Abstract
Rights-based liberal argumentation has become increasingly vulnerable to conservative co-optation. Because rights language is often indeterminate and easily reinterpreted, conservatives can appropriate liberal rhetoric, recast it in service of contrary ends, and redirect attention away from substantive policy consequences. This Article examines that dynamic through case studies on abortion, criminal justice reform, and affirmative action, and argues that liberals should rely more heavily on cost-benefit analysis as a complementary framework for political messaging. More concrete and empirically grounded than abstract rights rhetoric, cost-benefit analysis may be less susceptible to rhetorical hijacking while still supporting progressive policy outcomes.
First Page
31
Recommended Citation
Yesha Shah,
The Fatality of Rights-Based Argumentation: Conservative Co-optation, Liberal Fragmentation, and the Battle for the Narrative,
29
U.D.C. L. Rev.
31
(2026).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.udc.edu/udclr/vol29/iss1/8