Very interesting comment today on Ann Althouse’s popular blog.
The argument seems to be this: Hilary Rosen’s error was in trying to express Democratic Trope 1 with language from Democratic Trope 2. There’s the talking point that Romney is out of touch because he’s rich, and there’s the talking point that Romney represents the Republicans’ war on women.
What Rosen was aiming at was that first point: Romney is so rich that his wife (whom he says he consults on economic matters) doesn’t have a clue what normal women go through. That’s from the playbook of Democratic Trope 1. But Rosen expressed it as a war-on-women element: the never-held-a-job stay-at-home mom can’t appreciate how we normal working women are oppressed by Republicans. That’s from the playbook of Democratic Trope 2.
Result? A short circuit, as always happens when wires get crossed. Sparks and smoke and lot of shouting.
It’s going to take the Democrats a week or two to get these wires untangled and the power flowing back through them again. My guess right now is that they will become very leery of pushing much juice down the war-on-women wire.
The question, of course, for Catholics interested in the electoral race is whether that’s a gain or a loss. The war-on-women stuff was linked—crosswired, in its way—with the “Santorum is weird” line and the culture-wars language of abortion and contraception.
If the abortion and contraception discussion drops out the mainstream reporting and commentary on the election, should Catholics be glad (because you think, say, that this increases the victory chances of the more pro-life candidate) or unhappy (because you think, say, that the education of the public always makes this issues worthwhile to appear in public discourse)?