The System Is … Working?

Sort of.

By
259
Members of Arizona for Abortion Access, the ballot initiative to enshrine abortion rights in the Arizona State Constitution, demonstrate for abortion rights at the state House of Representatives on April 17, 2024, in Phoenix. (Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)

“THE SYSTEM IS WORKING THE WAY IT’S SUPPOSED TO.”

I was taken aback when one of my colleagues posted that Wednesday evening in the Dispatch Slack channel, and not just because you don’t see all-caps used in that forum every day. (Except when I’m in a froth about Trump. Which, come to think of it, is every day.) It stopped me in my tracks because it’s not a sentiment one hears anymore about our political system.

Ever. Anywhere.

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
259
By
Comments (259)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Sam Marcum

    I am a self-professed "radical extremist" pro-lifer. That is I think it should be illegal in all cases except when necessary to save the life of the mother. Within that camp I come down pretty liberal in the "how do we determine if the life of the mother is at risk?" discussion, i.e. "leave it to the doctors" but generally...I know I'm in the 2-12% "extremist" camp on that one specific issue.

    Indeed, in the conflict between "preserving life over choice" I choose life each and every time.

    That said, I think it's most properly left to the states to determine the details, at least in our system of government, and at that it is best left to the legislators, and I agree with the article: the system is working.

    Pro-lifers need to advocate and advance the issue by winning minds and hearts at rates sufficient to win votes/elections in the future. We aren't there yet.

    Collapse
  2. Kittyecws

    Democrats want abortion up until the crowning? What a bunch of malarkey. Talk about nutpicking! I’m sure there could be a few, but I know a lot of Democrats. I can assure you that isn’t a majority opinion. Most people I know from either party believe abortion should be legalthrough the first trimester, and in limited cases, beyond that — life of the mother, rape, incest. Ectopic pregnancies or cases when the fetus is no longer alive should be a no-brainer. The problem arises when puritanical pro lifers insist on no abortions under any circumstances,

    Collapse
    1. Sam Marcum

      The number of democrats who would not prohibit abortion at crowning is proximal to the number of republicans who would (not long ago) state that they "oppose abortion at every stage." There aren't actually that many of either camp, but they exist, and the media gives them the microphone to sell fear and hatred.

      The official republican platform EVEN BEFORE TRUMP (and even more so now since) is closer to the 12-16 week ban, which is generally pretty popular, paired with exceptions for life, rape, incest.

      But I haven't seen a democrat sponsored bill to do even that...

      Collapse
  3. Bcpille

    Calling a 15-week abortion ban "middle-ground" is way off the mark. A 15-week ban still allows some 95% of abortions. Not even close to the middle.

    Collapse
    1. Sam Marcum

      I don't like it the 15-week compromise, but it's "middle ground" politically, less numerically.

      Collapse
      1. Bcpille

        You're right that it has been settled on as political middle ground, but that just shows how badly most people are missing the point. If you think of it as a women's rights issue, 15 weeks sort of makes sense. But if you believe it's about protecting innocent human life, a 15-week ban only gets the job 5% done.

        Collapse
  4. Jfan

    The job of a political party is not just to side with popular opinion. A party is supposed to influence public opinion through arguments, logical and emotional. Pro-lifers expected Republicans to fight against abortion, including in states and districts where doing so is unpopular. The politicians are supposed to shift the political center, not just take the easy route to winning elections.

    Collapse
  5. Russell J

    The system can be largely working while pieces are seriously broken. Congress is barely functioning and the candidate selection process is a dumpster fire. Issues with overwhelming majority support are still getting action, the courts are functioning and the procedural roadblocks are slowing down the reactionary bad choices a pure democracy can make despite the wish of voters to appoint fools to represent them. I might agree with the mystery slack commenter in the sense that some states will choose smart middle ground laws and the states adopting dumb laws may decide to eventually copy the successful states.

