A while ago I saw a former Circuit Judge from Illinois on Charlie Rose. (Can't think of his name, but I know most of you would recognize it. He's a pretty well-known thinker. Then again, not remembering his name seems to go pretty well with the intent of this game!)

Anyway, he said something that deeply affected my view of abortion politics.

He revealed himself to be fairly sympathetic to the pro-choice movement, and then Rose asked him what he thought, in retrospect, of Roe v. Wade.

He said it was a bad decision. (He made it clear he was speaking of its effect on society, not on its legal merit.)

He said that because it was so extreme - ensuring the constitutional right to an abortion right up to delivery, in any circumstances - that it awakened a very deep opposition that likely would never have existed if it had been more moderate.

He talked about the value of judicial decisions that seek out middle ground in which both sides feel they have been heard.

Whether he's right or not, I don't know, but I am glad to have heard this perspective.

Westlund had a pow wow four blocks from me this weekend. I wanted to puke. He's about as progressive as George Bush is a Mensa candidate. He's one of those liberal conservatives like Gordon "Fish Stick" Smith. I AM SO TIRED OF BEING LIED TO BY THESE FASCISTS!!!

Here's another one for the record books. My coworkers in a cafe and overhears political chatter. She inches over and realizes its Kevin Mannix talking about how the Republicans could use gays and abortion this election season. What complete lack of character.

"He said that because it was so extreme - ensuring the constitutional right to an abortion right up to delivery, in any circumstances - that it awakened a very deep opposition that likely would never have existed if it had been more moderate."

What? That's not even close to what Roe v Wade says. In reality, it is much more moderate than that. Roe says the right to an abortion in the first trimester is absolute, states may regulate abortion during the second trimester for some reasons and may regulate it more strictly or outlaw it completely in the third trimester.

The relevant part of the decision:

1. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

The full decision.

I read the opening thread three times, and I still cannot figure out if [TA's] game is parody or delusional naivety.

Once again, some people miss TA's satire. (Damn, man, I keep telling ya - ya gotta raise yer hand if you're gonna be satirical!)

Let's not get bogged down in talking about abortion. Let's instead talk about TA's post. Can the "Everyone's an Independent" approach really work in the real world? Or does it only work in the "sweet independent utopian Republic of Non-Partisanville"?

Or maybe we should go ahead and have a fun rip-roaring fight about abortion. That would prove TA's point: That even in Non-Partisanville, it's the meat of the issue that actually leads to fighting - not the old "party politics!" tripe.

p.s. Thanks, TA, for a brilliant post.

Yeah, let's have open primaries.

The appeals court judge was most likely Richard Posner. He was also Jack Bog's favorite author in law school. Just kidding. He was one of my favorites, however, because I discovered this: If I read everything Posner had written, I could easily pass William Baxter's antitrust final exam.

BTW, how did Jack Bog find this thread. Maybe he has Google set to find all instances of "bogged down" on the web.

Sorry, I'm a big TA fan but I didn't find this post anything like brilliant. Ditto the similar offerings that have popped up here previously.

Of course people will always argue about issues. Of course, people will choose "sides" and allies over issues and philosophies. Of course people will always tend to congregate with like-minded people.

The partisanship that is turning people off isn't about any of that stuff. The partisanship at issue is the kind of partisanship that says everything is about electoral advantage for your side (and the corollary of enriching yourself and your pals with the resultant power only adds to the dissatisfaction). Issues aren't really issues, just tools for advancing the electoral and financial success of your side. Push them when it's to your advantage and drop them like a hot potato when it isn't. Lock out everyone not in your party and even anyone in your party if they don't move in lockstep as ordered. There's no room for individual conscience and no room for considering the good of the republic. Surely the Bush administration has provided us with a stark enough example of that approach? We do remember there's a reason we all detest Karen Minnis far beyond our feelings about many other Republicans, right?

