Could women (and pro-life) voters ruin Trumps election?

Letter's from O'Brien #51

Dear Mr Smith,

Please excuse the provocative title of this letter, but I would like to highlight something today which is so absurd that I can’t help but respond…

Recently there has been a lot of controversy surrounding Trumps ‘new’ position on abortion, which is somewhat vague and errs toward the pro-choice side of the debate. Consequently, the ‘pro-life’ crowd have been out in force, protesting against Trump’s willingness to lean toward the pro-choice position, and voters are swinging away from him (as much as you can trust the polls). Trump was actually going to take a pro-life stance, until the pro-life movement reprimanded him for it. What? Confused?

If this sounds stupid, it’s probably because it is. This whole ordeal goes back to the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), who run arguably the most influential pro-life movement in America. They represent the Southern Baptist Convention, often recognised as the largest Protestant Christian denomination in America. I won’t get into the Southern Baptist Convention, but from what I have seen, they promote the likes of Tim Keller, Al Mohler, and so forth. Despite claiming to be conservative, the SBC (or its leadership at least) is oriented around a modernised form of Calvinist theology, which I believe is flawed and subservient to the prevailing worldly narrative.

Now for the past decade, pro-life sentiment has been growing among both men and women, however it is women who are the primary public advocates (this is also true of the pro-choice crowd). As the pro-life movement grew, many politicians began to pivot back towards an earlier, more traditional view on abortion. The old view - for context - is that abortion should be illegal, the baby is viewed as a human being (and is thus protected by the same rights), and that legal penalties exist to be used against those who illegally kill a baby (a human being). This is also the correct Christian view on abortion.

One would assume this would be what the pro-life lobby wants, but seemingly it’s not that straightforward. In 2015, Trump suggested legal penalties for abortion should return. In an incredible move, the pro-life movement (to whom Trump was appealing) turned on him, berating him for suggesting such a misogynistic thing. Once again, this is the Christian conservative pro-life movement we are talking about here. And this is not the only example. In my limited time researching this issue, I also heard about a bill that was drafted in Alabama, which aimed to ban abortion, recognise unborn babies as human beings protected by equal rights, and put in place legal penalties for illegal abortion. In response, the ERLC took a stance against the bill and what it proposed.

So here we are, with an election (which just months ago was probably a sure win for Trump in my opinion) now hanging in the balance as more and more ‘conservatives’ begin to supplant the movement from within. It should be noted that the pro-choice crowd played little part in this whole sequence of events from my understanding; most pro-choice advocates are not voting for Trump anyway, and there hasn’t really been a move to capture them through campaigning. So, Trump had no incentive to appeal to the pro-choice crowd, but every reason to please voters on the conservative right. It should now be obvious why he has pivoted towards a neutral (not pro-choice) stance… it is likely because of the pro-life lobby, who mounted pressure against the general move to penalise abortions.

The stupidity of this whole ordeal cannot be overstated. It highlights why I have little faith in the conservative mainstream, which I feel is being led by Karl Popper-esque libertarians. Even if Trump decided to take a neutral stance for no apparent reason, he would still be the candidate to vote for, since no one else stands so apart from their party, and offers such resolve for arguably one of the most pressing issues facing America – immigration and open borders. But of course, as one should now be aware, he did not walk back his pro-life view for no reason, but for a particular reason; aggressive, mixed signalling from the conservative right. I would like to understand why many conservative women will stand against degeneracy such as abortion, pornography, and modern divorce laws on the basis of morality, yet defend these very same things when it comes to legality? I’m confused. Now I am not saying that this ordeal was solely the fault of women, in fact the head of the ERLC is a guy, as are the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, but I do feel that this pseudo-conservative movement is under the sway of a feminist spirit that does not represent true conservative women, nor the men.

Already, we are seeing public opinion sway towards Biden, particularly among women. Last I saw, the New York Times had reported that 53% of women are now willing to vote for Biden, whilst only 37% for Trump. Now this is not abnormal, since for the past two election cycles, women have voted majority democrat; in both 2016 and 2020, Trump won the male vote, whilst in 2016 Hillary Clinton received the majority of the female vote. As for 2020, it was the female vote which secured Biden’s presidency. In 2016 the female vote appears to have been secured by Clinton for two reasons; ‘woman president’, and the media generated outrage surrounding Trump (emotional outrage). The latter issue appears to have been the deciding factor among women again in 2020. I have little doubt we will see this play out exactly the same this year, and for the same stupid reasons. I’m not being sexist, just pointing out the statistical sex differences in voting and what could possibly be going on here. 

It will be interesting seeing how this plays out. Online I am already seeing growing trends calling for the repealing of the 19^th amendment. Surprisingly, this appears to be led by traditional conservative women (who unsurprisingly are usually pushed to the fringe) such as Pearl Davis and Lauren Chen, who note the consistent trend in liberal voting tendencies amongst a more substantial portion of the female voter base. As far as I am aware this is basically unheard of, as tradcons have been pushed into the same corner as the paleo-conservatives, never to have their voices heard. But of course, times are rapidly changing, and ideas which were on the fringe just one year ago are now mainstream talking points. I have much more to say regarding the latter point, but I first had to get this stupid issue out of the way. Next, I want to write out a detailed analysis of the Straussian subversion which has occurred at multiple levels within the conservative right, from the Straussian alt-media through to the ‘racist’ (yet conveniently anti-Christian) ‘Neoreactionary Right’, which appears to be a subversion of the more Christian-oriented Dissident Right, but for the time being this is all I have.

Oh, and interesting conversation here with Tucker Carlson and Megan Basham where they mention the Southern Baptist Convention.

History Videos on Substack…