After Trump's debate performance where he managed to basically appear measured, reasonable, and exhibit self control allowing Biden to look ridiculous. Trump manages to shoot himself in the foot with his party platform. Specifically his treatment of abortion.
As I've said, I think that Trump's position on abortion makes perfect sense from a pragmatic, political point of view and is completely consistent with his previous actions. From a purely political standpoint I don't disagree with him. The essence of overturning Roe was to get the federal government out of regulating abortion, which is exactly what happened. Making abortion a state issue is also completely consistent with a conservative political stance.
But, now that it's "official" that Trump will not pursue a federal abortion policy, the pro-life abolitionists are jumping ship right and left. For some reason they believed that Trump was pro-life in the exact same way they were. They believed that Trump was 100% in agreement with their abolitionist position. They seem to be ignoring that Trump has been, in terms of actual policy accomplishments, one of the best presidents for the pro-life community in recent memory.
My questions are as follows.
Could Trump have chosen to word the platform as to not be so adamant about a federal abortion policy? Could he have left open a sliver of hope for the abolitionists? Given that he is going to be a lame duck, why wouldn't he have been vague on the topic, and left people disappointed when he left office?
I also wonder what the folks who've been so adamant that they're done with Trump over this one issue will do when faced with filling out a ballot with the only other choice being Biden. Will the folks who are 100% abolitionists manage to compromise (as if voting Trump wasn't always a compromise)? Or has Trump managed to lose an entire constituency?
13 comments:
I think those who are upset by Trump's abortion policy are fools. As you point out, it is not to be a federal law and it never will be unless the Dems make a federal law legalizing abortion.
If you refuse to vote for Trump in this election by either voting Demonkrat of not voting at all, you just hand the presidency to the LEFT. Plain and simple.
Glenn,
I agree that anyone upset by Trump's abortion stance is a fool. Yet, I'd argue that that foolishness goes to those who thought/think that Trump was ever pro-life in any sort of meaningful sense. That Trump's pro-life positions (while good in what they accomplished) were from any deep commitment to completely abolishing abortion.
Trump "pandered" to the pro-life crowd (and delivered) for personal political gain, not out of any firm beliefs about abortion.
First, just as I argue with those who think they know that Trump only cares about himself, I find it hard to presume what his actual feelings are on abortion. Thus, I focus on what he does say and actions he actually takes. As you say, Craig, his position has mostly been about overturning Roe, but he has assumed a pro-life stance by and large. So many on the right have their "exceptions", that absolutists are indeed foolish to expect any full on outlawing of the practice at this point in time. The last fifty years or so has indoctrinated many into accepting some form of abortion, with the Dems going whole hog infanticide wherever it suits them to do so.
I agree that altering the party platform was the wrong move. The platform as it was wasn't strong enough in defending life. I also wonder how much input Trump had with the platform, or were there enough within the party spineless to leave it as it was, fearful that it's an issue which incites enough slugs to get to polls in favor of Dems.
Personally, I would like the GOP to be unequivocal in stating the fact, that the conceived are people endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life just as anyone else outside the womb. The science proves it. Honor and character defend it. Let the Dems defend the fictions they tell in light of all the facts and truth which opposes them. This is no time to get all wobbly...as a great conservative woman once said.
I still get emails from Illinois organizations, with a recent one naming two people of the IL GOP who are involved with drafting the national GOP platform. It came with an appeal to readers to send the demand to leave the abortion plank as it is, or make it even more pro-life. I don't even know how to find out who in my state (SC) has that job. I saw another email I haven't read which suggests Lindsey Graham opposing the changes. Good on him if that's true.
I don't know how many absolutists there are and how they can reject Trump given the alternatives. Is there enough of them to make any difference? I don't care. We need everyone to get this guy elected and we can hash out these types of differences later. Such people need to take the lead among those in their circle of influence and each try to convince one abortion defender of the truth. We don't really need any laws if no one is aborting their kids, but if enough people refuse to reject the truth or quibble about what the truth is or says, then the laws will come. For the party to play hardball on this issue...sadly, to say the least...is the wrong move at this time.