Ridiculing those who are moving away from party affiliations or looking for other ways to force us away from that nonproductive type of partisanship does not seem like the most useful approach that those of us who find value in our system of political parties could be taking. It seems to me that if you want to save the system the task is to convince people that parties can once again be about issues in a way that is productive and promotes the health of the state and the nation. Appearing to be unaware of just what it is that people are objecting to does not seem likely to achieve that end.

Doretta, you wrote:

The partisanship at issue is the kind of partisanship that says everything is about electoral advantage for your side .... Issues aren't really issues, just tools for advancing the electoral and financial success of your side.

But you don't really believe that do you? It's the pose that's popular with the "I don't vote because they all suck" crowd, but it's just not true.

No one can argue with a straight face that most right-wing Republicans don't honestly believe that abortion is immoral, that taxes should be cut, and labor unions are evil (to pick a few issues.) Similarly, no one can argue with a straight face that most Democrats don't honestly believe in the minimum wage, the right to choose, public education, etc.

Sure, there are things both sides do for purposes of positioning, but the issues do fundamentally matter. This is NOT an athletic contest, where it's all about whether you're in the red uniform or the blue uniform.

Anyone who has lived through the last 5.5 years of the Bush Administration can't honestly argue that there aren't fundamental and real differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Doretta, nice post. I agree with it entirely. I am very discouraged by extreme partisanship, but when people take that to mean I'm "against parties" that's just silly.

So TA's post was meant as satire (yeah, on a more careful reading I see that it was.) There's a straw man taking a beating here. Is there anybody around here who's actually defended the idea of removing parties from the legislature?

Lest I be accused of being that person: (1) I once said I was excited by the news that my senator was dropping her Democratic affiliation. I'm impressed by somebody who feels strongly enough about an imprtant issue to make a bold and unpopular statement. That doesn't mean I agree with the statement. (2) I have defended the One Ballot initiative. I have outlined my reasons for that enough, and have never claimed (or wished) that the initiative would remove parties (or their influence) from the legislature.

Dan: Yes, it was Posner, thanks. Ross: I hadn't heard this argument before. Thanks for giving it some context. Doretta: sorry for getting that wrong, thanks for the correction.

ps. Kari: Bush is no Republican. Republicans base their politics on principle. Bush, I think, is more motivated to make sure foreign leaders laugh and have a good time at dinner.

Is there anybody around here who's actually defended the idea of removing parties from the legislature?

Yes. Ben Westlund, for one. Charlie Ringo, for another. Avel Gordly, yup. Quite a few folks - some well-meaning and intelligent, some not so much.

Okay, I'm a little slow on the uptake apparently. The straw man is supposed to be Ben Westlund??

Here's Westlund's statement about dropping his party affiliation:

"I have re-registered and am not a member of a party, not because I think Republicans or Democrats are bad, but because I feel that extreme partisanship is keeping us from solving Oregon’s most pressing problems and the party label was keeping me from truly being able to provide leadership on the issues Oregonians care about."

I've never seen a credible claim that he's proposing that OTHERS drop their party, or that the legislature be restructured. He says his own party label was getting in his way. If there's evidence of him going any further than this, I'd like to see it.

Pete wrote... I've never seen a credible claim that [Westlund]'s proposing that OTHERS drop their party, or that the legislature be restructured. He says his own party label was getting in his way. If there's evidence of him going any further than this, I'd like to see it.

The question of a nonpartisan legislature was a big one in the last session - and Ben Westlund sponsored the bill.

Here's the link to SB 602.

The summary: "Designates offices of Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General, state Senator and state Representative as nonpartisan."

The sponsors: "Sponsored by Senators RINGO, WESTLUND, Representatives GARRARD, HASS; Senators BATES, JOHNSON, MORRISETTE, MORSE, NELSON, SCHRADER, SHIELDS, VERGER, Representatives BROWN, BRUUN, GREENLICK, TOMEI"

'Nuff said.

Kari: Thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of that bill.

So, Westlund sponsored a bill that failed last session. He also acknowledges the value of parties: for articulating issues, getting voters involved, finding and training candidates, and supporting those candidates through the election cycle.

That particular bill might resemble what TA is satirizing, but it was voted down a year ago, and it's not an idea Westlund has been pushing in his campaign. It's also not something he would be in much position to push through as governor.

