Sorry, but there is a difference; you just don't get it
There's a thread downstream featuring one of the oldest, and to me most tedious, tropes of American discourse: the fashionably cynical argument that there's no real difference between the two major parties where average folks are concerned. In normal times, this could be dismissed as a modish affectation, the kind that produces the pleasing feeling of being somehow smarter, more in tune with the Zeitgeist, so desired by those who'd like to keep at bay the tedium of making public choices; but these are not normal times. You're just not paying attention, and your argument is akin to doubting the existence of sharks because you haven't been eaten by one yet.
To put it in very stark terms: the foundations of the Republic are under attack. Simply put, while we may have seen precedents for this or that action taken by the former ruling party, we have never, in two hundred and thirty years, seen a systemic assault, on so many fronts at once, on the basic principles of American governance and the civilizational bedrock that underlies them. Once again: among people paying attention, in the academy, legislatures, the bar, business, even the church, this is not a controversial assessment; you, my friend, just haven't been paying attention. And I get impatient with it, because yours is fundamentally a lazy, solipsistic argument.
Underlying our civilization is the principle of empiricism. The republican party seeks to replace that principle, that observable reality is the proper yardstick for decision-making, with the concept that ideology and religion are in fact the arbiters. This is manifest in such little-known endeavors as, say, budgetary policy, which they base on the unproven (but fervently willed) trickle-down theory; in climate policy, the official policy of the republican party is that global warming does not exist; in trade policy, in educational policy, foreign policy, defense policy, the republicans adhere to a fundamentally ideological view of the world. For the first time in American history, one of the two major parties is expressly, fundamentally, intrinsically ideological. That's never happened before – ever.
Underlying, even founding, our government is the concept of the rule of law, the idea that the same rules apply to all, and that nobody is above or below the embrace of the law. The republicans have made at least two sustained attacks on that fundamental principle, which itself predates even the Common Law: one, the legislative action taken by Congress on Terri Schiavo, which established the ominous precedent that Congress could pass a law applying to only one person (the same logic which, incidentally, underpinned Bush v. Gore, the first Supreme Court decision to expressly abjure precedent, and a revolution in its own right); two, the principle established by republicans, for the duration of what they call 'The Long War', that any President at his (or her) discretion and pleasure, without any oversight, can declare any American citizen an enemy combatant, removing such a citizen from any protection of the law. That's earth-shattering in terms of constitutional import, and entirely without precedent.
Then, there's the thorny question of the separation of church and state, where once again the lines are clear: Democrats support it, republicans, as a matter of doctrine and policy, do not. Read their party platform every once in a while. Again, this is bedrock, and it's not about silly frippery such as school prayer; it's about the precedent and principle of whether the state can legislate private belief, and whether private belief may be free of the compulsions of the state. If that's an irrelevant distinction to some people, then I consider that view to be shallow and scarcely worthy of debate, because this is the stuff which produced centuries of wars. Read your history. For that matter, read Theocracy Watch.
Or consider a small, theoretical argument known to an obscure clique of political scientists as 'the separation of powers'. It is official policy of the republican party that one of these branches, the executive, is supreme over the other two, the legislative and the judicative. For example, republicans hold that 'signing statements' can be attached by a President to Acts of Congress, determining what they mean. That this usuros the powers of the legislature is the intent of this view. In the same vein, the republicans have attempted to pass legislation removing certain subjects - school prayer, abortion and flag burning - from judicial review. What does this mean in the aggregate? It means that republicans are setting up a government that is unaccountable to anyone. And now tell me that this doesn't matter, or that Democrats are doing the same.
It's very easy to get caught up in the details of the Bush administration's assault on America. So they read our mail, Nixon did that, too. Same thing with tapping phones. So they intern people without due process, FDR did, too. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for a while, when it seemed that an enemy army was about to take the capital. So they invade foreign countries – ever heard of McKinley? So they legislate against evolution, global warming, sex education, equal rights, who cares, that's what republicans do, right?
The difference this time around is that it's all happening at the same time, is being precipitated by the same actors, and flows from a coherent ideology, one that has some distance to go before it concludes. Where will that conclusion be? If it's not stopped, in a totalitarian, Christianist state.
Here's what matters, and why the small-bore argument of 'they're all crooks' ultimately fails: the aggregate of the republican assault on America is such that it's a new thing entirely. It's unprecedented, in breadth and scope, by anything that has happened in the centuries of our national journey. If you fail to see that, you simply don't know what you're talking about. In short, you're wrong, and dangerously so.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Empiricism | Evolution | history | Progressive Movement | Radical right | Rule of Law | Secularism | Barking crazy rightwingers
» Michael Bouldin's blog | add new comment | email this blog | printer friendly version | 1833 reads
OK...
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 13 January 2007 - 6:33pm.
...when the Democratic Party acts to outlaw choice, we'll talk. Meanwhile, let's just assume that the party as an entity is pro-choice, because nitpicking about individuals aside, it is. I'm reasonably well connected, and I've never even heard of this DFL group.
As to the 'world of hurt', if you're suggesting that 34 years of adocacy for choice mean nothing because some members of the leadership don't make choice their one, only, and defining issue, sorry, you're also missing the point.
