That said, I disagree with Carrol that engaging in that debate is politically pointless. He will remember that the Old Man says, correctly, that political differences are fought out first of all in the sphere of ideology. It is important to a political win that we have reasoned justifications for our positions, even if some of these are recondite. You can't retain a political victory if it is achieved by what is perceived as the raw unreasoned force of majority rule.
That is something the right glommed onto long ago.In addition to the shock troops of Operation Rescue on the street, they have their ideologists in the think tanks and universities and seminaries, busily framing the terms of the debate and providing argumentative maps that can be used in political discussion and the existence of which lends a necessary legitimacy to the force of their numbers. So we can't just walk away from the abstract philosophical debate if we want to win and keep it won. That doesn't mean we have to let the other side set the terms, either.
--- On Sat, 12/13/08, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Do Arguments Count in Politics, was Abortion Side Thread
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Saturday, December 13, 2008, 10:29 AM
> Jim Farmelant wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Since that is an argument that many rightwingers would
> accept,
> > I think it might be a good place to start when
> discussing
> > abortion rights with them.
>
> Why wouid one want to argue about abortion with
> right-wingers? And if
> one did, why would one want to advance arguments to
> persuade the
> right-wingers to change their judgment _rather_ than
> arguments to
> persuade bystanders (some of whom already believe in
> abortion rights) to
> become active in the struggle to achieve them.
>
> Left politics is neither a courtroom nor a university
> seminar, the only
> contexts in which arguments on this or most issues might
> make a
> difference. Left goals are achieved only by mobilizing a
> minority to
> create enough public excitement to give the impression of a
> majority in
> action. Then the number of semi-private conversations on
> major issues
> increase rapidly in number, with the result that the
> minority raising
> the disturbance, though still a minority, becomes a much
> larger one
> thereby generating more continuous semi-private (and
> probably more
> inofrmed) conversations resulting in larger and larger
> rallies, strikes,
> petitions, marches, riots, over-crowding of local jails,
> interference
> with normal working of schools, local courts, city
> councils, rush-hour
> traffic, thereby moving important conservative leaders to
> realize that
> public order depends on absorbing and muffling the unrest
> throug serious
> reforms. Nowhere in all of this, on abortion or any other
> topic, do the
> arguments Jim & Andie are discussing become of any
> importance.
>
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk