Smashmouth Incrementalism at the Polls

Introduction

So a couple of days ago, Donald Trump announced his stance on abortion. He declined to go for a national abortion ban, saying that the issue should be left to the individual states. In addition, he also affirmed the standard-issue “safe-for-politicians” pro-life stance, which includes room for abortion in cases of “rape, incest, and the life of the mother.”

On top of that, the Arizona Supreme Court just decided that an 1864 law, which constitutes a near-total ban on abortion, is enforceable. This is sure to inflame the left, and is likely to juice turnout for Biden. Trump’s vacillation on abortion is sure to inflame the right, and is likely to juice absolutely nothing because the right has nowhere to go. We glance to the right of Trump, eager to cast our vote for the Pure Candidate over there, and it turns out that he’s not running. Again.

And this is why we should be able to see how the times are crying out for more detailed discussion of the absolute need for smashmouth incrementalism. The time is ripe for the kind of clarity that only smashmouth incremental thinking can provide. Interested? Stick with me.

Quick Definition

On the abortion issue, an abolitionist is someone who does not want to “chip away” at our ungodly abortion laws. He wants simply to outlaw the practice, pure and simple. An establishment pro-lifer is someone who wants to discourage abortion by whatever means are currently expedient—and a lot rides on what the cool kids tell us “expedient” means. And a smashmouth incrementalist is someone who wants to implement whatever restrictions we can successfully place on abortion now, with the stated goal of coming back for more in the very next round, and with all of us understanding that the final goal is the entire eradication of human abortion. This was something I wrote about a couple years ago, and you can get up to speed if you would like—here, here, here, here, and here. That’s a bit of reading, but if you want to be ready for this coming presidential election, it appears you do need to get current.

You are going to need to make decisions, and you will need a standard to make them by, and you should not wait until October when the pressure will be on to wing it.

The Issue and Not the Issue

We need to begin with the obvious. Whether or not Trump’s announced position is politically expedient or not, it is most certainly incoherent.

Politicians who adopt the “rape, incest, and life of the mother” exceptions are showing us all one of two things. There are two, and only two possibilities. Either they don’t know that the position they have adopted is incoherent, or they do know. Those are the only options, and certain things follow from each.

The issue in the abortion debate is whether or not the child is a person, created in the image of God. If a person, then that child should have the protections that God’s law secures for persons. The law should recognize the personhood of the unborn child. If not a person, then we need not bother. So that is the issue, and that is the only issue.

The politician who does not know that his exceptions are incoherent is wanting to adopt a different position—he wants a third way—which is that the unborn child is a person for purposes of pro-life fundraising and campaigning, but that persons need not have the protections that are guaranteed to persons in God’s law. “Yes, you are a person,” the politician says, “but your life is still forfeit if your father did something bad” (rape), or “your life is forfeit if your father and mother did something bad” (incest).

When a child is conceived in rape, there are three parties. The father is the criminal, the mother is the victim, and the child is a bystander. The respectable Republican pro-life politicians want to remain respectable (and electable) by advocating for the execution of the bystander for the crime of the father. Let that sink in. The moderate position, the respectable position, the tolerable position, is the one that says that an innocent party should be executed for the crime of his father. A real vote-getter, that one.

And so people who argue this way while angling for the pro-life vote are demonstrating that they don’t have the first bit of a clue regarding what the abortion issue even is. It is the ungodly taking of a human life . . . murder. If it is not murder, then it is not anything. But this leads to the second kind of politician.

So there are other politicians who know that this position is incoherent, but who also know that it is a message that can be passed off on a gullible electorate. In other words, they are cynical, but not confused, and their cynicism preys on confused voters. Those confused voters want to do something “pro-lifey” and so they cast vague sentimental votes in that general direction.

So when people ignore the issue—is the child a person?—and move on to demonstrate their compassion by advocating for the termination of one of the victims, they are by their actions telling us one of two things. First, they might be telling us that they are stupid. That’s one option. Or second, they might be telling us that they are cynical and are making a play to include stupid voters in their coalition. That is the other option.

Smashmouth Sumo Wrestling

A presidential election in a nation like ours is like two great globs of people, tens of millions of them in each glob, in a gigantic sumo wresting match. We run at each other, trying to push the other group out of the ring. In the very nature of the case, even if we succeed in pushing them out of the ring, thus winning the match, it is highly unlikely that we will have been able to push them out in a straight line. There is going to be a goodish bit of wobbling, and teetering, and quivering, and staggering, and trembling, and swaying. It is a difficult process for a purist ideologue to understand.

The smashmouth incrementalist knows where he is going, and he is willing to get there by means of incremental gains. So the abolitionist has a dilemma. The former president has just made it crystal clear that he is not an abolitionist. Can an abolitionist vote for him? He is not a pure presidential candidate. But is purity the standard, or is actual progress the standard? All-or-nothing purity is likely to wind up with nothing. But the only way to measure actual progress is by increments.

Even though Trump is not an abolitionist, he has stated a policy that makes room for abolitionists to work at the state level. “Leave it up to the states” means that abolitionists could actually succeed at the state level. And for Trump, these are not just words. Because he appointed the three SCOTUS justices that he did, Roe, which was a federal straight jacket on all the states, was reversed in Dobbs. And because of Dobbs, abolitionism at the state level is now a possibility. Abolitionism is not on the rise because incrementalism is a dead end. Just the reverse. Abolitionism is a real option now because of the success of incrementalism.

So here is another definition. Smashmouth incrementalism is simply realistic abolitionism. Incremental progress is going to happen whether or not it meets with the approval of all the ideological abolitionists. The realistic abolitionists who are working to outlaw abortion at the state level are standing on the shoulders of Dobbs, an incrementalist victory.

If Trump is elected again, the White House is going to have all kinds of personnel running around in there—conventional pro-lifers, smashmouth incrementalists, and abolitionists. Trump is going to start appointing judges again, and they too will be a mix. The spectrum on life issues in a Trump administration will be a real spectrum. But that spectrum will include a good many hardliners for life. If Biden is reelected—or re-preselected, whatever—how many pro-lifers of any stripe are going to be anywhere around? You guessed that correctly. The Democratic Party is the party of murder, and no Christian who is right with God can have anything to do with them. There is only one thing I would like Evangelicals for Biden to remember, and that is this:

If they respond by saying that this “tear you in pieces” business is kind of harsh for political discourse, and I ought not to have brought it up, I would respond by saying that they made their peace with tearing people in pieces a long time ago. That is what abortion does.

So Trump Uses Us, We Use Him

As Donald Trump has just demonstrated, he is either really confused on the abortion issue, or he is being really cynical on the abortion issue. But in doing this, he has actually joined up with the evangelical cool kids, and they do not appear to appreciate it. Donald Trump now has more in common on this issue with Russell Moore’s ERLC than he does with the Christian nationalists. He is moving into a mainstream “pro-lifer” position, and there will be people who attack him . . . for adopting their own position. Hypocrisy is a many-splendored thing. But their disdain for Trump is so deep, you should look for a number of them to move farther left on abortion, not out of any principle, but just so that they can keep daylight between themselves and Trump.

In the meantime, we have an election coming up, and a lot of us have a decision to make. There are multiple issues in play—like the border, and Ukraine, and Israel, and regulations, and so on—and I am not trying to reduce the election to a single issue. But if it were this single issue of abortion, that would be sufficient. If you think the life issue is important, if you are pro-life, or a smashmouth incrementalist, or an abolitionist, you need to vote for Trump.

Here is a categorization to help you understand what is going on. I would look at the people who are going to vote for Trump, and I would divide them into two broad categories.

First there is the group that is going to vote for Trump the man. This type of voter is the kind of person who fills up arenas at his rallies. They are invested in him. I am talking about an out-of-work coal miner from West Virginia, or any number of out-of-work factory workers from the Rust Belt. They see Trump as an advocate for them, someone who is loyal to them, and so they are loyal to him in return. Their investment in Trump is emotional, and it is personal. They are Trumpkins, and this is where all the populist energy is coming from. And on this abortion question, they are likely to adopt his position as theirs because they are all in for him. They will follow him in this, as Kari Lake immediately did. In such instances, Trump is leading people astray, causing them to embrace nonsense on the abortion issue. Nevertheless, they are a big part of why he has the momentum that he does. While I am not going to sign up for this Trump Cavalcade, I am willing to be entertained by it.

But the second group is not voting for Trump the man. They are voting for what they have good reason to believe will be the likely outcomes if he is elected, compared to the certain outcomes if Biden is reelected. They are voting for a probable state of affairs, going on the basis of an established track record for each candidate. We can look at what was happening between 2016 and 2020, and then look at what has been happening from 2020 to the present. And remember, I am speaking only of the life issue. If Trump is elected, will our ability to fight for life be enhanced or retarded? The question answers itself. If Biden is elected, will our ability to fight for life be enhanced or retarded? This one answers itself also.