And in a way, you're illustrating why some Dems are reluctant to make choice a top issue; some, a few, one might add. But that's because of the Bushian with-us-or-against-us view taken by some of the advocates. The burden of proof, as far as I'm concerned, is on the pro-choice community to prove that the immense investment made in it was worthwhile; because last I checked, NARAL (for example) had this irritating habit of endorsing republicans. The Democrats aren't the ones who need to prove their loyalty on that subject, not after the bleeding we've done to keep choice legal, and the backstabbing it's not managed to prevent. Let's talk about what the choice community owes Democrats.
DFL
Submitted by mole333 on 13 January 2007 - 6:49pm.
DFL exists but is a pretty small and marginal group, one which it is kind of silly to use as an example of the party as a whole. I noticed them on Act Blue, I believe.
The Democratic Party Platform (nationally, I don't know about each and every state level party platform) has consistently been pro-choice for as long as I have been politically active.
Alrighty
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 13 January 2007 - 7:46pm.
I'm sure they exist, if only because every single persuasion has its own Democratic subgroup; but yes, the platform has been pro-choice since long before Roe.
Meanwhile, again as noted, Naral endorsed Lincoln Chafee. So yeah, what has the pro-choice movement done for us? What have they done to deserve my support? Especially the unconditional, no-holds-barred support that seems to be required?
Michael
Submitted by Lorraine on 13 January 2007 - 9:27pm.
I'm going to try to be respectful, even though the tone of your response to Caliberal was hardly so.
To quote you in the original post:
"You're just not paying attention, and your argument is akin to doubting the existence of sharks because you haven't been eaten by one yet."
It's funny how you can see that the theocratic arm of the Republican party as threatening us all because of global warming and signing statements and Terri Schiavo. You'll get no argument from me.
But if you cannot see that the right to privacy--which, if it's based on such small matters as, say the 4th amendment, or the 9th amendment--is also a bedrock of democracy, than you have not been paying attention, and when the sharks come to take away your right to privacy, then you'll know what it's like to be eaten. Right to privacy gets conveniently labeled a woman's issue, the right to abortion. I guess men don't need sovereignty over their own bodies.
By the way, I went and checked the vote on Schiavo. Um. Nearly 50 Democratic reps voted for it. How many voted for Alito's nomination? How many for Roberts? How many voted to authorize the war in Iraq? How many for the Patriot Act? How many voted for suspension of habeas corpus? Think torture is okay?
Yes, there's a difference between the Democrats and Republicans, and I hope you're right that the Democrats are going to defend the republic from those who seek to destroy it. Yes. The Republicans are theocratic fuckwads who need to be driven from office. There is a lot to admire in the Democrats, and no, there's no chance I'd vote for a Republican, but for you to assert that anyone who cares about a right to privacy is a single-issue voter who doesn't care about the republic, is patronizing.
And I love being patronized.
Lorraine
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 13 January 2007 - 10:03pm.
...you're not being patronized. That's entirely not the point. What I'm saying here, and in part doing so with deliberately inflammatory arguments, is simply this: there's too much at stake, for all of us, to focus laser-like on the fact that people we otherwise support are not uniformly in agreement with us on everything. That's where this pervasive cynicism enfolding political discourse comes from.
I'm not pleased with the Dems on some issues either - trade comes to mind. Am I going to put them on the same rhetorical shelf as creatures of pure evil like Rick Santorum? Also, no. The difference is agency; you're not going to see a Dem starting to legislate against choice.
I could go on and argue that the choice movement has been out-argued, out-spent and out-organized by its enemies, which is part of the reason why the Dems are open to receiving votes from anti-choice voters, and have some anti-choice actors in our folds. Seventy or eighty out of a hundred Americans are pro-choice to some extent, true enough; but that doesn't stop a good portion of those folks from voting for a party that expressly wants to abolish your right to choose. Are you going to blame the Dems for not ignoring that? Or is it maybe time to start agitating against the other side?
Because, as you rightly note, all of this is connected?
Female Ecology?
Submitted by JJ Ross on 13 January 2007 - 7:13pm.
It struck me listening to this video short about creativity inherent in "human ecology" being systematically compromised, in school systems and partisan politics and most other social systems, that I wanted to blog human ecology in parallel with global warming ecology.
I think all our systems are strangling creativity, or eating the seed corn or burning it up, or some such ecological metaphor.
Haven't had time to do more than get the glimmer of the idea yet -- my car's computer system apparently is in menopause along with me, and not even the scientists here can help me pick out the ecologically and economically best choice for a new A/C system, so I've been pretty harried -- but I hope to think more about it soon. With all the talk about what we're doing to ourselves and the planet in other threads, CK seems like the perfect place.
Then, reading Cali's latest above, I am blown away (again! Cali, glad you are here!) by the difference between how smart women and smart men GENERALLY approach complex problems, and I wondered if human ecology should be introduced to this discussion as something that women are more in tune with than men are? Or maybe something more natural to the typically female way of thinking -- not trying for political correctness here, just to get the thought out.
For me (and to be redundant I am a woman) when human ecology is in desperate need and systemic problems aren't getting solved, it's time to change the systems, not vote for MVP! Whatever it takes. Think of something better, get out of the damned ring, stop being a contender before you suffer irreversible brain damage and do something else with your life!
Bill Clinton spoke very powerfully after leaving the presidency, about the rising global importance of NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) and I don't see that as so different from the first President Bush inspiring people to create a thousand points of light.
