While I’m always happy to embrace another solid Democrat into the fold, I was more than a little taken aback by Mike Pernick’s recent opinion column on the political obsolescence of the abortion debate.
First and foremost, citing the controversial research in “Freakonomics” about the correlation between legalization and low crime rates does not in any way prove that, as you say, “the abortion question supersedes morals.” You continue this strain of thought: “The reason the abortion debate has become so polarized is because people look at it based on emotion and morals rather than simple logic.”
Hi, Mike, I like you, but if America got all its “logic” from airport bestsellers, we’d be in pretty fuckawful shape. To extend the logic you derived from Levitt’s book (which, as imagined, drew considerable “emotional” outrage from both sides), you could argue that anything that lowers crime rates should be defined as a logical rather than a moral issue and thus should be enacted into social policy.
In fact this is not at all what Levitt hoped you would get from his work. The editor of “Freakonomics” prefaced the argument you have made with this disclaimer on page 115:
“In Levitt’s abortion paper, published in 2001, he and his co-author John Donohue warned that their findings ‘should not be misinterpreted as either an endorsement of abortion or a call for intervention by the state in the fertility decisions of women.’ They even suggested that crime might just as easily be curbed by ‘providing better environments for those children at greatest risk for future crime.’”
So, no Mike, as I said, this is not the end of the abortion debate. Nor does it crystallize the “logical” conclusion of such arguments.
But I think the thing I took most offense with in your piece was that you write “Honestly, we shouldn’t give a damn if a nutty right-wing Falwell-esque loon wants to phrase abortion as a murder. In the same respect, we shouldn’t give a damn if a crazy left-wing NARAL hippie moans about a woman’s right to privacy.”
While I consider myself pro-choice, I actually do care about what both sides have to say about the issue. Dismissing the concerns of a populace, be they visceral or premeditated, makes not for a good politician. I for one would be greatly disappointed if an elected official or political party brushed off my or anyone else’s “emotionally-based” concerns with how the government should be run. While “logically” it makes sense to allow investment in Chinese or Sudanese companies because it will make companies economic profit, my “moral” response leads me to believe that it’s quite wrong because they commit tons of human rights violations and condone genocidal actions. I mean, the Democrats could run on a platform completely devoid of any “moral” issues but I don’t know how far that will get us in inspiring and motivating people to get involved in politics. That’s sort of thing is what accounting is for.
I do not believe that running with moral issues is in any way bringing down the quality of political discussion nor do I believe that engaging in them in any way is a detriment to the Democratic Party. If we strive to be the party of “good” governance, we cannot solely rely on cold calculus to make political decisions; there’s got to be some morality in there somewhere or why bother calling it “good?”
Leave a Reply