The Reactionary Utopian

Litmus Test Alert

August 16, 2007

[Originally published by the Universal Press Syndicate, January 13, 1998]

If American politics doesn’t always make much sense, it’s largely because of two broad classes of people: (1) fools, and (2) knaves. This simple dichotomy roughly corresponds to the two-party system, though there is plenty of overlap.

Today's column is "Litmus Test Alert" -- Read Joe's columns the day he writes them.

Every now and then (and now is one of those nows), the Republican Party is warned, by the solemn voice of the New York Times editorial board, that it risks losing the votes of “moderates” if it persists in applying “litmus tests.” Basically, this means that Democrats won’t vote for the Republicans unless they act like Democrats.

Just the other day, the Times chided Steve Forbes, who is clearly preparing to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, for endorsing “litmus tests.” It seems that —

“Whoa,” the Naive Reader will interject at this point. “Just what do you mean by ‘litmus tests’? And what’s so bad about them?”

Why, I thought everyone knew that! A litmus test is bad because ... because ... well, I’m not sure, exactly. Something to do with “choice,” I think. You know, “tolerance” versus “dogma.”

Actually, litmus test is one of those phrases that clog and confuse our political conversation because they seem to stand for general principles, when in fact they’re applied only to one specific topic. In this case, abortion. The Republicans are arguing about whether to withhold party funds from candidates who don’t oppose “partial-birth” abortions — the late-term kind that might, without being too graphic here, make a butcher faint.

Opposition to such abortions may thus become a “litmus test” for party support. The phrase first gained currency during Ronald Reagan’s first term, when liberals charged that Reagan was making abortion a “litmus test” for Supreme Court appointments, and —

“Wait a minute,” the Naive Reader may cut in. “You still haven’t explained what’s wrong with that. After all, don’t political parties usually take firm stands on certain issues? Wouldn’t the national Democratic Party withhold its support from candidates who favored racial segregation or child labor?”

Well, Naive Reader, you may be naive, but you’re logical. In politics, it often comes to the same thing. Of course you’re absolutely right. Both parties have litmus tests, or they wouldn’t stand for anything. But the opprobrious phrase litmus test is applied only to abortion to imply that opponents of abortion are uniquely “intolerant.” (Somehow the tolerance of those who favor abortion never seems to be in doubt, even when they won’t permit anti-abortion speakers at national conventions.)

[Breaker quote for Litmus Test Alert: There are no pro-abortion 'extremists.']

[Breaker quote for Litmus Test Alert: There are no pro-abortion 'extremists.']

Terms like choice, big tent, and extremism are applied in the same lopsided way. Only opponents of abortion are “extremists.” There’s no such thing as a pro-abortion “extremist.” In fact, nobody admits to being pro-abortion. They’re always “pro-choice.”

So we have a weird political spectrum in which “moderation” lies not at the midpoint, but at the left end. One extreme is “extremist,” while the opposite extreme is “moderate.” The knaves have decreed it, and the fools agree with them.

“But that doesn’t make any sense!” the Naive Reader will protest.

Right again, Naive Reader. But political language is usually loaded this way. It’s designed to manipulate emotions, not to inspire reflection. And it provokes automatic reactions, like an electric cattle prod.

Even lots of people who have qualms about abortion, especially the late-term kind, don’t want to be called “extremist” or “intolerant.” They don’t stop to think about the implications of these words, and it never occurs to them to demand that such terms be applied consistently.

That’s why the notoriously liberal media never refer to “pro-abortion extremists.” They don’t even want the concept to enter people’s heads.

Otherwise, they might find the term applicable to the Communist Chinese government, which forces women to have abortions against their will, even in the last month of pregnancy. If that isn’t “pro-abortion extremism,” nothing is. If you really believe abortion should be a matter of an individual woman’s “choice,” you should be horrified by the gruesome forced-abortion policy.

But when was the last time you heard an advocate of “choice” condemn the Chinese policy? Unfortunately, American politics doesn’t have litmus tests for hypocrisy.

Joseph Sobran

Read a remarkable story
and see the remarkable
picture that goes with it.

Send this article to a friend.

Archive Table of Contents

Current Column

Return to the SOBRAN’S home page.