Anything can be bastardized and usually is, but this IDEA is the right one to me, and it doesn't belong to either Rs or Ds, nor does the responsibility for not corrupting it and souring people on it (as people in both parties are doing or have done in the past, imo.) This just seems to be easier for men to grasp when they can advocate for national protocols for wind or solar power, or debate hydrogen conversion costs, or whatever -- easier than when they are confronted with failing social systems? Or maybe my hot air should be harnessed to run some machines of some kind, dunno . . .
Just curious
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 13 January 2007 - 7:31pm.
If what we're talking about is the destruction of the rule of law and of the separation of powers, what is the point of supposed differing gender approaches? Are you trying to say that women don't care about these threats because they're presumably not 'mommy issues'?
I would rather point out the structure of CAliberal's argument, which is quickly summed up as :"You're not perfect on my issue as I define perfect, and that's bad". That's not a gender-specific focus; rather, that's a common approach among many single-issue advocates, no matter what the issue is. Not to question anyone's originality, but I've heard this before from LGBT/marriage activists, choice activists, environmental advocates and even the voting-machine people.
i have never voted for a
Submitted by Tara Parks on 13 January 2007 - 6:51pm.
i have never voted for a Republican. never will.
yet i am torn by what you write, which you wrote very well, by the way. i do think the Democrats are better in theory. but in practice, they have let this country down in a lot of ways.
i agree that now we must unite behind the Dems bc no one could imagine how bad it was going to be and you are correct: it is all happening at the same time, which is unprecedented. but i insist that we stay on the Dems and really make them do their fucking job. Christ almighty, these people work for US. when did we forget that?!? i fear that people will say, "oh, the Dems are taking care of everything!" and suddenly we have another disaster on our hands, whether it's a new scandal or war(sometimes,like now, the same thing).
i think the bigger difference is between the voters. but again, this comes back to my inherent distrust of authority and the rich, which most politicians fall into whether they are Dems or Republicans and which is an assessment with which you don't agree. however, i don't mean to use the argument that i believe both parties are greedy to ignore action, but rather to cultivate it, for now is the time to act or our we lose our country.
the United States simply cannot afford another Republican reign of terror.
Politicians
Submitted by mole333 on 13 January 2007 - 7:04pm.
Politicians get a lot of crap...some definitely deserved. But I know quite a few politicans personally. Some are extremely cool. Even some I don't always agree with are really good people. I think this gets forgotten in our cynicism.
I also see an extremely negative offshoot of the kind of cynicism some have towards politicians: who are the politicians who need our help the most? THe ones who are actually the good, caring individuals who don't want to sell out. Who doesn't care about grassroots? The ones who get the big money support.
Too often the kind of cynicism directed at politicians from the left limits the commitment leftists give to politicians. In those circumstances the good guys usually lose and the big money interests win.
I have meet dozens of excellent people in politics...almost all (one exception) were Democrats. Many lost because the grassroots activists didn't care enough to actually find the good folks (who don't have the money to advertise much) and bust their butts for them.
I don't disagree
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 13 January 2007 - 7:35pm.
Of course you need to stay on top of the Dems, lest they get lazy. All of us do.
The thing is, though, that what the country confronts today is the stark fact that one of the two major parties is a vehicle for incipient theocratic fascism, and that's a big deal. One day, we'll hopefully be able to look back and shudder just how close they came; but now, the danger is very real.
treason
Submitted by Tara Parks on 14 January 2007 - 11:25pm.
you are right about that.
and now Bush says he will ignore Congress's decision on Iraq. could that be considered treason in any way?
i believe Bush should be in jail.
i understand you're point.
Submitted by Tara Parks on 13 January 2007 - 7:27pm.
i understand you're point. thank you. but i almost feel...that when you are a Dem or Rep, it is hard not to sell out. too many ties to things that your party was tied to before you took office, etc. who owes who what.
but i am open to meeting/listening/helping new politicians---as long as they are not conservative---always.
however, i do believe that power corrupts, whether it is cops or politicians. that's why what you said about supporting the little people who run and want to really make a difference resonates so strongly. ahhhhhhhh...i am not that much of a cynic, that i don't hope for change.
Need to blog on this
Submitted by mole333 on 13 January 2007 - 10:09pm.
I need to blog on my experiences with electeds and candidates. There are some great people out there and once they get to know you a little they pay attention to you. I find my activism has led to a pretty good relationship with SOME (certainly not all!) electeds. The keys are getting to know them personally and being seen as being active and engaged in the process.
I also should note that we have some electeds reading and considering writing for this blog. I hope they give some answers themselves :-)
An Introduction and why it's women I fight for
Submitted by CALiberal on 13 January 2007 - 8:36pm.
My comment above has gotten some response I would like to speak to.
I've been a Democrat for 40 years. I became one when I was a pregnant teen still in high school in 1966. Six years before Roe v. Wade, 5 years before the ERA was up for ratification in the states. I marched with a toddler on my hips just as I did in protest against the war in Vietnam, just as I did when I took my son to rallies by the Black Panthers.
I was marching for equality for everyone, for justice for everyone and for the freedom for everyone to live as who and what we were born to be.
I've worked tirelessly for this party all of those years. I've been to state conventions, I've been a committee member, I've given countless fundraisers that have raised millions of dollars. I've walked precincts, phonebanked, been a member of the GOTV in my community. I had a non profit whose sole purpose was to recruit and run campaigns for candidates to oppose the stealth candidacies of rightwingers.
