I typical share via Google Reader these days but I thought, this post from Greg Mankiw deserves extra attention basically because I agree with it. He theorizes that the youth moved away from the Republican Party because of social conservatism. I expressed the same concerned earlier.
…It was largely noneconomic issues. These particular students told me they preferred the lower tax, more limited government, freer trade views of McCain, but they were voting for Obama on the basis of foreign policy and especially social issues like abortion. The choice of a social conservative like Palin as veep really turned them off McCain.
So what does the Republican Party need to do to get the youth vote back? If the Harvard students are typical (and perhaps they are not, as Harvard students are hardly a random sample), the party needs to scale back its social conservatism. Put simply, it needs to become a party for moderate and mainstream libertarians. The actual Libertarian Party is far too extreme in its views to attract these students. And it is too much of a strange fringe group. These students are, after all, part of the establishment. But a reformed Republican Party could, I think, win them back. [The Youth Vote and the GOP. Greg Mankiw’s Blog. November 5 2008]
Will it happen?
10 replies on “[1828] Of what the GOP needs to do”
If the definition of life is the benchmark, then ask yourself this: if birth endanger the life of the mother, should the pregnancy continue?
Pro-choice fractions assert that the mother has the right to choose, nothing more.
Pro-choice is NOT about pro-abortion per se. If the mother chooses to continue with the pregnancy, then that’s fine. If she wishes for abortion, that is fine too. That’s in essence, is pro-choice position.
That’s why the position is called pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
The definition of life, while no doubt important, is not the main rationale for the formulation of pro-choice idea. Like I said, Oster’s statement misses the point.
> No, the statement is not contingent on that.
> Putting it so misses the crux of the issue.
I’m with oster on this one – that this issue ultimately hinges on the definition of life.
An honest look at the developments re: abortion reveals a very different picture. People are demanding the right to have an abortion whenever they choose, and for whatever reason they want it. It is no longer about abortion – under special circumstances – to protect the mother and child; but people shirking the responsibility of bringing up a conceived kid. And so they conveniently define ‘life’ to not begin upon conception – not for any rational/scientific reasons, but because it suits them.
I suggest that people actually watch this video with an ultrasound segment on abortion – http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek. The video was made by a doctor who used to do abortions, and made popular by Ronald Reagan. People can express their views in good conscience only if they know how an abortion is done.
No, the statement is not contingent on that. Putting it so misses the crux of the issue.
But of course, there are different groups with different tolerance for various abortion in different circumstance. Regardless, in the widest sense, pro-choice is simply an opposition to a complete ban of abortion. The use of label is simply for convenience and nothing else.
Your statement about me wrapping the issue around various terms is unfair, especially when I qualified the use at considerable length.
The abortion debate hinges on the definition of life. Wrap the issue around words like “pro-choice”, “pro-life” or “liberty” as much as you like, no one would think it should be a liberty if everyone defines life to have begun on conception, and no one would think it an issue of supporting life if the definition of life is not from conception.
So when you say “pro-choice is liberty”, you must be conscious that this statement is contingent on defining life as to have not begun on conception.
When does life begin then? Well, the concept of “life” itself is subjective, is it not? Let different societes decide.
As for the GOP being wieghed down (or perhaps buoyed?) by social conservatism, what we have is simply the vagaries of the partisan democratic system which brings with it the baggage of associationism. That even liberal GOP members such as Lincoln Chaffee can be ousted simply because of the brand, even if he was socially liberal, shows this.
It’s all in the brand.
cheers
I ramble a lot, so don’t take me too literally.
I have NOT conflated abortion with stem cell research – but the debate for BOTH cases (fundamentally comes down to the same thing: when does life begin? Some religions assert that life begins upon conception; some people have answered that question in such a way that permits them to do whatever they want, regardless of whatever.
Pro-choice is liberty, yes – but does your choice HARM others?
If embryos were to be viewed as a bunch of cells, why can’t we view other humans likewise as well? (which in fact is a correct biological description)
Anon,
Pro-choice is about liberty.
Furthermore, you conflating abortion with stem cell research. Try to keep it separate because there is little relationship between the two. It is disingenuous to link the two and then to stretch it to include the Nazis.
Embryo is as human as sperm and ovum. Do these reproduction cells need protection too? Why don’t you ban masturbation too?
Regardless of the debate on embryo, you are characterizing pro-choice position as a monolithic group which support abortion no matter what. That is a gross generalization. This is not a black and white issue and it is far more complicated that that.
A lot of pro-choice people support abortion in the case of life endangering situation to the mother (when there is a trade off between life of the fetus and the mother) or in early prenancy when the entity in the womb is still an embryo. What mainstream pro-choice individual object to is the unreasonable blanket ban on abortion no matter what.
Yeah, that is wrong. That is as wrong as demanding a complete no to abortion regardless of circumstances.
And if it happened in “some countries”, which I presume not in the US, how does it affect pro-choice position in the US?
That is true but you are generalizing the issue. What about the rights of the mother in the situations I described above?
It is not the word that matter, but it is the positions taken under it. Social conservatism, after all, are those who still believe in creationism. It goes farther than idea of liberty.
As some would say – it takes a Jimmy Carter to have a Reagan.
Word-play or otherwise, the Grand Old Party is in dire need to reinvent and rebrand itself to stay relevant to the Youth.
May be the case of the revival of the Conservative Party in UK can be of help. In a free market of ideas, GOP needs to come up with fresh ideas, master the new political languages and offer better solutions to the problems confronting the nation of the day.
Can GOP do that, I believe “Yes They Can!”
And what is wrong with social conservatism?
To label one set of views as ‘conservative’ and another ‘progressive’/’liberal’ is Orwellian word-play.
Oh please, social liberty is not synonymous with pro-abortion sentiments.
Abortion debates usually end up win the stalemate of whether embryos are living beings in their own right. Before the 70s, the answer – even among secular medical practitioners – was yes. Things are different now because some are motivated by the desire to “keep all research lines open” – conveniently forgetting that Japanese/Nazi human experiments were justified in like manner.
People think about the rights of the mom, but not the rights of the embryo – it is just too convenient they can’t speak yet. Are they less human because of that? How about the dumb and blind – are they less deserving of life than we do?
Some countries have legislated so that medical practitioners *must* refer a woman to an abortionist if she requests for one. Forcing people to act against their beliefs – now, this is truly the antithesis of liberty. The Catholic hospitals have threated to shut down – and they have every right to do so.
Awarding a ‘right’ to someone or some group and forcing others to observe, even assent, to that ‘right’ regardless of personal beliefs – this is tyranny.