Aborting the working class

It would be an ignominious defeat worthy of a Shakespearean tragedy if abortion ends up being the issue that derails Trumpas the Tank Engine. By claiming that there would have to be “some form of punishment” levied against any woman who would dare get an abortion in Donald Trump’s Great-Again America, the poor bastard walked right into Chris Matthews’ well-crafted trap. In fact, he eagerly took bait that those he considers his lessers have been wise enough to pass up for years. All Republican presidential candidates in recent history—the “dummies,” the “failures,” the “disasters,” the ones who “got captured” in Vietnam—have at some point during their campaign been asked the “would you punish women who get abortions ” question by members of the mainstream media, and every one of them understood that it was a “gotcha” question and answered accordingly.

I don't agree with everything in the op-ed, but the basic premise is true. For instance:

According to Gilens’ research, those dastardly oligarchs, those enemies of the 99%, are overwhelmingly liberal on issues such as abortion, gay rights, race, and immigration. In fact, the affluent are far more “progressive” than the great unwashed whose voices they’ve muted and whose influence they’ve suppressed. Gilens found that the superrich in general oppose any policies based upon “traditional morality” (Gilens uses school prayer as an example of an issue in which the oligarchs find themselves severely at odds with the poor).

Trump may or may not be an actual threat to the “oligarchs,” but many of his supporters certainly believe he is, and they’ve rallied around him with enthusiasm. If Trump is taken out, whether by the abortion issue or something else down the line, there is no replacement. Sanders’ followers might give good lip service to the concept of empowering the working poor, but in the end, as Professor Gilens so astutely points out, to do so would work against the priorities of today’s Democrats.

As long as there is even one abortion going unperformed, one man in a wig barred from the women’s bathroom, and one white guy who dares to think he can wear dreadlocks, the fight against the 1% can wait.

In other words, for the Left, "income inequality" and "fighting poverty" take backstage to social and racial radicalism. It's hard to believe that they really oppose "the 1%" when "the 1%" are more likely to agree with their agenda and fund their campaigns/PACs.

It's not the best written article, but its main premise is both coherent and true. The "1%" that Leftists pretend to rail against are, as a rule, liberal elites on board with the Left's social and racial agendas, if not necessarily their economic agenda. In contrast, the white working class who liberals pretend to represent generally do not.

It's Mark Zuckerberg, not the Teamsters, who wears a Trayvon Martin hoodie and gives money to #BlackLivesMatter. It's Warren Buffet, not farmers or coal miners, who lobbies for Obamacare and Obama's tax hikes. This explains why Wall Street firms give more money to Democrats than to Republicans, though there's plenty in the trough for establishment Republicans like Bush and Romney too.

Folks - I just don't get the issue here. I am not for or against Trump, and I would raise my following point no matter who was asked the question.

As I recall, the question asked to Trump was (I am paraphrasing); "If abortion was illegal, should a women be punished for getting an abortion?" Trump answered in the affirmative.

How is this question and answer any different from asking; "What if Theft was illegal, should the Thief be punished?"

The basis of the question asked was crime and punishment. (yes I know it was a trick question)

Would most people really reply if asked, "No people should not be punished for committing a crime?"

Am I missing something here, or is the country so out of whack that people don't see the simple logic of the question that was asked of Trump?

I don't understand the fuss either. Why is it that you have people who on the one hand say "abortion is murder," and then recoil at the thought that women who have abortions should be punished?

Either they don't really believe that abortion is murder (and just say it to make a cheap rhetorical point), or they are morons like Huckabee who come up with doublethink statements like "the woman who has an abortion is a victim of the abortion doctor, just like her child." Since Huckabee thinks that abortion is murder, does this also mean that he thinks that if I hire a hitman to kill a personal enemy, I'm the victim of the hitman in the same way that the person who was killed?

This isn't to say that Trump has been a model of consistency or clarity on the issue, either (which doesn't matter as much for me, since my own position is that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the abortion question should be returned to the states).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.