I have done so because I believe in the Democratic Party.
I've given speeches to the NWPC on the agenda of the rightwing before it was common knowledge what that agenda was and is. I joined People for the American Way when it began. I've marched for and spoke to the separation of church and state since the Reagan years, not just during his presidency but also when he was governor of my state, California.
Those are my credentials but let me speak to why women's issues and rights have become my issue. For years I fought for the rights of everyone, especially for children but when Bush was elected and women started to lose so many of our rights, when it became obvious one of the wars Bush would launch was against women, not just in this country but in the world, I became a single issue activist.
Men are born into their rights in this country, women have to fight for our rights. We are not equal in the Constitution, many of the rights that Elizabeth Cade Stanton and Alice Paul fought for in 1848 at Seneca Falls, are still being fought for today. Health care, daycare, fair working conditions, without sexual harassment or discrimation, and equal pay are just some of them.
We are only 16.3% of those who represents us in the Congress. We are 23.5% of state legislatures. Although the Violence Against Women's Act was finally made the law of the land in 1992, this country still allows a woman to be the victim of domestic violence every nine seconds. A sexual assault against a woman is reported every two and a half minutes. Only 20% of rapes are reported, less than 10% of the rapists are tried and less than 2% are sent to prison. When they are imprisoned they usually get out to rape again.
Even though this is the party that has been known to be pro-choice the facts are bleak. It isn't just about Roe v. Wade being upheld, today it is largely Roe v. Wade in name only. That didn't happen in the past six years, it's been eroded and compromised away for years and years.
There is only access to abortions in 13% of the counties in this country. Medical schools don't teach how to give abortions, a medical procedure that should have never become politicized, any longer. That means that most of the abortion providers are in their 60s, 70s and 80s. Some of the oldest haven't retired yet because there is no one to take their places.
Funding for abortion was eliminated years ago. Military funding for and access to abortions was cut years ago. Those were not just Republican members of Congress that made that so. The Democrats helped institute those laws.
Then there are the TRAP laws, the parental notification laws, the ban on crossing state lines laws, a federal law that Harry Reid voted for a few months ago.
It says in Roe v. Wade, that there shall be no 'undue' burden for women that choose to have abortions. If there is no access, if there is no funding, if insurance companies are not made to pay for birth control, if poor women have to wait 48 hours for the procedure, if women have to travel hundreds of miles, how is that not an 'undue burden?'
It's all well and good to talk about this party as the pro-choice party but the truth is they have been complicit in limiting the access and funding for years. They have also not stood up to the war against women since Bush has been in office.
The first 100 hours? Not a mention of the plight of women in this country is there? Pharmacists refuse to fill birth control prescriptions? John Kerry comes out with a compromise instead of saying this party will not stand for such nonsense.
As per Democrats for Life. I've been asked to be a contributor to this site, something I am honored to have accepted. You will be hearing more about Democrats for Life.
Let me just start by saying, it isn't just some marginal group that can be found on ActBlue. It's an organization that is supported by Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Tim Roemer, Pelosi's good friend, is a Hall of Fame member. Bob Casey, Jr's brother is on the board of directors.
Their initiative 95-10 will be argued on the floor of the House this year. They are not just some sub or splinter group, they are a bonavide group that has many legislators by their sides.
Let's talk about what the choice community owes Democrats.
I'm apart of that choice community, since Bush's war against women began, I became a single issue activist because women's voices must be heard. I don't owe the Democratic leadership a blessed thing, they owe women and young girls the right to live. By compromising our reproductive lives away, they have sentenced young girls and women to death.
They owe us, they owe us the right to live.
A bit over the top
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 13 January 2007 - 9:13pm.
There's a lot here, so I'll pick and choose:
Men are born into their rights in this country, women have to fight for our rights. We are not equal in the Constitution.
Based on what statute? Take your time.
Although the Violence Against Women's Act was finally made the law of the land in 1992,
...and who passed that? Martians?
this country still allows a woman to be the victim of domestic violence every nine seconds.
Whoa - "allows"? That misleading wording aside, because what you're talking about is illegal, what legislative action do you suggest?
It's all well and good to talk about this party as the pro-choice party but the truth is they have been complicit in limiting the access and funding for years.
Uh, no. Fact is that large parts of the country are anti-choice, and while I may disagree with that position, I still understand that it's a legitimately and passionately held belief. It's also a fact that a majority of Americans are basically fine with some limits on abortions. Whether that's good or bad is beside the point, it just is thusly. So, are we now supposed to abjure the votes of all those Americans, and hand over to the other side all the other issues listed above, about which I can only assume you don't care, to satisfy your desire to determine everyone else's agenda? I'm a guy, and have no stake in your ability to choose - what's in it for me?
As noted, I've had this conversation before. And I still don't have an answer to the question of what it is exactly that the choice movement has done for the Dems. This is a bit of playing devil's advocate on my part, but seriously: you're asking the Dems to take the abortion-on-demand position. That's not majoritarian. So we're supposed to give up any hope of ever achieving a majority, and for what? What can you do to make that sacrifice worthwhile? Merely saying we're not good enough for you isn't enough to support you, sorry. Guilt trips don't work anymore.
So yeah, tell me.
A lot over the top, and so it goes
Submitted by CALiberal on 13 January 2007 - 10:23pm.
