Nonetheless, if the standard is (as Goldstein suggests) that, regardless of any other considerations, anyone who is pro-life ought to be removed from good company -- along with those who support any such individuals -- then that standard ought not to be applied selectively.

You knocked that one out of the park, Glenn.

I hope you follow up with some MSM responses, this ought to be good.

This is where we (on the left) unfortunately correspond to the Conservative characterization of liberals as functioning like an amalgamation of "special interest groups."

Markos Moulitsas makes this point very well in his book. Kos talks specifically about the "pro-choice" and "anti-gun" groups and their inability to function coherently in the modern political landscape.

By contrast, the Republicans are masters at synthesizing their constituent parts into a monolithic voting bloc (both within the houses of congress and in the general public), possibly because their somewhat more authoritarian mindset encourages that sort of expediency and subjugation of individual agendae.

I have personally argued with liberals who feel very strongly that "reproductive rights' (for example) are "more important" than overseas conflict, simply because they feel more personally affected by abortion laws. It's a visceral position that's difficult to debate rationally.

Unfortunately I don't see much of a solution, since the underlying thinking is woven into the DNA of liberalism.

I have personally argued with liberals who feel very strongly that "reproductive rights' (for example) are "more important" than overseas conflict, simply because they feel more personally affected by abortion laws. It's a visceral position that's difficult to debate rationally.

Unfortunately I don't see much of a solution, since the underlying thinking is woven into the DNA of liberalism.

I agree with all of your execllent points, but I do want to note that I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to place one issue above most or even all others in importance, particularly where one believes that fundamental liberties are at stake.

But if it's really that principled of a position -- not subject to cost/benefit analysis, not to be weighed against other considerations, absolute in its mandates -- then one would expect that it would be applied consistently. But it isn't. I almost never hear anyone objecting to Harry Reid's position as Senate Majority Leader on the ground that he is pro-life, nor do I ever hear anyone accusing Senate Democrats of not caring about the freedom of "half of the population" because they voted for him.

My guess is that people believe that Democratic Senators (including many strongly pro-choice ones) voted for Reid despite his pro-life stance because of other considerations, not because they are indifferent to the freedom of women. Why isn't Dana Golstein applying that same understanding to pro-choice Ron Paul supporters?

Perhaps the pro-life issue would go away if the left started calling it "harsh birth control techniques."

Wow.

What a IUD?

How can a people,

post so much to ponder?

From the moment of conception,

We/me can Be so very bookoo 'dinky dao'? wow.

I include me too.

You do think good.

If a egg meets a sperm? wow. Greet the growing, miraculous, and expanding fetus.

I almost never hear anyone objecting to Harry Reid's position as Senate Majority Leader on the ground that he is pro-life, nor do I ever hear anyone accusing Senate Democrats of not caring about the freedom of "half of the population" because they voted for him.

That's because when we did say something about Harry Reid being unacceptably in favor of forced pregnancy, (and when environmentalists say something about a Dem being unacceptably anti-environmentalist, and when gay people say something about a Dem being unacceptably anti-gay, etc) we were told to sit down and shut up because if we just were quiet for a minute about our silly little one-note obsession with our personal libery, more Democrats would be elected, and then it wouldn't matter at all if they were anti-choice, wanted to rape the earth, treat gay people as second-class citizens, gut the Constitution, or wage endless war, because they'd vote with their caucus and the caucus, now composed of cowards with nothing good to say about personal liberty, would totally protect our interests.

Does Ron Paul believe that there should be a federally-enforced ban on abortion? Or does he think it is a state/local issue? It seems that the latter would be consistent with a limited-federal government interpretation of the constitution.

Does he want to impose his views, or would he like to persuade those who disagree with him?

It's measured, pithy, and pointed. Probably the best ever.

Supporters of "fringe" candidates (and parties) are often accused of "purism," i.e. being unwilling to make the necessary (and, it is assumed, rational) compromises that would lead them to support one of the "serious" candidates.

In fact, though there political purists certainly exist, most supporters of "fringe" candidates support those candidates for fairly complicated reasons. And, like those who back the "serious" candidates, often disagree with their candidate of choice on a number of issues.

Nevertheless, the anti-purism brigade, perhaps precisely because of their assumptions about why people support "fringe" candidates, loves playing gotcha games with the views of the "fringe" candidates.

I am constantly amazed at how much space has been taken up decrying Ron Paul's philosophic inconsistency, as if any of the candidates are entirely philosophically consistent. As far as I can tell, the notion is that if we just prove that Ron Paul isn't pure, his support will evaporate.

At any rate, I think comparing the way that Ron Paul's anti-choice views are discussed with the way that Harry Reid's (or Bob Casey, Jr's) anti-choice views are discussed is a very useful exercise for just this reason. Thanks for another great column, Glenn!

(NB: I do not support Ron Paul, largely because my areas of serious political disagreement with him--including, but by no means limited to, issues of reproductive freedom--outweigh my areas of political agreement with him. But in this regard I try to hold Paul to the same cost-benefit standards that I would any "serious" presidential candidate.)