Art,
He "assumed" (I'd say that it was presumed) a pro-life stance (or at least anti-Roe) because it helped him politically. It appealed to a certain demographic and they voted for him. As I said, he delivered the justices that helped overturn Roe. Everybody won. But now, his actions are pissing off the abolitionists. You can't judge by his actions when you agree, but not when you disagree. His crafting of the platform IS an action. It's an action that he chose to make. It might honestly reflect his views (which I applaud), but it literally is an action that he chose, and which he has pissed people off by choosing.
The reports I've seen are that the platform was significantly shaped by Trump, and that it is consistent with his stated position expressed during the primaries.
I would also prefer a more explicit pro-life platform. Unfortunately, Trump has given us the platform we have.
That is exactly the question. Are there enough abolitionists out there to make a difference? The answer is that we just don't know. My question is "Why would Trump take an action that is going to cost him some level of support in an election that is likely to be close? Why would Trump take the risk? He's clearly not going to push any federal abortion legislation, for or against. Why not be vague and not alienate voters?
If "we need everyone" then why is "this guy" engaging in actions that will potentially cost him the support of a bloc of potential voters? Are those who are sincere. committed, abolitionists supposed to put their commitment aside?
I'm shocked to hear you acknowledge that Trump made "a wrong move".
A few quotes I've seen today.
"Christians should not over-spiritualize voting in a political election. If you have a righteous candidate running against a wicked one, then, by all means, vote for the righteous man.
If you only have two wicked men running, then vote for the man who will do the most practical good, or if nothing else, the man who will do the least harm.
There is no sin in that, and in fact, there is a lot of wisdom and common sense in that approach. No need to overcomplicate the matter."
"They rolled us. That's what they did."
Gail Ruzicka, RNC platform committee member from Utah, just after today's vote in Milwaukee: "I've never seen this happen before. I don't understand why they did it, and I'm extremely disappointed that we do not have any pro-life language"
"Hot take incoming:
Abortion activists are betraying the only man on Earth who gave them the one thing they wanted--the thing no other GOP politician could for 50 years.
I am pro-life, obviously. Abortion makes me sick. But -- trigger warning - I'm super confused at the anger among pro-lifers re the GOP platform.
1. Why are reasonable, intelligent people under the ludicrous impression that the GOP (lol lmao!) is some sort of religious moral authority that has the power, desire, or ability to transform and heal the human heart? How long have they had this delusion about [all] politicians?!
Reminder: render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. The transforming of human hearts is the job of the apostles, not politicians. Sorry the Church totally failed you, but blaming a political party seems like scapegoating. You should be mad at your religious authorities, not a political party.
2. Activists demanded Roe be overturned and the issue returned to the states. President Trump delivered this on a platter. Now you're mad and want to punish him? He deserves your vote and support for delivering on the issue 50 years of losers could not give you.
I fervently hope pro-life activists keep fighting at the state level. I totally support you in this! My wish, like yours, is zero abortion. But there is no mortal craft we here possess that can perform that miracle.
If the people angry at the "GOP Platform" refuse to vote for Trump because he won't support a new federal ban, then YOU will be the authors of a coast-to-coast abortion free-for-all—and the final surrender of the country to open-borders lunatics.
Never underestimate the ability of the GOP to own goal themselves into oblivion."
"He "assumed" (I'd say that it was presumed) a pro-life stance (or at least anti-Roe) because it helped him politically."
Where has he stated this? Why do so many wish to believe this guy only does stuff "for himself"? It might be a legit insistence if not for the fact that nobody acts totally without regard for themselves. Nobody. Thus, to suppose he acts only on that which will help him politically presumes (indeed, "presumes") that he has no moral compass at all and never assumes ("assumes" correctly used here) a position because he feels it's the morally correct one? Indeed, anything he believes in would indicate he's acting politically by "presuming" most people agree and would then support him.
