From Wikipedia, Theocon is a term sometimes used in United States political rhetoric to describe a person whose conservative ideology includes a belief that religion should play a major role in forming public policy. The term typically refers members of the Christian right, particularly those whose ideology is a synthesis of elements of American conservatism, Conservative Christianity and social conservatism, expressed through political means.
By Kline's own account, his anti-abortion activism was the main reason for his defeat. Morrison called the outcome "a victory for Kansans who want to make sure their most private personal records are kept private." Yet Kline claimed he sought the records as evidence of illegal late-term abortions, which you'd think would count as a good enough reason for self-identified pro-lifers, some of whom nevertheless seem to have voted against him, or at least failed to vote for him.
National polling data reinforce the point that pro-lifers are not necessarily absolutists. Between 40 percent and 45 percent of Americans call themselves "pro-life." But in a July survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, only 24 percent of respondents said abortion is "nearly always morally wrong." Even more surprising, various polls have found majorities as large as 66 percent against overturning Roe.
The other side of the coin is that Americans who describe themselves as "pro-choice" may nevertheless support restrictions on abortion. This month voters in California (the fifth most "pro-choice" state) and Oregon (the 13th) rejected initiatives requiring that parents be notified when their minor children seek abortions. But the margins were much smaller than they would have been if every self-described pro-choicer had voted no.
While voters' general inclinations clearly make a difference, they do not always predict their positions on specific abortion laws. There is more common ground than the stark pro-life/pro-choice divide suggests.
I just don't think the electorate is tracking with social conservatives. The abolition argument is not one that works. Most voters seem to indicate that even if they personally would not seek an abortion, they do not want to be told they cannot do so.
Thus, I think the argument has to be waged on a different level. Would you be inclined to support a candidate who stated "My wife and I would not choose an abortion under any case, however, I will not support any effort to make abortions illegal."?
I tend to think the argument has to be on a "wooing" level - that is, leaders who are morally opposed to abortion (as only one example) need to be clear about their personal views, while clear as well about currently settled law (even if they do not like such laws). Then it frees the politician to do what he can to promote alternatives - adoption, crisis pregnancy centers, counseling, etc.
Something else - it is clear to me that overall, there is an overwhelming lack of moral clarity in Americans, even among those self-describing as conservative.
2 comments:
Santorum? Nice guy. Like him. But no, he's out.
Brownback? Same deal.
Jacob Sullum had some interesting points in a piece today at townhall.com...
By Kline's own account, his anti-abortion activism was the main reason for his defeat. Morrison called the outcome "a victory for Kansans who want to make sure their most private personal records are kept private." Yet Kline claimed he sought the records as evidence of illegal late-term abortions, which you'd think would count as a good enough reason for self-identified pro-lifers, some of whom nevertheless seem to have voted against him, or at least failed to vote for him.
National polling data reinforce the point that pro-lifers are not necessarily absolutists. Between 40 percent and 45 percent of Americans call themselves "pro-life." But in a July survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, only 24 percent of respondents said abortion is "nearly always morally wrong." Even more surprising, various polls have found majorities as large as 66 percent against overturning Roe.
The other side of the coin is that Americans who describe themselves as "pro-choice" may nevertheless support restrictions on abortion. This month voters in California (the fifth most "pro-choice" state) and Oregon (the 13th) rejected initiatives requiring that parents be notified when their minor children seek abortions. But the margins were much smaller than they would have been if every self-described pro-choicer had voted no.
While voters' general inclinations clearly make a difference, they do not always predict their positions on specific abortion laws. There is more common ground than the stark pro-life/pro-choice divide suggests.
I just don't think the electorate is tracking with social conservatives. The abolition argument is not one that works. Most voters seem to indicate that even if they personally would not seek an abortion, they do not want to be told they cannot do so.
Thus, I think the argument has to be waged on a different level. Would you be inclined to support a candidate who stated "My wife and I would not choose an abortion under any case, however, I will not support any effort to make abortions illegal."?
I tend to think the argument has to be on a "wooing" level - that is, leaders who are morally opposed to abortion (as only one example) need to be clear about their personal views, while clear as well about currently settled law (even if they do not like such laws). Then it frees the politician to do what he can to promote alternatives - adoption, crisis pregnancy centers, counseling, etc.
Something else - it is clear to me that overall, there is an overwhelming lack of moral clarity in Americans, even among those self-describing as conservative.
Post a Comment