Michael, I have no idea why you respond in the tone you do but nevertheless, I'll try to answer some of your concerns.
Men are born into their rights in this country, women have to fight for our rights. We are not equal in the Constitution.
Based on what statute? Take your time.
Men had the right to vote as soon as such a right was needed. In 1790 New Jersey granted the vote to all "free inhabitants." Women fought for that right for 130 years until we finally succeeded in 1920. The suffragists were thrown into jail, they were beaten, they were forcefed but they rose to fight again.
Let's bring it closer to this day in time. When I was in high school women didn't have the right to have credit in our name, something men had had the right to for many, many years. We didn't have the right to have a joint checking account, our names were not listed as co-signers with our spouses.
It is declared that All Men Are Created Equal but yet, the ERA has yet to pass and made into law. How do you suppose you would feel if it said, All Women Are Created Equal and you had to march, to protest, to fight like bloody hell to have it written in the Constitution of OUR country as well as yours, that you are equal?
What if this was what you had fought for?
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
The ERA comes up before Congress continuously Michael, it hasn't made it out to the states to be ratified since 1972, for 35 years the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have not voted to pass the ERA.
Why hasn't childcare, subsidized or universal, made it to the floor of the House and the Senate? Senator Dodd says he talks about it often, that whenever he does it falls on deaf ears, he's not talking about his fellow Republican senators alone Michael, he's also talking about his Democratic colleagues.
Let's move on to the violence against women that is most assuredly condoned in this country, by the legislators and by men. That's a loaded statement that I'm sure you'll pounce on, so here goes.
Even though the stats have been the same for decades, it took until 1992 for Joe Biden to bring the Violence Against Women Act to the floor of Congress. He lobbied hard for it and it passed.
It's not enough, there has to be legislation written and passed for harsher sentences. Rapist get out to rape again, multiple times when in truth when a man rapes a girl or woman he should be caught, put on trial, convicted and sentenced to prison for a very long time, he should not be freed to rape again and again.
Also, women can't keep fighting this violence, either domestic violence or violence by strangers, largely alone. We need men to help, we need men to speak out, we need men to organize and put a stop to this madness.
So legislatively there has to be a concerted effort to quit placing the blame on women and girls, women and girls must be made to feel safe enough to report these abuses, legislatively, and we need to see the fruits of our labor, we need to see more than the fraction of rapist being caught, put on trial and we need to see very real consequences. Women carry this around for life, Michael, men must be made to pay with harsher sentences, sentences that put them in prison for many, many years.
The Democrats have got to understand that it's not just National Security from terrorists that women fear, it's the security we deserve, the security of knowing there's a political party that gives a damn about our lives, a party that will stand up with legislation that will help end this madness.
If we don't feel safe in our bedrooms Michael, this party can't make us feel safe from terrorists because terrorists of a different kind sit across from us at the kitchen table. That's what I'm talking about, legislation that tells women this party gives a damn.
None of this is meant as a guilt trip and it's insulting that you take it to that level.
As to 'abortion on demand,' that's a Republican talking point Michael, there is no such thing as abortion on demand. Women have a right to choose, if we choose to have an abortion we must have access to one and the funding to pay for it.
This is my saucy self to you Michael, you don't know who Democrats for Life is but yet you flippantly, in so many words, tell me you don't give a damn. You have zero curiosity about such a group, you just throw it away as if it doesn't matter one whit to you, and I suppose that's true, because you also choose to use use phrases like abortion on demand and say you're being the devil's advocate.
And finally Michael, there's this.
I'm a guy, and have no stake in your ability to choose - what's in it for me?
What's in it for you? The right to privacy for one thing, but also this, it might be your wife or your daughter or your aunt or your sister someday Michael, someday someone you love may have to choose and if that happens and they don't have access to an abortion, when they ask you how you came down on whether to filibuster Samuel Alito or the gutting of Roe v. Wade and if you fought for their rights instead of asking what's in it for you, what will you tell them Michael?
Will you tell them you only wanted to know, what's in it for me?
Oh boy.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 13 January 2007 - 11:07pm.
You see, the good thing about writing sharply is that you get to the core of the issues. And so it is here; these are entirely legitimate questions, and you shouldn't feel attacked just because they're being posed.
Now, as far as the constitutional text is concerned, you know, and I know, that the failure of the ERA to be ratified - legally, that amendment is dead - has no bearing whatsoever on the legal status of women. In practical terms, discrimination against women is treated by the courts with strict scrutiny. Of course it would be desirable to have it passed, but that moment is, for the time being, gone. There's a good argument to be made that the ERA would have created immaterial, in the sense of extra-legal, benefits for women; but the fact that it's not on the books doesn't hinder you in a court of law. There is the 14th amendment, and the question of why women should be singled out for dedicated legislation; how about gays or native Americans? Latinos? The disabled? How about blacks?
As far as violence against women is concerned, and at the risk of incurring disleasure, I have to ask just what it is that you would have done. That's not to say it's not a problem, far from it; what I'm not seeing are the legislative remedies you seem to think are possible. I can see a legislative solution for hunger, to give an example, but not one for racism, nor this. Society, you claim, places blame on women for rape, and there's no argument that that's wrong and infuriating. But again, what legisative vehicle, nuts and bolts, do you propose to fix that? Is it indeed fixable by parliamentary means?
