The great humanist Israel Shahak had a favored way of analyzing political crisis. "There are," he would say, "encouraging signs of polarization."

Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., cheered on Democrat Heath Mello as Mello campaigned for mayor of Omaha, Neb. The Democrats – and those liberal/leftists who would support the Democrats – have since split. I'm not a conservative, but forgive me for suggesting that conservatives, even those who aren't ardently pro-life, have an interest in this argument.

Mello, a Catholic and former delegate to Nebraska's single chamber, had either authored or put his name to legislation that restricted abortions. Sanders' encomium thereby earned swift and peremptory condemnation from NARAL Pro-Choice America, who called the endorsement "politically stupid." Other abortion rights groups followed.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, who shared the stage with Sanders and Mello, was chastened and issued a statement to the effect that one can't be a Democrat without supporting abortion rights. But Nancy Pelosi, among others, disagreed. The argument has continued on cable, the Twittersphere, and anywhere hybrids can find parking.

Conservatives might well feel a bit of schadenfreude here: A political party in free fall gets hoisted on its own pro-abortion petard, from Omaha, Neb., by a septuagenarian spoiler who isn't even a member of their party?

There can be no question that Sanders' star power (at least as measured by the klieg lights of cable news), along with the elephantine Clintonoid memory for slights, has intensified the argument. But those who chuckle at the absurdity of this polarization now may well discover that the joke is on them.

Bernie Sanders is forcing the Democrats to choose between culture war and class war.

Not even NARAL thinks that Sanders is pro-life. But in the Marxist tradition in which Sanders was raised (and sometimes acknowledges, however elliptically), the struggle over abortion is an example of false consciousness – a distraction that keeps the worker from focusing on her true enemy: the owners. Sanders is the first American politician in generations to talk seriously about class, without (too much) euphemism.

This is why last year's primary fight between Sanders and Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to end: For those who think like Bernie Sanders, it doesn't matter how many African-Americans, women, Cherokees are welcome on the board of (say) Goldman Sachs; as long as Goldman Sachs is socializing risk but privatizing rewards, they're the enemy. Nothing – nothing – could be more antithetical to the Clinton worldview.

Sanders might well argue that class v. culture is a false antithesis. After all, those who defend Obamacare have argued access to cheap birth control has helped reduce the nation's abortion rates to its lowest level since Roe v. Wade was first handed down. And a robust defense of the working class will axiomatically entail a fight for some form of Planned Parenthood, which is for millions of poor women the only healthcare provider available.

This doesn't mean that Sanders' offer is risk-free: EMILY's List, the pro-choice political action group, claimed last week that some 11,000 women have offered themselves as candidates for future elections. For Democrats who talk longingly of "a bench," gaining Heath Mello may mean casting away a pearl richer than their tribe.

For conservatives, then, there are certainly signs of polarization: It's just not clear how encouraged they should feel.

Bill Myers lives and works in Washington. Email him at Myers101@outlook.com. Follow him on Twitter @billcaphill. If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.