>>25016917
@cooljams_jams
1 month ago
I love Doug; we share mutual friends. But it's difficult to give him an honest defense on this position. At best, Doug's position is, "Many anti-incrementalists, in the name of abolition, have prolonged the existing, progressive abortion laws."
What he did tactically poorly was that he failed to really frame his distinction from Russell's position. In one sense, the debate is not abolition vs incrementalism; Doug is an abolitionist of a kind. In truth, we should all be abolitionists, full stop. No qualifiers.
Doug's debate was simply incrementalism vs anti-incrementalism. Unfortunately, he was speaking past Russell and carrying a separate debate. Russell scored on keeping it within his own framing.
Doug took a peculiar position. He's not not an abolitionist. He's articulated further elsewhere: in absence of a bill of abolition side by sideif all the governor has is either a heartbeat bill or continue the abortion laws still on the bookstake the tactical advantage of the iniquitous, yet less iniquitous law. The governor didn't write in the carve-out exceptions for the impunity of the murderers of the child. That is the legislator's guilt. And you heard Doug say, speaking as a governor, "Go back to your legislator and demand better." But the governor is responsible to take the opportunity to reduce the land's iniquity. So reduce the iniquity.
Where he could have scored was to turn it back on offense–to ask Russell, "If your only choice at the moment of signing is to sign the heartbeat bill, or to keep the progressive abortion laws on the books, would you refrain from signing?"
That's the best I got to steelman Doug. But where Doug lost his footing was on the legislation question. That was the chance to say, unequivocally, "The legislator must write an uncompromised abolition bill, of equal protection."
And again on the abolition bill presented in Texas that it seems he overlooked at the time. That was Doug's opportunity to say, "That ought to have passed. Not compromise."
—-
Smashmouth incrementalism, in this respect, is compromised. At best, it's muddled with a laundry list of qualifiers.The principled abolitionist argument will be honored for her unapologetic integrity