Now, as far as 'republican talking points' are concerned, two things: one, that makes my argument that there is indeed a difference, and two, I'd suggest that there's a bit of engagement that needs to be made here. What has happened that these points have relevance, and what needs to be done to render them harmless?
That's what I'm looking for from you. Believe me, we're not that far apart; but you need to tell me where exactly the community of interest lies, and how o get there. :-)
Thank you Michael for this
Submitted by CALiberal on 13 January 2007 - 11:33pm.
I'll ponder what you've said further but let me just say this now.
It's not up to me to draft the legislation, I'm not an elected official, it's not my job to do so.
It's up to the ones in office to do their jobs, to write bills and pass them that speak to the needs of the people.
Are you really saying you can't see a legislative solution for violence against women? How so and why?
I would start with severe consequences for those that physically abuse children. Years and years of prison terms. The cycle of violence starts with children being abused and will only end when that violence is stopped, legislatively and in the courts. Make the abusers pay and pay big.
And make laws that have serious consequences for men who beat their spouses. Don't let them off the hook time after time, protect the women, listen to the women when they report the crimes, believe women when they say they're in danger and pass legislation that speaks to all of that.
And then I would turn to you men. If you can fill stadiums across the country with millions of men to hear how Promise Keepers keep their women in line, how they believe family life should be, how to be the boss of women, then surely men could organize to tell men how to treat women, how to not abuse them, how to restrain themselves from beating them and killing them.
Women need to be protected, so those in power need to write and pass legislation that does just that and then ENFORCE it.
That's a start. Like I said, I'll ponder it further but it's not just up to women Michael, we need men and Democratic members of Congress to step up to the plate.
Getting somewhere
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 14 January 2007 - 12:10am.
The reason I say there's likely no legislative fix for violence against women is that it's already heavily penalized; of course, penalties can be enhanced by various means, but I'd remind you of legislation against drugs and, say, public corruption or murder. To be flip, crap happens, and the legislature can't fix it all. The same applies to racism, anti-semitism, you name it; all burdened by law, but still extant.
Just as an example of the practical difficulties inherent in your demands: the idea of 'listen to the women when they report the crimes'. How? Are you proposing a two-tier system in the rules of criminal procedure, whereby thresholds of evidence are lowered for one class of complainant? How is that going to work in practice?
This is why I harp on the nuts and bolts thing, of taking into account practical realities: we can't fix everything, and would that it were otherwise.
Meanwhile, there is the stuff we can fix. I'd suggest, to get back to the original point, that you have some work to do; if, as you say, owmn's issues aren't sufficiently articulated by the Dems, then by all means, use the levers at your disposal to make them heard. The onues for taking action, alas, remains on you.
Getting somewhere
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 14 January 2007 - 12:10am.
The reason I say there's likely no legislative fix for violence against women is that it's already heavily penalized; of course, penalties can be enhanced by various means, but I'd remind you of legislation against drugs and, say, public corruption or murder. To be flip, crap happens, and the legislature can't fix it all. The same applies to racism, anti-semitism, you name it; all burdened by law, but still extant.
Just as an example of the practical difficulties inherent in your demands: the idea of 'listen to the women when they report the crimes'. How? Are you proposing a two-tier system in the rules of criminal procedure, whereby thresholds of evidence are lowered for one class of complainant? How is that going to work in practice?
This is why I harp on the nuts and bolts thing, of taking into account practical realities: we can't fix everything, and would that it were otherwise.
Meanwhile, there is the stuff we can fix. I'd suggest, to get back to the original point, that you have some work to do; if, as you say, owmn's issues aren't sufficiently articulated by the Dems, then by all means, use the levers at your disposal to make them heard. The onus for taking action, alas, remains on you.
Hmmm...
Submitted by mole333 on 13 January 2007 - 10:06pm.
Now I understand the need to protect women's rights. In fact, not just protect, but to finally fully extend them. I am proud to call myself a feminist and I have been before it ever occured to me to call myself that. My mother raised me well (among other things she was coordinator of Women's studies at Cal State Northridge).
But I don't quite get the attack on Democrats (as a party as opposed to individual Democrats) based on choice. In order to get more of a feel for what you are saying I went to the Planned Parenthood website to check out voting records. Now I can't do this state-by-state to see how state legislatures divide up. I don't have time. And I choose Planned Parenthood because I respect them more than I respect NARAL, though NARAL has also done some good work. But PLanned Parent hood does both good political work and runs clinics...they are more front line, as I see it.
Now, looking at the Senate, almost every single Senator that gets below 40% ranking by Planned Parenthood is Republican. And almost every single Senator who gets 100% is a Democrat. Those in between (the "mixed" category) are mixed: some Dems some Repubs. There is almost an overwhelming difference between the parties and the Democrats overall rank extremely high. There are exceptions! Some Repubs rank high and some Dems rank low. But the split is quite dramatic.
It is about the same in the House.
I wish the Democrats were even better! But the basic voting record shows that Dems as a party stand up for women's rights. This applies in the national platform and in the voting record, according to Planned Parenthood. The same is true if I use the NARAL voting record.
