Patrick Brown argues that J. D. Vance put on a “rhetorical masterclass” in discussing abortion in his debate with Tim Walz and that criticism from pro-lifers (myself included) of that performance is misguided. I went back over the transcript, and it wasn’t quite as bad as my initial gut reaction, but Brown is both misunderstanding fundamental aspects of political communication and missing the point of what Vance was seeking to accomplish, which was to help the Trump campaign at the expense of the pro-life cause.
Now, we can start with some common ground here. I don’t argue for “opposing abortion in virtually all cases, even rape and incest” as a prudent litmus test for political candidates, or think that “calling Democrats ‘baby killers’” is “enough to flip the script.” I have argued that pro-life advocacy should be strategic, willing to make pragmatic compromises (without conceding the principle of life) and focused, for the moment, on protecting the beachheads of pro-life states. Brown argues:
Comments