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
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).
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).