May 11, 2022·edited May 11, 2022Liked by H. W. Brands
Great sum up of the "Impending Crisis"-to borrow Potter's phrase (still the best book on the subject). I think the interesting parallel is the political realignment happening in this post Trump world (better to call it post Cold War I think). Very similar to Wilmot Proviso (again, Potter makes it a clear inflection point) when current political parties were useless to reflect will of people. Seemingly, out of nowhere (or so it seemed on that summer evening), congressmen voted by state and not party (to the detriment of Democrats and ultimate demise of Whigs). This realignment is so unique and still so many are completely blind to it thinking they can wish back for some fantasy of a mythical bar with Reagan and Tip O'Neill backslapping each other as they compromised.
Would like to see "public intellectuals" who never shut up about Aristotle, Machiavelli, Tocqueville, etc. applying to our political discourse (amateur and think tank Political theorists alike. There is no difference) to maybe Google an historian like David Potter or the Wilmot Proviso and get some real perspective on today's politics outside some grandiose political theory.
Again, it would help if historians would get their academic uniforms dirty instead of writing about "Dressmaking, race, and gender roles of the 1850s" rather than dealing with a war that destroyed our country for generations.
Your conclusion that a reversal of Roe would be akin to the Court's decision in Dred Scott is actually entirely backwards. Like Dred Scott, the Roe court took a political issue out of the political sphere and imposed a settlement (the trimester system) via a judicial fiat that finds almost no support today among Con Law scholars (most will say they support the conclusion that abortion is a fundamental right, but Roe's legal reasoning has been long abandoned even by the Court itself). Like Dred Scott, Roe failed to settle the dispute, but inflamed politics. If it is formally reversed states will once again be able to make their own laws. You may or may not like that, but your statement that "an expectation held even longer—that the states can write their own laws on abortion—will almost certainly come under attack" is actually precisely the opposite of what would happen if Dobbs reverses Roe. Of course, an attempt to impose a national solution would stop that, but that's equally true if Congress enacts Roe as a national law as is now being debated.
What I wrote was that the EFFECT post-Roe will be akin to the effect post-Dred Scott. The losing side will feel that the tide has turned against it; the winners will be tempted to expand their victory. I tried to make clear that the mechanisms are opposite in the two cases; I guess I failed to make that clear enough. Republicans are already talking hopefully of a national ban on abortion; the Democrats are talking hopelessly of a national guarantee.
I think a NATIONAL BAN on abortion is an impossiblity. The best one could hope for is a reasonably compromise allowing SOME RESTRICTIONS in SOME STATES. I don't see anything changing in New York State, California and Ilinois for example (all deeply blue states). And constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion or guaranteeing abortion is a mathematical impossiblity. And I think assertions that the GOP want to"expand" the so-called victory (not even achieved yet) in other areas like Gay marriage and birth control are just empty rhetoric. IMHO. Abortion will always exist because 1) it exists in nature 2) people want it available as a form of birth control. So we have to peacefully coexist with it. The very best anyone can do is encourage people to embrace SOME RESTRICTIONS (such as parental notification -that would not effect anyone over the age of 18).
I'm a conservative woman, and I also believe a national ban will not happen. Although I am pro-life, abortion is a difficult issue for me. I think the best we can hope for is a return to states deciding their own abortion laws (I hope limiting abortion to the first trimester, or cases of rape/incest, etc). But most abortions are about convenience, and that is a sad commentary on our society. As Dred Scott was about speaking for those who had no voice, overturning Roe would be as well.
It is very intersting to compare Roe case to the Dred Scott case. And we know the Dred Scott case was probably the worst ruling of all time. Would the overthrow of the Roe decision be as controversial and lead to as much violence? We cannot know but we certainly hope sane minds will come to some accomodation.
Great sum up of the "Impending Crisis"-to borrow Potter's phrase (still the best book on the subject). I think the interesting parallel is the political realignment happening in this post Trump world (better to call it post Cold War I think). Very similar to Wilmot Proviso (again, Potter makes it a clear inflection point) when current political parties were useless to reflect will of people. Seemingly, out of nowhere (or so it seemed on that summer evening), congressmen voted by state and not party (to the detriment of Democrats and ultimate demise of Whigs). This realignment is so unique and still so many are completely blind to it thinking they can wish back for some fantasy of a mythical bar with Reagan and Tip O'Neill backslapping each other as they compromised.
Would like to see "public intellectuals" who never shut up about Aristotle, Machiavelli, Tocqueville, etc. applying to our political discourse (amateur and think tank Political theorists alike. There is no difference) to maybe Google an historian like David Potter or the Wilmot Proviso and get some real perspective on today's politics outside some grandiose political theory.
Again, it would help if historians would get their academic uniforms dirty instead of writing about "Dressmaking, race, and gender roles of the 1850s" rather than dealing with a war that destroyed our country for generations.
Your conclusion that a reversal of Roe would be akin to the Court's decision in Dred Scott is actually entirely backwards. Like Dred Scott, the Roe court took a political issue out of the political sphere and imposed a settlement (the trimester system) via a judicial fiat that finds almost no support today among Con Law scholars (most will say they support the conclusion that abortion is a fundamental right, but Roe's legal reasoning has been long abandoned even by the Court itself). Like Dred Scott, Roe failed to settle the dispute, but inflamed politics. If it is formally reversed states will once again be able to make their own laws. You may or may not like that, but your statement that "an expectation held even longer—that the states can write their own laws on abortion—will almost certainly come under attack" is actually precisely the opposite of what would happen if Dobbs reverses Roe. Of course, an attempt to impose a national solution would stop that, but that's equally true if Congress enacts Roe as a national law as is now being debated.
What I wrote was that the EFFECT post-Roe will be akin to the effect post-Dred Scott. The losing side will feel that the tide has turned against it; the winners will be tempted to expand their victory. I tried to make clear that the mechanisms are opposite in the two cases; I guess I failed to make that clear enough. Republicans are already talking hopefully of a national ban on abortion; the Democrats are talking hopelessly of a national guarantee.
Thanks for the clarification. Love these posts BTW.
I think a NATIONAL BAN on abortion is an impossiblity. The best one could hope for is a reasonably compromise allowing SOME RESTRICTIONS in SOME STATES. I don't see anything changing in New York State, California and Ilinois for example (all deeply blue states). And constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion or guaranteeing abortion is a mathematical impossiblity. And I think assertions that the GOP want to"expand" the so-called victory (not even achieved yet) in other areas like Gay marriage and birth control are just empty rhetoric. IMHO. Abortion will always exist because 1) it exists in nature 2) people want it available as a form of birth control. So we have to peacefully coexist with it. The very best anyone can do is encourage people to embrace SOME RESTRICTIONS (such as parental notification -that would not effect anyone over the age of 18).
I'm a conservative woman, and I also believe a national ban will not happen. Although I am pro-life, abortion is a difficult issue for me. I think the best we can hope for is a return to states deciding their own abortion laws (I hope limiting abortion to the first trimester, or cases of rape/incest, etc). But most abortions are about convenience, and that is a sad commentary on our society. As Dred Scott was about speaking for those who had no voice, overturning Roe would be as well.
It is very intersting to compare Roe case to the Dred Scott case. And we know the Dred Scott case was probably the worst ruling of all time. Would the overthrow of the Roe decision be as controversial and lead to as much violence? We cannot know but we certainly hope sane minds will come to some accomodation.