What you're missing is that a human rights or natural rights argument has the same internal arrogance as those of the member of a proselytizing faith who comes knocking on your door uninvited. Those human rights arguments may seem self-evident to you, given the culture you live in, but I might say the same thing about the arguments of the person of faith.
Approaching the opposition from a position of claimed moral superiority builds walls. Getting things done in a democracy requires building bridges. If we're observing things like abortion bans and the UK's Rwanda policy, that's not a time for bashing the other side. It's time for action. It's time to realize the moral high horse isn't producing results, climb down and find the common ground that ends the madness, and secures votes.
In the case of the abortion bans, that has proven to be the denial of life-saving care, and needless suffering. State governments have shown they cannot be trusted with the power the Supreme Court remanded to them, and opinion polling on wholly unrestricted abortion rights shows a seismic shift in favor. In the case of the Rwanda policy, it's securing the voters who agree that's not who the UK is strongly enough to overcome their other differences with you.
The left gets those voters by stopping the constant looking down its noses at opposition voters baked into its rhetoric, and talking about policy implications and national identity. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Democrats have only won the White House from the other party in the midst of the three worst economic pullbacks since 1990. When American presidential elections are about something other than a loss of faith in the Republicans on economic policy, and the Democrats lack incumbency advantage, the Democrats lose.
Why? For decades, the left has been rowing as fast as they possibly can in the opposite direction of port, then blaming their leadership for the ship only coming in when the tide is in and the prevailing winds blow hard enough to counteract the self-destruction. Some of that blame is well-founded, in the sense that politicians in safe seats have every reason to engage in inflammatory rhetoric. Some of that blame lies with those who cheer on those politicians like they're a football club, retweet them and donate to them.
I can't claim I want to stop the Tories and Trump as much as you do. I think it's apparent I also want to stop them. Your moral outrage does not win votes. It loses them. Who's winning the biggest-sinner contest this week does not matter. There's plenty of dirt on both sides' politicians. Yours are also grasping pondscum who spend far more time fundraising than they do legislating, by and large. They have the one redeeming virtue of supporting some policies we can agree are broadly better for most people.
If you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you would row towards port for a change. In case you haven't noticed, there's a crisis on this side of the pond, and you're tossing gasoline on the fire. As one of the few remaining members of the endangered species known as moderates, I talk to the other side, too. They'll tell me stuff they won't tell you. Some of them are gettable. You're making that much harder.
If you think you're upset with an argument you dislike, imagine how I feel every time I have to deal with the emotional nonsense the left's sanctimonious rhetoric provokes. Treat the other side like adult human beings rather than wayward children in need of a scolding, and I can get some work done on your behalf. Quit poisoning the well we both drink from. Thank you.
