A Defense of Roe v. Wade
If we are to understand America’s culture war sympathetically and as the tragedy it is, I want to suggest that a good way in is to think about the parents of daughters in the 2024 elections. The Democratic Party had, it was thought, an excellent chance of hanging onto the presidency and Senate while regaining its House majority because the thing that has evolved into the supreme law-making authority in America, i.e. the Supreme Court, made an unpopular decision. They struck down Roe v. Wade, arguably one of the best-ever pieces of judge-made law on a social issue.
The genius of the 1970s Supreme Court was that it did not rule on whether a foetus, embryo or zygote had attained such things as personhood, viability or life. It simply rules that the coercive power of the state cannot pass into a body, that punitive laws cannot pass through the skin or through an orifice into the human body. It did not rule that abortion was good or bad, murder or not murder; it simply ruled that things inside a human body were not things over which the state should possess coercive power.
And it was a decision about which moderates in the anti-abortion movement, especially Democrat-voting Roman Catholics, initially, could live because the court had made no pronouncement on whether efforts to dissuade women from terminating their pregnancies were morally correct or incorrect. It simply constrained the movement from using certain tactics and powers to stop abortion.
And there are good reasons for this. You give up a lot when you create a society in which the state has a duty to closely surveil the bodies of women during their reproductive years, a society in which the police are obliged to investigate miscarriages and society that feels the need to radically restrict the mobility, assembly and association rights of women it fears might end a pregnancy. I remember the Fianna Fail’s authoritarian theocratic regime in 1980s Ireland, with the cops pursuing pregnant teenagers trying to board the Dublin-Liverpool ferry and returning them to Irish soil in handcuffs, facing charges. It is damn hard to organize a society in which people are free and abortion is meaningfully illegal.
The Democrats and the Burden of Government
Well, despite being supported by a clear majority of Americans, Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court and, almost immediately, the Democratic Party began salivating over all those votes from affluent, educated suburban women they were finally going to bag, the Holy Grail of their political strategy every election since 1992. And initially, polls seemed to back up their theory of a great blue wave, sweeping them back into office with a renewed congressional majority.
But, perhaps inspired by the spirit of Bizarro Spiderman, “with no power comes no responsibility,” the party has behaved in ways that seem to indicate a desire to be relieved of the burden of governing the United States. They have chosen to re-nominate a presidential candidate whom over half of his own supporters believe to be mentally unfit to complete a second term in office. And, despite having a deep bench of competent campaigners and strategic thinkers still, they have deployed a rogue’s gallery of as his surrogates, with Batman villain Gavin “the Stoat” Newsom and Kamala Harris, who is clearly president in the Robocop timeline, leading the charge.
And if there has been a crescendo to this apparently suicidal course of political action, it is president Biden’s unilateral rewrite of Title IX, stripping women of the right to sex-segregated sports, prisons, shelters, restrooms, etc. If the Democrats were crafting a campaign to foreground women’s rights at home and abroad and to say “a Blue vote is a vote for women’s equality,” what could the logic behind the Title IX reforms possibly be?
I am going to shoulder past that question because that milk has already been spilled. There is no Title IX reversal in the Democrats’ future and no abortion reversal in the Republicans’. That table has been set and the question that will divide America and determine much about how its citizens’ vote will be based on how, both as individual parents and, as a society as a whole, how we think about our daughters’ futures.
The question America will answer this fall is this: what hypothetical dangers and challenges do we see in our daughters’ futures?
Democratic Voting and the Omnicide
Democrats, who are much more likely to share my belief in the escalating dangers of anthropogenic climate change and a host of interlocking environmental crises, like collapsing fisheries, plastics pollution, clearcut logging, endocrine disruptor pollution, etc. already have a bleak and pessimistic view of the children’s future. Increasingly post-political in their thinking, they are both more likely to believe that their children will have fewer economic opportunities and a worse physical environment and that there is little that can be done to change this. As I have argued elsewhere, this may have something to do with their membership in religious movements that exalt child sterilization as an expression of one’s elect status and moral virtue.
But the point is that America’s progressive, urban population is already thinking about bad things happening to their children, and wondering if it is even moral to bring more children into this world. For all we know, this might be a key hidden motivation for publicly celebrating the sterilization of children on the scale that we do.
But even leaving that aside, we see that predicting and either mitigating or weathering anticipated harm to children is the main way the left thinks about kids politically. Anti-bullying programs, whatever their efficacy, are premised on the belief that one’s child will be bullied. Environmental protection and education programs, again, are about anticipating something bad happening to kids and maybe getting out ahead of it.
Fundamentally, the left is pessimistic about the future of their children and structures its politics of childhood based on fear and disappointment. Preventing children from being harmed whether bullied, physically injured, misinformed, even merely contradicted, is seen as the governing principle in the politics of childhood.
