Much of the intensity of political polarization in the US comes from a strangely mirror-image-like pair of personal-freedom issues -- abortion rights and gun rights. In each case one side, or rather its most militant exponents, is grimly determined to attack and destroy what the other side considers an absolutely vital freedom.
To those who value personal freedom across-the-board, and to much of the "exhausted majority" seeking to overcome the dead-end division of American society into two bitterly-opposed camps, the outlines of a political "grand bargain" seem obvious. Let the right wing permanently and sincerely renounce its attacks on abortion rights, and let the left wing permanently and sincerely renounce its attacks on gun rights, and much of the intractability of our current divisions would start to ease. Tens of millions on each side who now feel they must vote against the opposing side's party to preserve an essential freedom, no matter what their misgivings about some of their own party's extremist positions, would feel their options broaden. Each party would gain a chance to be competitive in areas of the country from which it is now locked out. Democracy itself would benefit.
In reality, of course, this seems impossible, because the zealots on each side will never stop crusading against the freedom so valued by the other. They will always hold their own side's party, and the majority of the population which might be more amenable to live-and-let-live, hostage to their determination to force everyone into conformity with their own taboos and visceral dislikes.
But two recent developments may give cause for hope.
The first, of course, is the wave of victories for abortion rights in referenda and elections across the country since Dobbs. It's striking that these have occurred even in red states such as Kansas and Ohio, and with unusually high voter turnout -- which indicates that many Republican voters now support personal freedom on this issue. Most recently, in Florida, at least 150,000 Republicans (mainly women, apparently) signed on to support putting a measure protecting abortion rights on next year's ballot. It's clear that Dobbs was the catalyst -- back when abortion was constitutionally protected, it was easy to vote for a party committed to banning it if you supported that party on other issues, because you knew that they wouldn't have the power to actually implement such a ban. Now, with abortion under real threat and a succession of horror stories like this in the news, preserving that freedom suddenly moves to the top of the priority list.
The second development first came to my attention here, though in reality it should have been obvious that this would happen. Over the last few years gun ownership among urban liberals has risen sharply, driven by the explosion of crime in major cities, and in many cases the ineffectiveness of the police in dealing with it or even outright ideology-driven coddling of criminals* by local governments. In my own city of Portland there have been case after case of things like random violent attacks on individuals, whole streets being taken over by street racers, "protesters" harassing innocent bystanders by blocking traffic, retailers abandoning downtown because of unsustainable losses from robbery, employers similarly leaving because their employees don't feel safe, and on and on. And I've seen plenty of other such stories from other big cities. The latest wrinkle is the wave of violence and vandalism and murderous rhetoric directed against Jewish people and sites during the outbreak of open Nazism among "progressives" since the October 7 attack on Israel. More and more people who always felt basically safe no longer do. Red states have traditionally had higher crime rates than blue cities, which is part of why the residents of the former felt the need to be armed -- but the same is becoming true of the cities.
Just as many Republican voters have become less willing to support abortion bans in the abstract when there is suddenly a real threat of such a ban actually taking effect, so many urban liberals find the ability to physically defend themselves a lot more vital when violence and chaos are escalating where they live.
As I noted above, the zealots of the right and left will never renounce their attacks on abortion rights and gun rights respectively. But it seems the grassroots are rebelling against their intransigence. If this can be sustained, with red-state abortion restrictions and blue-state gun restrictions dismantled by the voters themselves via referenda and protest campaigns, then the exhausted majority will finally have scored a win, sweeping the ideologists aside and perhaps opening the way for further steps toward a less polarized, more tolerant, freer future.
[*Another infuriatingly-coddled criminal is of course Donald Trump, who in a sane world would already have been tried, convicted, and executed for inciting an insurrection and trying to violently overturn an election result. But that's really a matter for another post.]
Stand with Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan -- with democracy and civilization against tyranny and barbarism
Pages
▼
18 December 2023
6 comments:
Please be on-topic and read the comments policy. Spam, trolls, and fight-pickers will be deleted. If you don't have a Blogger account and aren't sure how to comment, see here. Fair warning: anything even remotely supportive of transgender ideology, or negative toward Brexit, or supportive of a military draft or compulsory national service, will be deleted and result in a permanent ban. I am not obligated to provide a platform for views I find morally abhorrent.
On work days there is likely to be a substantial delay in approving comments, since I can't do blog stuff in an office. For this I apologize.
Ohio's really a swing state. It's just that Robbie Mook says otherwise, and people listened to him, which led to Trump.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this post. You always lay things out so logically. Things like this give me hope. I could use some.
ReplyDeleteI spent the weekend with family in Eastern Oregon. A lot of that family believes quite a few conspiracy theories. My brother took Ivermectin more than once during the "plandemic" as he calls it. My mom believes that we're all going to have to convert our currency to 'Biden Bucks', as he's going to be a dictator. Actually it won't be Joe, since he is dead and has been replaced by either a robot or a double. People say 'you can't make this shit up' but that is exactly what they've done.
I didn't bother trying to engage. But wtf. Seriously.
Anon: It's been pretty red lately. I have no clue who "Robbie Mook" is.
ReplyDeleteAmi: Thank you. I always try to be logical. I think the partisanship of a lot of bloggers prevents them from seeing these kinds of connections.
I can well believe what you said about your eastern Oregon relatives' ideas. Except for the "Biden bucks", I've seen every one of those, including the term "plandemic" being promoted on various right-wing sites. There's one site that claims most major Democratic party leaders have already been executed for treason and replaced by clones (showing that they have no idea how cloning works, among other things). There's no point in engaging with such nonsense. It would be like trying to argue with one of those dolls that plays back a pre-recorded phrase when you pull the string on its back.
Good stuff, linked
ReplyDeleteSafe to assume you consider yourself a libertarian, seems to be a common thread throughout your writing
Thanks for the link.
ReplyDeleteI certainly attach high importance to individual freedom, but I wouldn't accept the label "libertarian" based on many of the things that that ideology includes in practice these days. I support much higher taxes on the rich (which are not a substantive infringement in individual freedom), stricter controls on immigration, much harsher punishment of actual crimes involving violence or threats or harassment against persons, and a stronger social safety net than we have now. The problem with the current libertarian ideology is that it's shifted from a focus on real individual freedom (abortion, gun rights, drug use, etc) to a focus on churning out ideological justifications for the wealth and power of the super-rich parasite class -- which in reality means a de facto reduction of individual freedom for everyone else.
When I was posting this I thought maybe I should say “I’m not talking about the guys who call Themselves libertarian now“ — Like everything today, the term is prostituted
DeleteI don’t think I would disagree with anything you say here at all, you know Reagan considered himself a libertarian. He said a true conservative was libertarian at heart
Times change too, I think tax cuts on investors was needed then, the top rate was like 70%
Now is more like Teddy Roosevelt era, where the oligarchs need to be taxed and reigned in