymen, so those abortions one town over might as well be happening in Zambia. People have a far stronger emotional reaction to issues that are either personal, or that can successfully be framed as out-group vs. in-group. Unborn children, unfortunately, seldom find themselves in anyone's in-group besides their own family. And "abortion-seeking mothers" aren't a clear out-group to many people, either.
Not sure what you are saying the second paragraph. The healthcare system "failing a woman" is never going to result in abortion she previously didn't want. This has been made clear in conservative media like the Federalist, no abortion law proposed or passed puts any restrictions on the removal of miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies. Democrats and a lot of health care providers have lied about this, but it isn't true. Frankly, women who fell for this without learning about the issue for themselves shouldn't have the franchise.
I didn't research it further though because it didn't affect my vote. But it makes sense to me that there's a world of difference between "the letter of the law says this thing definitely won't happen" and "this thing definitely won't happen."
We live in a low-trust, low-information environment, and you have to have blinders on to think it doesn't apply to both sides. I just have to take a look at my Boomer mother's Facebook feed to see how much conservative misinformation is out there. Most people are not savvy consumers of information, and I don't believe it's time to suspend the franchise for that large majority of the population.
So for a woman who has a "legal, safe, rare" or mildly pro-life mindset, the rational move would be to conclude that pro-life laws MIGHT negatively affect her healthcare. And, rationally, based on her existing values, that chance is enough to be opposed to those pro-life laws.
I think if the pro-life political movement doesn't want that to be true, it needs to hit this talking point much harder than it already did, and it needs to craft laws that put an over-abundance of protections in those laws for miscarriages, etc.
Assuming the woman in the article is telling the truth, which is never an assumption I start with when dealing with pro abortion advocates, her doctor was committing malpractice and should be prosecuted for it. This is unsurprising given the serious ethical problems with the medical industry. I am surprised they haven't intentionally killed a woman yet to make her a martyr for the cause. Given the current political environment, who do you think is going to prosecute this doctor for removing a miscarriage? Planned Parenthood and other pro abortion organizations are fundamentally deceitful and dishonest, they want restrictions watered down and gutted to make them ineffective. We will have to agree to disagree on whether or not the vast majority of our low information population should be voting. It is certainly not what the framers of our government intended.
The abortion trend is a disturbing snapshot of our culture. My opinion was that Democrats manipulation of low info women who don't always bother to vote would help them a little, but not to the degree it appears to have done. Vermont, which has the lowest birthrate in the country voted 77-23% to make abortion legal at any point in pregnancy. Based on data I could find roughly 20% of pregnancies in Vermont end in abortion. In a post you made earlier this year I compared Vermont to a mainline church where the members seem unconcerned they don't have a future. That is consistent with these results.
Nationwide the results were closer but the results weren't better. In addition to young women who are content to be wage slaves to a corporation rather than raise a family, there appears to be a rise in Dave Portney type men who want abortion legal so they don't have to take responsibility for unwanted children. This is a suicidal mentality for our civilization.
Aaron, I unsubscribed from Patreon, maybe temporarily, because I have felt some frustration in your political takes lately. You say the culture war approach is obsolete. So what does that mean? Quit advocating for life and family issues? It also seems to me like you spend much more time punching right than left. I know you say you "call them like you see them", but it always seems you leave us with no suggestions, no other options. I think the final straw was the idea that we might actually vote for Democrats in certain cases. I know the Republicans let us down, but this is just a bridge too far for me.
Mark, I don't suggest abandoning the fight. However, we have to start from a place of reality.
I've argued that evangelicals have been the most loyal voting block of the GOP and have gotten little in return for it. How to change that isn't easy to figure out, but if you are never willing to vote for the other party, then you'll be a serf forever. Both evangelicals and Republicans have failed to full take account of ideological change (managerialism) and the way power actually functions in the US.
Potential ways forward involve a relentless, long term project to advance an agenda. (That's what the left did - it's literally took them almost a century to bring about cultural changes of today in the sexual realm. The book The Sexual Revolution was published in the 1930s I believe). I willingness to take what you can get, then press forward for more. Absolutists can be good to have in your coalition. I'm not saying they should be suppressed. The Democrats like having far leftists in their coalition, for example. But that can't be the only model.
Evangelicals also have to work to acquire other forms of power, such as business power, strategic property ownership, etc. Agree with him or not, what Doug Wilson did in Moscow has made that community resilient and even antifragile in the face of extreme hostility.
Try to apply the lessons of Taleb's minority rule where possible. Prove to be indigestible.
Strengthen evangelicals' own, very weak communities that are typically very shallow and largely conformed to the world.
Redouble efforts around alternative pathways to abortion.