And it is in this context that blue-voting parents of girls will be thinking:
“What will happen if my daughter has an unwanted pregnancy?”
“What if my daughter makes bad sexual and romantic choices?”
“What if my daughter is raped?”
“What if my daughter is too poor to house and feed a family?”
“What if my daughter cannot find a romantic partner with whom to form a family?”
She might need an abortion and we must protect her opportunity to do so.
Conservatism and Youth Sports
In 2008, one of the many political shifts that the Sarah Palin candidacy punctuated was the politicization of sports parents. To be a parent who was enthusiastic, supportive and exuberant about one’s child’s participation in sport has been transforming from a universal value, across the political spectrum, into a conservative one.
Law and Order: SVU, once a great Catholic modernist crime procedural, which has slowly been captured in the orbit of Wokeness has increasingly vilified parents who enthusiastically support their children’s sports. So, when it came time to enroll the main character’s son in an extracurricular activity, to help fill-out his personality, the only viable thematic option was ballet. Soon the character had to come out as bisexual, at the age of ten. How could he be sympathetic if he were tainted by team sports?
When the late Rex Murphy decided to write a series of puff pieces about the greatness of petro culture, featuring Fort McMurray, the centre of Canada’s oil sands, he waxed lyrical on the subject of petro parents’ interest in their kids’ sports. Always a feature of Northern Alberta culture, sports volunteerism transformed from the resting heart rate of the province’s capital, the perpetually NDP-voting “Red”-monton, the Austin to Calgary’s Dallas, which featured the highest rate of per capita volunteerism in a major Global North City for many years, into a parochial feature of its conservative satellites and outskirts.
Indeed, the argument that it is impossible to be a decent parent without a petroleum-fueled SUV or pickup truck because—how else could you get your kids’ sports equipment to games and practices?—became a staple of the Canadian climate debate.
By increasingly foregrounding future athletic success in conservative political understandings of the child, an optimism is cultivated. You don’t become a hockey mom or a soccer dad because you imagination is full of failures and defeats. Your inner life is full of your child winning in the future.
You don’t obsess over how to console your child when they inevitably lose. You think about how to give them and their teammates a leg up to win. And, for lower- and middle-income parents who want to see their child go on not just to athletic success but to academic and financial success, sports are not just a route to physical and psychological fitness. They lead to scholarships. They lead to prize money. They lead to public recognition and honour.
Materially, they can lead to a university education not fueled by debt.
While the damage the Title IX changes will do to incarcerated women, women fleeing domestic violence, women needing to use public locker rooms and restrooms is considerable, it will not fundamentally structure the election. But I believe the changes it makes to girls and young women’s sports will.
Optimistic parents, i.e. conservative parents, may be missing out on how many chambers we have left to discharge in our game of Russian roulette with our planet’s ecosystems but they will be asking compelling questions about their daughters:
“What will happen if a man steals my daughter’s place on the podium?”
“What if a boy steals her prize money?”
“What if her team is disqualified for not playing against boys for during scouting season?”
“What if a boy pushes her off her field hockey team?”
“What is a boy takes her scholarship money?”
“What if a man steals her spot in university?”
Parents governed by these thoughts, even if they are pro-choice and support Roe v. Wade, are not going to be animated in the same way by the worry that their daughter might have an unplanned pregnancy, because they have optimistic thoughts about their children’s futures. Ultimately, the fears I just enumerated are premised on an underlying hope, a premise that one’s daughter will be identified by an athletic scout, a win a scholarship, win a medal, make the team she wants to join. And they also imply a theory of natural justice, in ways that the Democrats’ fears are not.
The campaign we are facing will be, like the previous two, among the most divisive, dark and pessimistic in modern American history. And I see a method in the Democrats’ madness: the darker and bleaker they make the future look, the more frightening the world they describe, the more people will vote based on fear for their children rather than hope.
As working class people of all races turn increasingly against the Democratic Party, it benefits from a lower-turnout environment. Already, in places where the working class is primarily white or Asian, GOP voter suppression laws have begun suppressing the Republicans’ own vote. That is why Democrats now enjoy a structural advantage in off-year and special elections.
But this strategy may be, as the British say, “too clever by half.” Those mysterious Obama-Trump switchers of 2016 were not, as characterized, urban socialist “Bernie bros.” The switchers, most evident in states like Iowa were regular people in medium sized towns whose imagination was captured by the way Barack Obama spoke to us, the feeling he called-up when he declared, “We have been warned against offering people false hope. But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.”
With no candidate on the horizon capable of kindling a sense of hope in most Americans, this election will, nevertheless, test US voters, and especially the mothers and fathers of daughters. And those votes will be determined, in large measure, not by a rational calculus of the risks girls and young women face in their minds but the hopes and fears for them we hold in their hearts.
