Posted on 07/01/2022 5:45:05 AM PDT by DoodleBob
In overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court delivered the right’s biggest single victory ever, and it may spell the end of the conservative movement as we’ve known it.
It was Ronald Reagan who popularized the notion that the conservative movement rested on a fusionist “three-legged stool.” In theory, the three legs were free market economics, national defense and social conservatism. In practice, free market economics meant low taxes and pro-business policies. National defense meant anticommunism and, briefly, the war on terror. Social conservatism covered a lot of territory but the enduring core was opposition to Roe and abortion.
Like anticommunism, “pro-life” was a big tent all its own, including constitutionalists, religious activists, advocates of states’ rights et al. While nearly everyone invoked the “sanctity of life,” as a policy matter, many argued merely for overturning Roe either to fix a jurisprudential error or to send the issue back to the states, to let the democratic process find a social compromise on abortion.
For other abortion opponents, however, overturning Roe was a first step on the road to enshrining a “culture of life” that protected the unborn from conception onward.
Think of it this way: If the court had banned abortion outright based on the “right to life” found in the 14th Amendment, the once-united opponents of Roe would be divided. Some would cheer a huge win for life, but others would see the same sort of judicial activism they decried in Roe. Well, the fallout from Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization has opened a similar rift between opponents of Roe and opponents of abortion. And it’s a mystery where these factions will go next, ideologically or politically.
While a lot attention is on states where abortion will be banned, it’s telling that two of the GOP’s most popular governors, Ron DeSantis of Florida and Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, have stopped short of outlawing abortion, preferring a ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Georgia’s Republican Gov. Brian Kemp stands behind a 6-week limit, while New Hampshire’s Chris Sununu says abortion will remain legal in his state.
Meanwhile, some House Republicans have called for a federal abortion ban. “The Life at Conception Act” has 160 co-sponsors, though one wonders how many it will lose now that it has a chance, however slim, of passage.
All of this political positioning surely has a lot to do with the role the GOP base plays in congressional elections compared with statewide races, where winning the more moderate middle is necessary.
One of the arguments for repealing Roe was that it fueled polarization by removing accountability on abortion policy. Politicians could take base-pleasing absolutist positions knowing that Roe barred any meaningful changes that reflected the more nuanced views of voters. For instance, while it’s true that large numbers of Americans were against repealing Roe, support for Roe’s actual guidelines was mixed. As of April, more Americans favored a ban on abortions after 15 weeks than opposed one, though the same survey also found a majority of voters say abortion should be legal in all or most cases (obviously, it’s complicated). Republicans generally benefited from polarization on abortion both financially and electorally. But they also benefited from the unity of purpose conservatives enjoyed pre-Dobbs. In the post-Roe era that unity is gone, at least for the foreseeable future.
Which brings me back to that three-legged stool.
The end of the Cold War spelled the end of anticommunism’s role in galvanizing conservatives around a specific foreign and defense policy. Pat Buchanan, for instance, considered Cold War anticommunism the great exception to conservatism’s natural tendency to isolationism, which he returned to in the 1990s. Donald Trump’s “America First” rhetoric was a delayed victory for Buchananism.
As for economics, most on the right still reject tax hikes, but the war on “woke capitalism” is the hot new thing, and protectionism has lost its bad odor. Indeed, while traditional conservative opposition to a more generous welfare state has been eroding for some time, the Dobbs decision may hasten the process. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, hailed the court’s decision. “But,” he added, “we must not only continue to take steps to protect the unborn, we must also do more to support mothers and their babies.”
He promised to “soon introduce a bill to ensure we do everything we can to give every child the opportunity to fully access the promise of America.”
I think the Supreme Court decided Dobbs correctly. But those who insist the majority acted out of partisan loyalty to the GOP or to the broader conservative movement miss the fact that neither may benefit over the long haul. The conservative justices ruled on principle, letting the chips fall where they may. It’s going to be raining chips for quite a while.
Jonah Goldberg is the son of Lucianne Goldberg who runs a news and comment site https://www.lucianne.com
It has a ton of ads so you need ‘ublock orgin’ ad blocker to view the content as again a ton of ads. Also you post anything negative like against George Bush and you will be banned. She bans people for many reasons.
How that book came from him, I don’t know. It is the only good thing he has ever done.
Jonah, you have to stop parroting your sister Whoppie.
Goldberg is a stool.
You have out of control violent crime, perverts trying to tranny or prostitute your children, racists running schools, cancel culture, threats to free speech, and on and on. And thats just off the top of my head.
After Micro Rubio and his fellow Bush League Republicans provide their friends across the aisle a permanent majority with amnesty for illegal aliens they can go back to faking being conservative.
The dark underbelly to MAGA is how many in and indeed “leading” the movement don’t believe in limited government, but simply want to redirect the largesse in their direction.
Rubio, who of course is a deeply compromised faux-conservative, is just an example of that. You have a lot of the Bannon crew—Posobiec, Cortes, Kassan (whatever happened to him?, etc.—who are really nationalist Democrats. They want huge subsidies for families with children, for example, rather than objecting to redistribution if it flows in the direction of their demographic.
Already done. At least by one of their writers.
David French praises Drag Queen Story Hours as ‘blessing of liberty.’
The Constitution is what it is. If you disagree with it and take action to undermine it, you are a radical.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That includes a lot of freepers who are opposed to upholding the natural born citizen clause that was put in the Constitution to restrict foreigners from the office.
Everyone born with more than ONE nationality is NOT a natural born citizen and they are exactly who the founders were prohibiting.
Yikes! It’s tough to stay ahead of them. Doesn’t David French present himself as an “Evangelical Christian?”
Jonah who now...?
Yes, it's his claimed credential that he leverages to constantly scold evangelical Christians for supposedly doing Christianity wrong.
His true core belief is Trump hate.
Gee, it’s so hard to understand why she split from FR/JimRob....
This old bore. Trying to take over George Will’s warm seat.
He was one of those “pro lifers” who grifted off the movement. He has no convictions, just a money grubber.
The article itself isn’t very controversial — or very interesting — is it? It seems more like an opportunity to insult Goldberg for other reasons. I’m not a fan of his, but piling on every time his name comes up seems like a waste of time.
“Roe v. Wade was used by RINOs to get your votes and your money for decades, and now the RINOs are not happy for your success in ending this mass murder.”
When Dubya was President the House and the Senate were at times controlled by the Republican party.
They made no attempt to deliver on their often repeated promises to their Right to Life supporters.
That should have ended all doubt about the actual intentions of Bush and his cronies.
“Sadly Buckley didn’t keep going may the great man RIP.”
Buckley himself deserves the blame for what has become of National Review. Buckley is the one who installed Rich Lowry as chief editor in 1997.
By then some of NRs best writers had already quit the magazine as Buckley cast his lot with neoconservatives.
I went to the National Review forum in San Diego in 1993, during the first year of the Clinton Administration.
The opposition was highly cosmetic and full of neocons. Bill and Irving Krystol, David Horowitz, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Midge Decter. It was California/NY conservatism. Very elitist. Just like Buckley.
That magazine has been gone a long time.
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.