I am not saying you shouldn't advocate hard for your cause. It is well worth advocating for. And when I get the chance, I want to write a diary on my experiences with politicians and how many actually pay attention to activists once they start recognizing your face...even if you disagree with them from time to time. But I do not see any justification in implying that the Dems have abandoned women's rights. Far from it. The voting record of even such a non-liberal as Lieberman looks good on choice. Again, there are exceptions. One Senate race I couldn't bring myself to focus on this last year despite the importance of taking the Senate was Tennessee. I am glad we won without it. But I still feel the Dems overall are the party of women's rights when you look at their voting record and platform.
Thank you mole
Submitted by CALiberal on 13 January 2007 - 10:57pm.
Mole, I really appreciate this comment, thank you. My point is this, that Roe v. Wade has been diminished bit by bit for the entire life of the amendment. It's not just the Republican Party that is responsible for that, it's also the Democrats who continually and persistently went along, it's the compromises that over and over led to the shell of what Roe v. Wade once was.
It's also knowing, understanding, and not acting on what and who the rightwing of the Republican Party is. It's never ever about the issue that is presented, let's use the latest S403, the ban on young girls crossing state lines to get an abortion. It passed. They won but it wasn't just banning the young girls it's also the first step in banning women from crossing state lines.
If a woman like me understands that then I fully expect the Democratic leadership to vote against it. The criminalization of pregnant women came to be because the law was passed to protect the life of the fetus. Now women are serving time in prison, often many years, because of the actions they take while pregnant, for drinking or using drugs, and for more minor acts, for putting the fetus in danger or if the fetus is stillborn.
We can be activists, we can march, we can send our legislators mail, we can schedule meetings with them but it is up to them to pass or deny passage of bills that put women's choice and/or our lives at risk.
I have the same reservations about NARAL, they no longer have my support, I do support Planned Parenthood as well as NOW.
I also try to keep up with how the Congress members vote, I know many of them have good or decent voting records but the erosion of Roe v. Wade and laws like the TRAP laws and parental notification laws and especially the recent passage of S403 do not come to be with just the Republicans' votes.
This party used to stand proud as the party of choice, it shrinks from the label now, most don't want to have to utter the word abortion, we're told to reframe it as if it's something bad and wrong. We're told to use safe, legal and rare, as if there's some barometer that says what's rare enough.
Bad by implication is what has relegated abortion to the back burner, to a place that is out of sight out mind, that somehow choice has become dirty. Abortion is what it is, and the day we started looking at the very word as replaceable is the day we bought into the rightwing, it's the day we told them they're right, that we will hide it because we should, that it's immoral.
It's none of those things, it's necessary and every single woman who wants or chooses to have one, should be able to.
The Democratic Party once stood for choice, the shame is that they no longer say it with pride.
True enough
Submitted by mole333 on 14 January 2007 - 9:17am.
There is indeed some truth in this. Sometimes I don't see the national picture as clearly (other than knowing the national platform and overall voting records) because I live in NYC where being proundly pro-choice is a given...even for most republicans. In fact, my previous Congressman (just retired) was one of the people who consistently voted against the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq, so it can be easy for me to be proud of the Democrats I know best.
As to the erosion you are discussing, it has by and larged happened through Republican leadership pushing against rights aided by a small number of Democrats who are anti-choice. I think you don't see this kind of erosion of women's rights when Democrats are solidly in charge. What you are mentioning does get to the heart of one main problem with the Democrats: they tend to be too quick to compromise. This very issue played a strong role in my position in a recent Democratic primary in my district where the best funded candidate had a philisophy of compromise. I didn't like that. I opted for the candidate with the strongest message (you can check out his new website here). I knew both candidates and the well-funded guy had originally assmed he had my support. He wasn't pleased at my opting for the other candidate. I wrote an article that both candidates thought fair here.
The point I am making is that the Democrats, partly because of the fact that they represent such diverse interests (including Catholics and, in my area, a very socially conservative Caribbean community) and partly because of what I can only see as trauma remaining from Reagan's rolling over the party as (falsely) too liberal. They shy from that label when they shouldn't because they think it will lead to defeat. I think that is changing as unabashedly progressive candidates won this last year in places like Kentucky. So hopefully this will be changing.
The problem with erosion is that it can be done in tiny, almost imperceptable steps. The right wing excells at gradually eroding away at American values of freedom and equality. The left often is too busy arguing over minor differences of opinion amongst themselves to effectively rebuild what the right wing erodes.
Progress of a sort
Submitted by CALiberal on 14 January 2007 - 3:01pm.
Mole, one of the reasons those of us who speak out so loudly is because so many people in this country don't know how successful the rightwing has been in eliminating many of the rights that were held in Roe v. Wade. It's not just a local or even a state issue, it's not just who our own representatives are, I'm glad you have pro-choice legislators, it's also who represents us collectively.
The fact is this party decided to become the big tent party and underneath that tent lies Democrats for Life, under that tent we have Senator Schumer who overrode so many pro-choice voters' objections and not only recruited Bob Casey Jr. but endorsed and supported him.
Nancy Pelosi fought hard for Jack Murtha to become the majority leader in the House. Of course his role in the redeployment of our troops in Iraq sets him above so many that didn't get it more quickly but the fact remains that Murtha is vehemently anti-choice, Democrats for Life have rated him 100% because of his voting record. That would have meant that both majority leaders were strongly anti-choice.
The message given to women is not good, let me just add this for those who believe so strongly that it's all about winning elections. Women voters led the way in the 2006 election, if only men had voted, exit polls show that the Republicans would have maintained control of the Senate. Gender proved to be a determining factor in electing the new Congress.
