Jacob Rees-Mogg and Abortion

Lefty middle-class commentators began squawking their heads off yesterday when it transpired that Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, a potential candidate to replace the hapless Theresa May, was – gasp! – opposed to abortion and gay marriage. Cue lots of hand-wringing, pearl-clutching, and denouncements from the high priests of decency and the guardians of acceptable political discourse. You know, those people who had their finger so closely on the pulse they didn’t see Brexit coming and said Corbyn would be wiped out in the last election. Those people.

Note that Rees-Mogg didn’t say he was seeking to outlaw abortion or gay marriage: he simply said, being Catholic, that he opposes them. In the not too recent past this wouldn’t have been an issue. It is was never expected that a political leader’s views matched those of the voter in every detail, and differences of opinions on certain issues were normal. The voters didn’t care what a candidate thought about minor issues, nor even what he thought about the major ones particularly: they were more interested in their policies and their intentions once in office, not their personal opinions.

Blair changed all that. He came along and aligned himself perfectly with the liberal middle classes simply by changing his views to match whatever the latest opinion poll said they wanted to hear (Iraq excepted). Cameron worked out this was a winning strategy and did the same thing (Brexit accepted), and now this has become the norm: political candidates are supposed to make the right noises in front of the metropolitan media elites, and if they don’t pompous twats will start saying things like “they’re not fit for public office”. What used to be said only in relation to a candidate’s criminal history or unethical behaviour is now splashed around simply for having dissenting views. And there was me thinking it was elections which sorted out which candidates the public want in office, not elites working cushy jobs in London.

It’s not difficult to see what’s going on here. The lefty middle classes don’t care about abortion, it’s a non-issue in the UK, they’ve just seized on it because it’s a divisive subject in the US and they think they can use it as a stick with which to beat Rees-Mogg over the head. Both they and wet “conservatives” cluttering up the Tory party simply don’t like the idea of a proper, traditional conservative leading the Conservative party: they prefer wet bellends like Cameron who pander to the left while pretending to be Tory. A simply test of whether Rees-Mogg’s critics are genuinely looking to uphold principles on abortion and gay marriage is by seeing how they approach politicians of other conservative religions who hold similar views. Well, yes, indeed.

Of course, the chattering classes are saying Rees-Mogg has no chance and he’ll consign the Conservative party to oblivion, but they said the same thing about Corbyn and Labour and look what happened. Most of this is projection of their own prejudices, these idiots haven’t a clue what they’re on about. But that doesn’t mean they’re wrong: every now and then a blind squirrel stumbles on a nut. Much as though I’d like to see proof that Britain is ready for a genuine conservative in the style of Rees-Mogg, I suspect he’ll be seen as too posh and too out of touch for most modern Brits. From what I can tell, they want a wet, middle-of-the-road nice guy like Cameron, or someone who will tell them exactly what they want to hear while incessantly meddling like Blair. I might be pleasantly surprised though, and for that reason I’d like to see him replace May as head of the Conservative party. Whatever happens, I suspect his personal views on abortion will be an irrelevance.


15 thoughts on “Jacob Rees-Mogg and Abortion

  1. And it’s not as if those views are held by a tiny minority; substantial numbers support them, but know that they are ‘not allowed’ to mention them. Hell, it’s only been five years – 2012 campaign – since the sainted Obama was trumpeting his opposition to gay marriage.

    When Presentism is the ruling philosophy of our betters, it can be very hard to keep up sometimes.

  2. I’m not sure about your conclusions on JRM never making it to leader.

    He’s very much an analog to Corbyn. He’s a stereotype, in the same way Corbyn is. He’s fringe, he’s clear on what he believes, and he’s outy of step in a way that people find appealing. He’s got cult appeal, and his arguments are well put forward (Corbyn is also good at this- his wooliness and inconsistency are invisible to the man himself, and this leads to them being obscured when he talks). Big difference is that Rees-Mogg is weapons-grade clever, and I suspect he’s seen as a kind of political Stephen Fry by many.

    I think the reason why the comments about abortion and the gays have been picked up is that (to a certain mindset) it’s the first hint that he isn’t all cuddly, and he has principles.

