And to the credit of the conservatives, they have never backed down from the principles they stand behind no matter how wacky or how much opposition they faced

A lot of conservatives held their noses and voted for the relatively moderate Romney in 2012, abandoning their principles. The adage of running to the extremes in the primary, and then towards the center in the general election is one Republicans have followed.

Over a longer time frame, there were decades where they waited -- from the 1930s until 1980 or so -- they had to put up with social programs and much higher tax rates on the rich -- something like 90% marginal in the Eisenhower years. But they had more moderate positions and got elected to office for all of those years, and limited what liberals could do. They may detest social security and medicare, but they haven't until recently taken an audible stand against them -- they were caving to public opinion.

Yes, I understand we have a fundamental difference in terms of strategy we'll just have to disagree about. You stick to your principles, and seem unperturbed if whichever Marxist party that is your favorite is seen as the tiniest fringe. I work with things the way they are and try for improvements that way. It is maddeningly slow.

the capitulation policies of the post-1970s liberals occurred in the same era that brought us the victimology craze; trash talk shows; a resurgence in hatred of the poor; the Satanic ritual abuse insanity

You have cause and effect reversed completely. If the post-1970s liberals had stuck to their principles as you wish, that all would have happened and far worse, as they would mostly been voted out of office and there would have no been no restraint on conservatives at all.

However exasperated we might be with voters, they get to decide who runs the country.
No, they don't decide that, and you know it, Ethan. A few powerful monied interests carefully vet and decide which two stooges of the ruling class we get to choose to vote for

Here you're thinking too narrowly. Those powerful monied interests do not in any direct way tell people who to vote for -- that framing of the situation assumes things cannot change. You can just ignore the monied interests and get the people to vote the way you want.

Of course I know what you're saying (it's right up the pragmatist's alley), but my statement was that ULTIMATELY it's the voters who decide.

Actually, the only one who expresses a view at length that is not also currently spouted loudly by anyone else. You can't say the same for the libertarians and anarchists on the board, so you do not yet single any of them out in this manner.

I have listened carefully and not heard any coherent message from libertarians and anarchists on this board. If I did, I would reply to it to the extent I disagreed with it. I can't reply to Dante because he doesn't stay coherent long enough.

How about e-mailing the numerous open political and sociology boards who routinely delete any pro-choice views spoken when this issue is broached, while allowing the nastiest things from the other side to be said

Another possibility to consider is that the view is wrong and people see that.

...

I think you've got some serious problems with your quantifiers here towards the end -- you know, "all", "none", and "some".

calling us unfair and guilty of epistemic closure is the height of hypocrisy.

This is in response to your implication that NONE of the GC readers would benefit from reading my posts, that they ALL know these views already. I am suggesting that epistemic closure might be an issue for SOME of you.

Hence, it's safe to assume that ANYONE on this board have actually never or rarely heard the anti-choice view, and have NEVER actually considered it. [emphasis mine]

I'm only allowing for the likelihood that SOME have not taken the liberal view seriously lately.

I do know many of them, several from way back, and I do believe I have seen more than enough evidence that they have adroit, reasonable minds that have long considered and mentally digested status quo rhetoric

Right, SOME of them are like that. But suggesting they are ALL like that isn't justified.

but lurkers won't read a single thing from you that they haven't heard numerous times elsewhere in numerous different places. At least not those who weren't living in a cave somewhere for the past 30 years.

Not a SINGLE thing, you say. ALL the lurkers are exposed to these ideas.

I think "some" is much more plausible on all these questions than "all".