There's lot that can be done without demanding an unrealistic strategy of political overreach.
Nobody else is "punching right" in a way that is as constructive as Aaron.
I join you in calling for Aaron to provide more writing / ideas / resources / lessons on how to "succeed" even while remaining an underdog in Negative World. We've been in Negative World before, but I think a lot of people struggle to apply the lessons of, say, the early church amidst Pagan Antiquity to the Information Age.
Some of his past writing has highlighted the success of the Mormons or Catholics emerging out of late 19th century suppression. Maybe there are other relevant examples?
I have to pushback a little on Vance especially on the GOPe narrative comparing his result to the Governor Mike (not Ron)DeWine. DeWine has been a fixture in Ohio politics since the mid 1970s and had 100% name recognition plus the Democrats didn't do much to fund his challenger. Tim Ryan was a more experienced candidate and Vance was new to running for office. I didn't think his result was an underperformance given those factors.
It appears DeSantis really benefited from transplants moving into the state voting for him. I would like to see a poll of how many of his voters weren't living in Florida in 2018 and where they came from. I speculated before the election that the Democrat Governors of Michigan, Minnesota and New York would all win partially because they had driven so many Republican voters from their states. Kristi Noem also appears to have benefited from this trend in South Dakota as she ran much stronger than her 2018 result and better than she was polling.
I'm going to disagree with dead in the water. I will agree that there was a Dobbs backlash. But much of this wasn't on opposition to abortion itself; abortion supporters ran campaigns saying things like prolife laws don't have exceptions for the life of the mother—even though they all do. These battles are being fought on ground that actually isn't being contested, and not at all on their real position: unlimited abortions. This is very different from, say, the marriage issue, where simply saying marriage is between a man and woman is instant negative territory.
But the reality is that they can continue having Warren Buffett and Mike Bloomberg fly in $40 million dollars to swamp voters with ads. So, how to address that reality will be difficult, because prolifers don't have an army of billionaires to fly in cash for state referenda. There will have to be a change in strategy in swing states. But in red states, ending Roe v. Wade has not led to a catastrophic backlash, and those groups can very much declare total victory in some cases.
It will be a long, messy road, but I am optimistic once our demographic realities hit hard. Even China is willing to backtrack on abortion policy once reality sets in (though obviously not for the right reasons).
I expect you'll ruffle some feathers with this one. But I largely agree. I'd also guess that, although no politician says this out loud anymore, a lot of people still hold the "safe, legal, rare" view that abortion is generally wrong, but they're not too bothered by women making that choice for themselves.
The Democrats made what turned out to be a persuasive rhetorical case around things like miscarriages turned wrong, because it reached even women who would never consider abortion for themselves. The idea of the healthcare system failing you is very real and very scary, and the idea of other women deciding to quietly kill their own children behind closed doors is pretty abstract, so why, they reasoned, should you risk one to prevent the other?
Maybe it has always been this way, but I'll speculate that the pro-life cause is even more abstract in an atomized society in which we share ever-fewer bonds with our neighbors or countrymen, so those abortions one town over might as well be happening in Zambia. People have a far stronger emotional reaction to issues that are either personal, or that can successfully be framed as out-group vs. in-group. Unborn children, unfortunately, seldom find themselves in anyone's in-group besides their own family. And "abortion-seeking mothers" aren't a clear out-group to many people, either.
Not sure what you are saying the second paragraph. The healthcare system "failing a woman" is never going to result in abortion she previously didn't want. This has been made clear in conservative media like the Federalist, no abortion law proposed or passed puts any restrictions on the removal of miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies. Democrats and a lot of health care providers have lied about this, but it isn't true. Frankly, women who fell for this without learning about the issue for themselves shouldn't have the franchise.
My understanding is that some of these things reported have actually happened. E.g. this article:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/health/doctors-weigh-litigation-miscarriage-care/index.html
I didn't research it further though because it didn't affect my vote. But it makes sense to me that there's a world of difference between "the letter of the law says this thing definitely won't happen" and "this thing definitely won't happen."
We live in a low-trust, low-information environment, and you have to have blinders on to think it doesn't apply to both sides. I just have to take a look at my Boomer mother's Facebook feed to see how much conservative misinformation is out there. Most people are not savvy consumers of information, and I don't believe it's time to suspend the franchise for that large majority of the population.
So for a woman who has a "legal, safe, rare" or mildly pro-life mindset, the rational move would be to conclude that pro-life laws MIGHT negatively affect her healthcare. And, rationally, based on her existing values, that chance is enough to be opposed to those pro-life laws.
I think if the pro-life political movement doesn't want that to be true, it needs to hit this talking point much harder than it already did, and it needs to craft laws that put an over-abundance of protections in those laws for miscarriages, etc.