    The Tories could do much worse than Mogg, and it’s astonishing how accepting the public can be, if they have enough exposure to someone they basically like (Trump, Corbyn, Owen Jones)

  3. It’s easy to change his mind. Just get the Pope to announce that he’s changed his. For the Bishop of Rome is infallible, you know.

  4. Much as I am largely contemptuous of Catholic doctrine qua Catholic doctrine, and am personally not opposed to abortion in many cases, I was baffled yesterday watching R-M’s interview why he didn’t just make a very simple distinction between a sin and a crime. Not all sins are crimes (coveting thy neighbour’s ass, for example) and not all crimes are sins (sex with a minor, for example). The church holds that abortion and homosexuality are sins and thus in his personal life R-M believes so too. The state holds that abortion is not a crime up to a certain point and that homosexuality is not a crime. He nearly got there talking about how these were free vote issues and would never fall to be whipped on any PM’s instructions, but of course Piers and Susanna were too busy feigning shocked consternation.

  5. “Most of this is projection of their own prejudices, these idiots haven’t a clue what they’re on about. ”

    This is a pretty good summary of most political discourse in the UK.

  6. @dearemie, “For the Bishop of Rome is infallible” that is an interesting point and was something I struggled with as a young catholic.

    My personal conclusion that I reached way back then and one which I still hold as true is that a political leader should be at least Deist, Evolutionists should never be in power. And for me way back then I settled with Napoleon as being the model leader that got it right with striking the balance between religion and political leadership, he took Rome and spared the Papacy and he liberated Egypt and was the defender of Islam and he also believed that people of all faiths should have freedom of conscience. The Concordat of 1801 was a masterpiece, as was the Lycees system and the Napoleonic Code.

    Napoleon and particularly the balance he struck between church and state for me is what all future leaders should aspire to.

    “Society cannot exist without inequality of fortunes and the inequality of
    fortunes could not subsist without religion. Whenever a half-starved person
    is near another who is glutted, it is impossible to reconcile the difference if
    there is not an authority who tells him to.”

  7. ” a political leader should be at least Deist, Evolutionists should never be in power” What have those two propositions got to do with each other? Lots of Christians have been Evolutionists from the late 19th century onwards.

    “… Napoleon as being the model leader that got it right with striking the balance between religion and political leadership,… he liberated Egypt and was the defender of Islam”: ah, the penny drops. You were being satirical.

  8. One can go a bit over the top in relation to papal infallibility: it’s not as if Popes regularly infallibly declare who is going to win the 3:30 at Plumpton.

    Contrary to the myth, Papal Infallibility has only ever been invoked twice. For a two thousand year old institution, that’s not exactly frequent.

  9. Maybe Atheist would have been a better choice of words, but Christianity need not come into it.

    As for Napoleon and Muhammad Ali the founder of modern Egypt, yes Napoleon was instrumental in him eventually breaking free from the Ottoman Empire.


  10. Difference of opinion is nowadays always cause for ostracism. Whatever your array of beliefs you can find 500 people on the internet who share them. What need have you of real life friends you can have civil and even educational disagreements with when there is choice of virtual echo chambers for everyone?

    Rees Mogg can’t be pm anyway on account of his Catholicism.

  11. “Rees Mogg can’t be pm anyway on account of his Catholicism.”
    Not sure what this means. There is no legal restriction, and the voters wouldn’t care.

  12. “Papal Infallibility has only ever been invoked twice. For a two thousand year old institution …”: ooh, what a naughty argument. You know perfectly well that the claim to infallibility was formalised only in the 19th century. Shame on you!

  13. Interesting how the pro-abortion lobby are playing the man not the ball.

    Not one of the criticisms I’ve read explain why his “life begins at conception” concept (see what I did there) is wrong.

  14. I’m not sure about your conclusions on JRM never making it to leader.

    As I said, I’d be delighted if I’m proved wrong. I just don’t have much faith in the British middle classes, they seem afraid of their own shadow these days.

  15. “and not all crimes are sins (sex with a minor, for example)”
    Really? Shagging an underage whatever-floats-your-boat isn’t sinful?

    Okay. Maybe that’s a left-footer thing. Other churches mileage varies considerably.

Comments are closed.