Ross Douthat has a long post about abortion and politics. He keys off a piece by Ben Wittes discussing how Republicans would suffer politically if Roe was actually overturned and abortion was sent back to the legislative branch where it belongs. Suddenly, pro-choicers would be mobilized and pro-life Republicans would have to account for their pro-life positions in a qualified pro-choice majority country.

It’s an argument you hear often and I’ll leave it to Ramesh or Kathryn who’ve studied the issue more than most to discuss it if they want.

But this raises an important point about the nature of our democracy in general, one that speaks well of it. Our parties often take positions contrary to their electoral interests. The best example of this in recent years was campaign finance “reform.” CF”R” hurt Democrats and helped Republicans but Democrats supported it and many (but alas not all) Republicans opposed it on principle.

Similarly, much of the sniping we hear about how Republicans or Democrats are “out of the mainstream” or “beholden to their base” etc., may have merit in specific circumstances. But often these arguments are offered by squishy moderates who’ve elevated compromise into a first principle. It’s the Arlen Specter types who have very few principles at all and who make “the process” into an end in itself because it is “the process” which gives them power. And it is these “centrists” who despise the “ideologues” because they make the process more difficult by their insistence on standing on principle.

If it’s bad politics to be “out of the mainstream” — and it’s not clear to me it always is — then it is often a sign of integrity for professional politicians to be there.