4 ms·

It's a wedge issue where neither side will give any ground, which makes it exploitable. If you figure out a way to tie a wedge issue to the rest of your politic

It's a wedge issue where neither side will give any ground, which makes it exploitable. If you figure out a way to tie a wedge issue to the rest of your political platform you're virtually guaranteed support from one side or another. IMO one side has been much, much better at exploiting this fact and has has achieved great power despite representing less than a plurality of voters.

atwood22 4y ago
Your answer begs the question. Yes, abortion is a wedge issue, but why is it a wedge issue? Why are people against abortions in the US when most people aren’t against abortion access in other countries.
rayiner 4y ago
It’s a divisive issue because it represents fundamentally different world views. As an asian, the idea that the government can’t regulate abortion, which is prevalent among a large minority of Democrats these days, is remarkable. Even if abortion was a moral issue, and not about preserving human life, nothing precludes states from legislating morality. It’s illustrative to compare to Japan or Germany, which have “liberal” abortion regimes insofar as it’s widely available. But in both countries it’s still technically illegal. The state has the power to regulate, but simply tolerates abortion under certain conditions. When people deny that power altogether, you’re dealing with fundamentally different notions of how society works, and that predictably produces conflict. And people perceive that conflict as involving more fundamental issues than what the marginal income tax rate should be. And which side “represents less than a plurality of voters?” Republicans won a majority of the Congressional popular vote in 2016. They got a million and a half more votes than Democrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Re.... They’re on pace to do it again this year. They’re also a couple of points ahead in the generic Congressional ballot. It’s an error to rely on the Presidential popular vote. Because it doesn’t count nobody is trying to win it. It’s easy for Democrats to campaign in big cities in red states, but the GOP has no incentive to spend resources in rural areas of blue states. But they can and do field Congressional candidates in those areas, which is reflected in the Congressional popular vote.
- comrh 4y ago
  > Republicans won a majority of the Congressional popular vote in 2016 And then lost the popular vote in 2018 and 2020. Not sure why 2016 would be particularly relevant
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > And then lost the popular vote in 2018 and 2020. Not sure why 2016 would be particularly relevant Because those 2016 results dispute the meme that Republicans are some kind of obvious and permanent minority with no democratic legitimacy whatsoever.
  - rajup 4y ago
    Not that I support this ruling in any way or form, but the 2016 election led to the current slate of justices who came up with this ruling. It is probably good and by design that we don’t change justices with the popular vote.
    - comrh 4y ago
      The 2̵0̵1̵8̵ election of Trump led to these judges as he appointed three of them.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > The 2018 election of Trump led to these judges as he appointed three of them. Trump was elected in 2016.
        comrh 4y ago
        Ooof, no HN comments before coffee. Thanks.
    - InitialLastName 4y ago
      The House of Representatives is fully inconsequential to the selection and confirmation of Supreme Court justices, and the only Republicans on the ballot nation-wide lost the popular vote by a substantial margin.
francisofascii 4y ago
Right. It seems to me that both sides would be better off at advancing their so called goals if they could compromise and offer concessions, but that never happens.
- heretogetout 4y ago
  That's what makes it a wedge issue: there isn't much room for compromise. If one side believes abortion is literally murder, they're not going to say "well, a little bit of murder is OK if we get <foo>".

atwood22 4y ago

Your answer begs the question. Yes, abortion is a wedge issue, but why is it a wedge issue? Why are people against abortions in the US when most people aren’t against abortion access in other countries.

rayiner 4y ago

It’s a divisive issue because it represents fundamentally different world views. As an asian, the idea that the government can’t regulate abortion, which is prevalent among a large minority of Democrats these days, is remarkable. Even if abortion was a moral issue, and not about preserving human life, nothing precludes states from legislating morality. It’s illustrative to compare to Japan or Germany, which have “liberal” abortion regimes insofar as it’s widely available. But in both countries it’s still technically illegal. The state has the power to regulate, but simply tolerates abortion under certain conditions. When people deny that power altogether, you’re dealing with fundamentally different notions of how society works, and that predictably produces conflict. And people perceive that conflict as involving more fundamental issues than what the marginal income tax rate should be. And which side “represents less than a plurality of voters?” Republicans won a majority of the Congressional popular vote in 2016. They got a million and a half more votes than Democrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Re.... They’re on pace to do it again this year. They’re also a couple of points ahead in the generic Congressional ballot. It’s an error to rely on the Presidential popular vote. Because it doesn’t count nobody is trying to win it. It’s easy for Democrats to campaign in big cities in red states, but the GOP has no incentive to spend resources in rural areas of blue states. But they can and do field Congressional candidates in those areas, which is reflected in the Congressional popular vote.

comrh 4y ago
> Republicans won a majority of the Congressional popular vote in 2016 And then lost the popular vote in 2018 and 2020. Not sure why 2016 would be particularly relevant
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > And then lost the popular vote in 2018 and 2020. Not sure why 2016 would be particularly relevant Because those 2016 results dispute the meme that Republicans are some kind of obvious and permanent minority with no democratic legitimacy whatsoever.
- rajup 4y ago
  Not that I support this ruling in any way or form, but the 2016 election led to the current slate of justices who came up with this ruling. It is probably good and by design that we don’t change justices with the popular vote.
  - comrh 4y ago
    The 2̵0̵1̵8̵ election of Trump led to these judges as he appointed three of them.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > The 2018 election of Trump led to these judges as he appointed three of them. Trump was elected in 2016.
      - comrh 4y ago
        Ooof, no HN comments before coffee. Thanks.
  - InitialLastName 4y ago
    The House of Representatives is fully inconsequential to the selection and confirmation of Supreme Court justices, and the only Republicans on the ballot nation-wide lost the popular vote by a substantial margin.

francisofascii 4y ago

Right. It seems to me that both sides would be better off at advancing their so called goals if they could compromise and offer concessions, but that never happens.

heretogetout 4y ago
That's what makes it a wedge issue: there isn't much room for compromise. If one side believes abortion is literally murder, they're not going to say "well, a little bit of murder is OK if we get <foo>".