    Collapse
  6. Tom Johnson

    The major-party duopoly is one of the major flaws in our political system that enabled Trump's rise to power. Because he only really had to contend with a single rival in the general election, it was that much easier for him to prevail.

    Collapse
    1. Robyn Hitchcock

      Yes.... Trump, Trump Trump..I take Jonah Goldberg's advice and try to avoid recency bias The 2 party system has been around a long time and to my mind the advantages of such a system in a non parliamentary democracy under which we are governed far
      outweigh the disadvantages. Want to open the floodgates to multiple minor niche parties? Welcome to Eiro style coalition government that will make the current gridlock in Congress seem quant. We've survived other terrible presidents worse than both Trump and Biden. We'll survive another 4 years of either. Be careful what you wish for

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        BillAZ

        A President worse than Trump? Objectively doesn't exist.

        Collapse
        1. Sam Marcum

          Franklin Pierce was objectively worse than Trump.

          To perceive Trump as "the worst" is recency bias, commonly paired with TDS.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            BillAZ

            Nonsense.

            Collapse
      2. Tom Johnson

        "the advantages of such a system"

        Namely . . . ?

        Collapse
        1. Robyn Hitchcock

          Here is a fair analysis of some of the advantages and disadvantages.
          https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-party-system.
          As many commentators have pointed out, one of the major failings of our current two party system is the weakness of the parties themselves.The primary system of selecting candidates advantages the extremists in each party. In the past the party acted as a check on the candidate. He or she couldn't be too extreme because they had to accommodate the parties wishes to expect support.With direct support from Internet fundraising now possible and flourishing this is no longer the case. Now the candidate often IS the party. This is best exemplified by Trump's recent complete capture of the Republican party apparatus.

          Collapse
          1. Tom Johnson

            Thanks for the link, but I'm just not sold on this claim: "The two-party system moderates the animosities of political strife."

            If anything, binary politics is inherently more prone to polarization. More parties in the arena would change the dynamic to be more like a foot race and less like a boxing match.

            All this being said, my preference would actually be a government composed entirely of independents.

            Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Gbr0wn

    "A drumbest of major government failures and a media ecosystem that encourages disaffection and paranoia for fun and profit: "

    did you mean, "drumbeat"?

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Citizen60

    If by “working” you mean a 10 year old incest victim must travel to another state to get an abortion. Or women being airlifted from ERs in abortion-banned states to states where they can get one since it’s necessary to preserve organ function or fertility.

    And let’s just ignore the Life at Conception Bill with 130 Republican cosponsors who want a national law sitting in the hopper this Congress.
    But it’s “working”/s

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      BillAZ

      By "working" meaning that in Constitutional terms we are supposed to ignore the woman and concentrate on the fertilized egg. Nick is right; I don't and shouldn't have to care what John Roberts feels about abortion but I do need to know and care about what fundamental rights he recognizes that women possess.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Citizen60

        Problem, of course, is John Roberts barely/does not recognize that women have fundamental rights.

        We may be in agreement on this, but I found the wording in your comment ambiguous before coffee.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          BillAZ

          Ha! Matches my sense of clarity before coffee.

          Collapse
  9. Vaddeman

    'Many Americans in 2024 can and do subsist on an endless diet of online propaganda that reassures them their grievances are justified in every particular and that the governing class isn’t merely indifferent to their suffering but is actively scheming to make it worse.'

    Look no further than the comments section of this, or any other, Dispatch newsletter. And, may I add, they're usually absolutely certain they know the real problem/solution, and are perfectly willing to let you know when you're wrong.

    Personally, I'm here for the writing. I learn from people WAY better informed on the topic. You all don't need me to set you straight.

    Collapse
  10. Brian.Pendell

    Nick, if you're reading this, I'd like to point you to this sentence:

    "A drumbest of major government failures and a media ecosystem that encourages disaffection and paranoia for fun and profit:"

    There's a typo; should be "drumbeat".

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      BillAZ

      or a drumbeat of dummies?

      Collapse
Load More