" You can't judge by his actions when you agree, but not when you disagree."
I'm not judging him by his actions, but questioning those who are. You are by suggesting his actions indicate he's acting only to his political benefit, as opposed to possibly because he actually believes in the policy. Absolutists are by supposing he's abandoned them. I'm only regarding him as innocent of nefarious intent until proven guilty. I think that's how it's supposed to be done.
"The reports I've seen are that the platform was significantly shaped by Trump, and that it is consistent with his stated position expressed during the primaries."
I've seen such reports myself, but none I've seen state explicitly that he had a direct hand in crafting it. His statements may have simply led those who actually have the job to infer what ended up in the platform as it now stands.
I'd like to know if it's set in stone, and if not, we should be nagging the crap out of the party leaders to amend it more to our liking.
"I would also prefer a more explicit pro-life platform. Unfortunately, Trump has given us the platform we have."
You keep saying this. I've not seen it stated that "he gave us" this platform as if it couldn't have been crafted in just this manner if he didn't demand it. I've seen nothing thus far which suggests this is how it's done. What I do know is that this platform should be informed mostly by the electorate. The bastards keep sending me surveys to get my opinion. What's the point if they're going to craft the platform to satisfy one guy?
Trump's work in getting Roe tossed back to the states was the right move because it's what everyone claimed to have wanted since 1973. He was right in stating the states have to take it from there since he delivered on this issue in the way it played out. I disagree that it's a state issue since I know without any doubt in my mind and due to the facts of science that the conceived are people like anyone else who made it out of the womb alive. Period. No need to wonder if it's a states' rights issue or a federal issue, as it's clearly the latter.
But that argument...with one side speaking the truth and the other the progressives...is ongoing and like you and others, I'll take fewer abortions than more and this gets us that.
You may have heard the expression, "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." This falls under this truth, and to wonder why he would "risk" as small amount of people means he has to find a way to never disappoint anyone ever. Hey, no f**king pressure there, right? Jeez!
" I'm shocked to hear you acknowledge that Trump made "a wrong move"."
To what are you referring specifically?
First quote sounds like Jordan Peterson, but in any case, it mirrors my own voting philosophy.
Second quote, I wonder who "they" is supposed to be. This person is no the committee and thus is part of the "they" responsible. So who specifically is "they" and why had not this person and others like her not made a massive stink before the platform was finalized?
Third quote, this also is a sensible response to the absolutists. I'm one of them, yet I take that approach. There's too many infanticidal people in this country to suppose anyone can just outlaw abortion altogether regardless of how absolutely righteous and proper it would be. Thus, we're still left with a choice to make and in this case, the wrong one will result in more infanticide, not less.
I never believed his quasi pro-life position anyway. I really wish we had a better candidate but I can never vote for Demokrats.
Glenn,
I believe that Trump gave the pro-life voters what they wanted in the 2016 campaign, then he followed through on what he said he did. Pro-lifers really have nothing to complain about. Trump got the judges that overturned Roe, and sent it back to the states. If the pro-life abolitionists couldn't get it done at the state level, that's on them. They can keep trying. Trump is being consistent in sticking with his belief that abortion is not a federal issue. I have zero problem with what Trump is doing politically. Obviously, many of us wanted a better choice.
Art,
It wasn't Peterson.
As I understand it Mrs Rizika was a member of the platform committee, who dissents from the actions of the majority.
If not Peterson, do you know who it was? I just thought it sounded like him.
It's a woman with a Twitter handle of Melissa the Homemaking Cheapskate.
Just to be clear, I believe the US Constitution protects all innocent life. Unfortunately, there's this factually false notion that the conceived are not people also endowed with the right to life. This sad state of affairs requires the absolutists (of which I am one) to make the effort to convince everyone else of the truth. Until enough are convinced, we will have to accept the issue is a state issue.
Post a Comment