Populism and Reproductive Freedom

I rarely have much to say about discussions of “populism,” partly because it’s never entirely clear what the content of such a politics would look like, and the historical antecedents aren’t very promising. The slipperiness of the term is crystallized for me by the fact that Matt, in explaining (generally plausibly) why Harry Reid is a populist, lists “pro-life” first. Now I realize that “populist” means something a little more than “popular,” but isn’t popularity at least a necessary component? It seems to me that the fact Roe v. Wade is supported by a 2-to-1 margin creates some rather obvious problems for this position. Unless “populist” just means “the policy positions of culturally conservative white people”–which is pretty much how it seems to be used most of the time–I fail to see how Reid’s position on abortion is more “populist” than John Kerry’s. There are any number of issues in which Democratic social policies can be credibly described as “anti-populist,” but abortion isn’t really one of them.

And, of course, it goes even beyond numbers. Affluent blue-state women, if they were acting in their brute self-interest, would completely ignore abortion policy. These women will have access to safe abortions if Roe is repealed, and in most cases even if abortion is legally banned. It is poor women for whom legal abortion matters. (And while, yes, it would be nice if more state funding was available, I don’t think that Democratic politicians who support state-funded abortions tend to get credit for taking a “populist” position.)

I’ve pretty much given up hope that a non-tautological definition of “populist” cultural politics will ever emerge, and that therefore what is considered to be populist cultural policy will almost always be the reactionary position. But, at least, could liberals stop saying that being pro-choice is anti-populist (or unpopular)?