Assuming the woman in the article is telling the truth, which is never an assumption I start with when dealing with pro abortion advocates, her doctor was committing malpractice and should be prosecuted for it. This is unsurprising given the serious ethical problems with the medical industry. I am surprised they haven't intentionally killed a woman yet to make her a martyr for the cause. Given the current political environment, who do you think is going to prosecute this doctor for removing a miscarriage? Planned Parenthood and other pro abortion organizations are fundamentally deceitful and dishonest, they want restrictions watered down and gutted to make them ineffective. We will have to agree to disagree on whether or not the vast majority of our low information population should be voting. It is certainly not what the framers of our government intended.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/23/pro-life-ob-gyn-dispels-the-most-common-lies-about-abortion-miscarriage-and-saving-the-life-of-a-mother/
The abortion trend is a disturbing snapshot of our culture. My opinion was that Democrats manipulation of low info women who don't always bother to vote would help them a little, but not to the degree it appears to have done. Vermont, which has the lowest birthrate in the country voted 77-23% to make abortion legal at any point in pregnancy. Based on data I could find roughly 20% of pregnancies in Vermont end in abortion. In a post you made earlier this year I compared Vermont to a mainline church where the members seem unconcerned they don't have a future. That is consistent with these results.
Nationwide the results were closer but the results weren't better. In addition to young women who are content to be wage slaves to a corporation rather than raise a family, there appears to be a rise in Dave Portney type men who want abortion legal so they don't have to take responsibility for unwanted children. This is a suicidal mentality for our civilization.
Culture of Death = Death Cult. Tragic destruction of the future, sacrificed for the pleasures and freedoms of the present.
Aaron, I unsubscribed from Patreon, maybe temporarily, because I have felt some frustration in your political takes lately. You say the culture war approach is obsolete. So what does that mean? Quit advocating for life and family issues? It also seems to me like you spend much more time punching right than left. I know you say you "call them like you see them", but it always seems you leave us with no suggestions, no other options. I think the final straw was the idea that we might actually vote for Democrats in certain cases. I know the Republicans let us down, but this is just a bridge too far for me.
Mark, I don't suggest abandoning the fight. However, we have to start from a place of reality.
I've argued that evangelicals have been the most loyal voting block of the GOP and have gotten little in return for it. How to change that isn't easy to figure out, but if you are never willing to vote for the other party, then you'll be a serf forever. Both evangelicals and Republicans have failed to full take account of ideological change (managerialism) and the way power actually functions in the US.
Potential ways forward involve a relentless, long term project to advance an agenda. (That's what the left did - it's literally took them almost a century to bring about cultural changes of today in the sexual realm. The book The Sexual Revolution was published in the 1930s I believe). I willingness to take what you can get, then press forward for more. Absolutists can be good to have in your coalition. I'm not saying they should be suppressed. The Democrats like having far leftists in their coalition, for example. But that can't be the only model.
Evangelicals also have to work to acquire other forms of power, such as business power, strategic property ownership, etc. Agree with him or not, what Doug Wilson did in Moscow has made that community resilient and even antifragile in the face of extreme hostility.
Try to apply the lessons of Taleb's minority rule where possible. Prove to be indigestible.
Strengthen evangelicals' own, very weak communities that are typically very shallow and largely conformed to the world.
Redouble efforts around alternative pathways to abortion.
There's lot that can be done without demanding an unrealistic strategy of political overreach.
Mark - I'll push back a bit: clarity is kind.
Nobody else is "punching right" in a way that is as constructive as Aaron.
I join you in calling for Aaron to provide more writing / ideas / resources / lessons on how to "succeed" even while remaining an underdog in Negative World. We've been in Negative World before, but I think a lot of people struggle to apply the lessons of, say, the early church amidst Pagan Antiquity to the Information Age.
Some of his past writing has highlighted the success of the Mormons or Catholics emerging out of late 19th century suppression. Maybe there are other relevant examples?
I have to pushback a little on Vance especially on the GOPe narrative comparing his result to the Governor Mike (not Ron)DeWine. DeWine has been a fixture in Ohio politics since the mid 1970s and had 100% name recognition plus the Democrats didn't do much to fund his challenger. Tim Ryan was a more experienced candidate and Vance was new to running for office. I didn't think his result was an underperformance given those factors.
It appears DeSantis really benefited from transplants moving into the state voting for him. I would like to see a poll of how many of his voters weren't living in Florida in 2018 and where they came from. I speculated before the election that the Democrat Governors of Michigan, Minnesota and New York would all win partially because they had driven so many Republican voters from their states. Kristi Noem also appears to have benefited from this trend in South Dakota as she ran much stronger than her 2018 result and better than she was polling.