I keep wondering what Montesquieu would think of all this. However, not many people are all that concerned with what Montesquieu would think. I can't blame them. The more pragmatic issues do tend to dominate. So, I can't get upset that people aren't all that concerned about issues about the theory of government. It's a pity, because it's actually very important, but there's only so much you can expect from people who have only a limited amount of time or interest to devote to musings concerning law and policy. It does upset me, somewhat, that people insist that not only do they not care about those concerns, but that nobody cares about those concerns. It's insulting to be informed that you don't really exist, or that you are obviously lying when you express concerns. It's something I have to live with, though.
Be that as it may, rightly or wrongly, the abortion debate is about to be thrust back into the legislative sphere, and that means the electoral sphere.
When that happens, suddenly public opinion becomes important. There are large swathes of people whose mind is firmly made up on this issue, and are unpersuadable. Far more important are the ones that either have no opinion or are soft in their support or their opposition to abortion rights. They might express an opinion, but they haven't really thought about it much, in part because, until that Supreme Court opinion hits the streets, the matter is mostly decided. Their thoughts weren't all that important, because the law that made abortions legal wasn't a law at all for most people. It was a judicial decree. Now, though, their influence on future law will be more direct.
I have to wonder what effect the inflammatory rhetoric and, I will say, paranoid fantasies about slippery slopes will have on voters. When people say that Republicans are trying to stop interracial marriage, how will those people who are lukewarm supporters react? In other words, there are people out there who might generally be anti-abortion, but really haven't given it much thought, and are perhaps open minded on the subject. When they hear the screeching about Republicans wanting to turn women into brood mares, forced pregnancies, bans on condoms, or whatever else, will they say, "Gee. I don't want that. I should vote for legislators who support abortion." Or will they say, "Give it a rest you morons. That's crap." and dig in their heels and harden their anti-abortion positions just because they are mad at the ridiculous rhetoric.
I'm sure it will surprise none of you that I think the latter is more likely. I think the inflammatory rhetoric is ok to get the base all fired up, but I think it is mostly unpersuasive, or even counter-persuasive.
There is another group of people even more important in that calculus, and probably more numerous. I think there are a lot of people whose abortion positions don't align with their party platform. In particular, there are people who are pro-choice, but it isn't their most important issue. They might be more concerned about other conservative issues than they are about their pro-choice stance. How will the "Loving v. Virginia" rhetoric play with those people? Again, I think it's likely that what it will do will be to reinforce all the reasons that they oppose Democrats in general, and make it more likely that, even with Roe v. Wade gone, and aboritons actually illegal, they still will vote for Republicans, even though those Republicans are overwhelmingly anti-abortion.
In general, I think the best way to persuade is to drop the hyperbole, and focus on the reality. That stands a good chance of winning, even it it's not as much fun.
