Weekly Digest: After Dobbs
Welcome to my weekly digest for July 8, 2022.
For new subscribers, this contains a roundup of my recent writings and podcasts, as well as links to the best articles from around the web this week. You can control what emails you get from me by visiting your account page.
This week’s digest is coming to you from the Imperial City.
New Content and Media Mentions
Another writer for Governing magazine mentioned my recent column on cultural threats.
New this week:
Why men tune into online gurus instead of the church. An example from the manosphere of the practical insight and advice drawing men to online authority figures instead of the traditional institutions of society.
A lesson in how the left operates (Subscriber Only). I examine a case in Grand Rapids to illustrate a classic approach of the American left in trying to establish facts on the ground to advance their cause.
At American Reformer, Josh Abbotoy writes about politics after Dobbs, and Ben Peterson on the constitution of order. Both are great, recommended pieces.
You can listen to my podcast on Apple, Google, or YouTube.
If you’re not yet a Subscriber, please consider becoming one today. For just $10/month, you not only help sustain and grow the mission here, but you also get access to exclusive content, podcast and interview transcripts, access to the Subscriber Knowledge Base, and occasional special events like webinars.
Best of the Web
Revolver News look at the pro-life movement’s formula for success, and its lessons for other fights.
NYT: Who will help care for Texas’ post-Roe babies? This article actually highlights ministries doing just that. The pictures in the article show the stakes of abortion. I wonder how many of even liberal NYT readers will see the pictures of that newborn and say that it would be better for him to be dead?
NYT: China Offers Women Perks for Having Babies. Single Moms Don’t Qualify - Unlike the United States, which actively subsidizes single motherhood, China is directing its child subsidies to intact families. Undoubtedly there’s a need to support lower income single mothers, but the US system could do much more to reward people who do the right thing.
Stephen Wolfe writes a piece on the classically Reformed view of civil law. It’s part of a symposium on theonomy. I appreciate that Wolfe has studied the literature, writes clearly, defines terms, and makes logical arguments. These are all qualities many of his critics don’t possess.
Current Affairs: The Dangerous Populist Science of Yuval Noah Harari
I find the contrast between what Aaron has written in the past about the pro-life movement and the following from the Revolver piece interesting:
"But at the same time, the pro-life movement developed a savvy PR sense. In the 1980s, pro-life activists got a bad reputation for harassing women entering abortion clinics. But today, the movement instead frames mothers, even those getting abortions, as the victims of abortion. The annual March for Life concludes with women who regret their abortions speaking on the steps of the Supreme Court. Instead of vilifying young pregnant women, the movement reserves its venom for organizations, clinics, and particularly despicable villains like mass-murdering Pennsylvania abortionist Kermit Gosnell."
Of course, to focus animus on abortionists and organizations doesn't mean one has to portray women who get abortions as "victims." But the question bothering me here is whether there is some political benefit, for conservatives, in being logically inconsistent. Clearly there is for leftists, as their worldview (if it can be called that) is a giant basket of inconsistencies, the only common thread of which is the consistent goal of seeking to destroy civilization.
Maybe this is just me wanting to think if conservatives just went full Chad and Yes.-meme and stuck to what's obviously true then they would win politically (rather than trying to water things down to be Progressives driving the speed limit).