So I suppose, if having proposed something a little goofy disqualifies him from running for governor, there might be a point to be had here. But I'd say there are much worse things in politics than proposing goofy ideas and getting shot down.

Westlund is clearly seeking to mitigate extreme partisanship, not to abolish parties altogether. Is it so hard to see the difference?

As far as I can tell, we're still talking about a straw man.

And LT's pet issue fits in here: failing to understand Westlund's appeal is a bad image for Kulongoski supporters to be projecting. Mixing up these issues only affirms the frustrations of those who cite extreme partisanship as a reason to disengage from party politics. The earlier K. and his supporters can demonstrate that understanding, the better chance they have of keeping their base from defecting in the first place.

Kari,

You apparently misconstrued my comment. I once served on the board of a progressive, politically-oriented organization with a person who told me he didn't realize there was any significant difference between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas--imagine my frustration. I'm as far from the "there's no difference between the parties" crowd as it is possible to be. That's why I said "those of us" and not "those of you" when I talked about finding value in the party system.

I was definitely not talking about the citizenry when I described the bad sort of partisanship. The reality is that Ben Westlund's candidacy is not a bolt out of nowhere. The open primary proposal is not the result of some whimsical zaniness on the part of some radical nutcases. Those things are happening because the people behind them understand that when much of the electorate (or potential electorate) looks at our political leadership they see too much of that winning-is-everything-and-I'm-going-to-get-mine approach and they think that in Oregon it is at least partially responsible for our failure to address important issues effectively. It's gone significantly further on the national scene than it has here but that only serves as a stark reminder of just how bad it can get.

I think they have a valid point. I agree that there is much more going on here than can be explained by excessive partisanship, including initiatives that have warped our revenue and spending into shapes most people would not have chosen had they fully understood the consequences. On the other hand, even if the partisanship complaint were completely unfounded, the fact that so many people believe it to be true would require a substantive response. The belief has gone way past the point where a little ridicule will suffice.

I don't think the Bush admin is at all ideological in many of the ways they claim to be for the purposes of manipulating the electorate. In fact, if you look at the big things they have done you can pretty much count on the fact that if they say they are doing something for practical reasons (the war in Iraq, Social Security reform) they are really doing it for ideological reasons that they don't think they can effectively defend and if they claim ideology (tax cuts, "pro-life", gay marriage, flag burning) it's mostly about electoral and financial advantage and not the issues themselves.

Is Westlund the only legislator who you think should explain his actions? Or would you also like sponsorship explanations from these Democrats: The sponsors: "Sponsored by Senators RINGO, , Representatives , HASS; Senators BATES, BROWN, BRUUN, GREENLICK, TOMEI"

For starters, Bruun and Brown are Republicans.

Second, Senator Ringo and Representative Hass are both leaving office entirely.

Third, Representatives Greenlick and Tomei are not running for governor.

And sure, an explanation would be nice.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm a supporter of the One Ballot open primary measure. But that's because I believe in MORE parties, not less. The voters need more information to make their decisions, not less.

Why in god's name is anyone arguing that we should hide pertinent information from voters? Personally, I'd like to see fusion voting, a low threshold for creating parties, and the open primary. Then, we'd have candidates on the ballot carrying multiple party endorsements. Voters could then choose between (for example) a Democrat/Labor candidate, a Democrat/Green/Women's candidate, a Republican/Anti-Tax candidate, a Republican/Green candidate, a Labor/Women's candidate, and an Anti-Tax/Constitution candidate.

More information, not less.

Kari said:

Why in god's name is anyone arguing that we should hide pertinent information from voters?

I think the better question would be:

Is anyone arguing that we should hide pertinent information from voters?

In the last several discussions here, nobody has emerged to defend that position.

Sure, there are some of us who are intrigued by Westlund's candidacy. Maybe even some bona-fide Westlund supporters to be found. But that doesn't mean there's anyone here who's going to defend every piece of legislation the guy's been involved with. If it did, that potato famine topic would have looked a lot different.