Re: [Fwd: Re: Culture and Technology (was Re: Abortion, Killing etc)]

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Katha Pollitt wrote:

>   Or have you found that comparing abortion to a trivial operation is an
> effective way of getting people  on the fence to be more pro-choice?

Any actual *movement* depends first of all on rallying those who
already pretty much agree with you but think it is useless because
the "public" is so against them. Back in the early '80s when (at
least at ISU) religion was at the height of its grip on people
I never had one student on his/her own initiative indicate any
sort of doubt. But most semesters, after I had made enough
arrogant dismissals of religion, a few students (in my office, not
in class) would tentatively come forward with doubts themselves.

Now if even (as Yoshie mentions) declared leftists are spooked
into thinking they have to make compromises (in advance of
any compromise being demanded) with "seamless catholics"
(or with working class advocates of the death penalty), how
many of the "ordinary people" that anti-leftist leftists love to
cite *may* just be ready to rally around a banner that is
lifted boldly enough.

When (and only when) one has rallied the silent minority, *then*
it is time to start worrying about the fence sitters. (And quite a
few of those fence sitters will fall off the fence on to our side
just by seeing more of us in motion.)

The people on the fence who I would want to speak to are
those women who are part of the 40% who have had abortions
but think that it was probably wrong to do so. I want to give
them the courage to be proud of their act, not feel like
criminals.

>From every thing I know about history, *all* movements begin
by rallying what I call here the silent minority. Why ignore those
who are more than potentials "friends," who are in fact potential
*US*?

Carrol