What if the women voting bloc that has been relied on for many years organized around our reproductive rights and refused to vote? Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings became a clarion call for many women in this country. That the Democratic senators didn't even bother to prepare for the hearings was an embarrassment but it was also a slap in the face to women who believe we should have dominion over our own bodies.
Many of us, me included, drew a line in the sand because of Alito. It would be a mistake to think many women aren't one step away from denying Democrats our votes.
The war against women has to be a national issue, we have to educate ourselves, it is our responsibility and our duty to know what is happening to over half of the population in this country.
I've been critical of this party for some time now because of the compromises they have made with the rightwing. Never moreso, however, than I've been lately because of the attitude and agenda of some of the leaders in bringing anti-choice candidates to the fore. It doesn't take a lot of Democrats voting against women's reproductive rights, coupled with those who are so willing to compromise our rights away, we now have a nearly empty shell as an amendment that gave us the right to have an abortion.
I want to thank Nance and JJ for commenting on this thread. It's disheartening to me that on left leaning, progressive blogs this discussion is too often what it is.
What is also true is that there is a discussion at all, that people are willing to engage one another and talk about women's rights. That is, in my eyes, progress of a sort.
Gender issues
Submitted by mole333 on 14 January 2007 - 4:00pm.
Don't think that either Michael nor I ignore women's rights as a major issue. Nor do I think either of us would disagree with you regarding the importance of this issue. I think where we differ is the extent you hold the national party at fault during a period when they have been rendered practically powerless. The reason I focus on the voting record is that is the bottom line when it comes to a legislator. And I see 100% for Dem after Dem...and below 10% for Republican after Republican.
Here is how I see it: 1. Republicans lead the attack on women's rights and have for all my life. 2. Democrats lead the defense of women's rights and have for all my life. 3. Democrats have since Carter's defeant had trouble holding the line...there is too much tendency to compromise on a variety of issues. However, even under the worst of circumstances (which I think we can agree that the last 4 years or so qualify) the party as a whole has voted the right way and had the right planks in their platform. The correlary to #3 is that I would definitely agree with you that Democrats need more of a back bone...not only would it be the correct thing to do, but it would also win more elections. Finally they have started doing that. Starting with Howard Dean becoming head of the DNC we started to get the development of Democratic backbone. And going along with it we started to see better wins in 2005 and 2006.
Now it is time to see what they can do. The combination of finally having Congress and re-developing backbone really means that NOW is when they have their chance.
As to discussing this issue, that is what these blogs are for. If all we wanted to do was be cheerleaders, we wouldn't discuss as wide a variety of issues. Michael and I discussed race and the Democratic Party in a way that pissed off many white liberal Democrats and got black Democrats thanking us for discussing it up front. The same should apply to all such issues. When it came to race we called our own party when it came to backing a white candidate when qualified black candidates were running in a black majority district...and the terrible message that sends.
There is no question that excessive compromise on women's rights is a parallel issue. And Democrats have excessively compromised. However, they still have spent far more time leading in the defense of women's rights than in compromise. There is the difference in how we approach it. I look at the broader history of defense as shown in the voting record. You focus on the compromises that they have been making in cowardice. We are both correct within the focus we are looking.
To me these issues play out in primaries. And that is where I differ with most leftist critics of the Democratic party. It is in the primaries that decent but excessively compromising candidates are most often opposed by candidates with more backbone and ideals. And too often liberals who are disappointed in the compromise don't come out and back the candidates with backbone in the primaries. I saw that big time in 2005 in NYC...and a different variation in 2006 where the local grassroots did come out for the good candidates but there was no backing from national grassroots. In the end, the best candidates lose beacuse the compromising candidates get the big money or the institutional support and so wind up getting the votes in primaries where voter turnout is embarassingly low...particularly among the very people who complain the most.
What I do is fight like hell for the strongest candidates with the most backbone in the primaries...then work like hell to defeat the Republicans in the general election because no matter how bad Democrats are, Republicans are almost always worse (Zell Miller being an exception...even Lieberman beats almost all Republicans when it comes to choice, at least). Together, I strengthen not only the party as a whole, but the voice of progressives within the party. Or so my theory goes.
Q RE the Big Picture
Submitted by SteamGeek on 14 January 2007 - 3:42am.
Mole and Michael.....
First you guys, you need to know I am not willing to engage you in the our side is this, and their side is that debate of either the original post or subsequent comments.
If I like a Democratic candidate I vote for them, if I like a Republican cadidate I vote for them, or any one else on a case by case basis.
The broad sweep party debate you guys have (frequently) is just not my bag. I find enough on both sides that bother me.
I will ask you both this. In as far as a significant part of the orginal post was about the (recent and current) erosion of freedoms / rights / privacy by new laws post 9/11.
Are you guys familier with the book "Crypto" by Steven Levy that details the decades long, organized, cross admistration (ie both Dem and Rep) efforts to thwart the developement of public cryptography, keep key length minimized, hardwire listening devices into not only the Internet backbone of land based, but also satellite signal facilites, and effectively listen in on any and all communication signals by the NSA?
There is substantial additional reference material out there (some from the Congressional record), hard to tell what's real and what isnt, but it clearly is not a Party specific intrusion, rather a universal behind the veil of Congress to snoop on the "public discourse".
My view is its a far bigger and long standing threat than the most recent new laws.
Care to comment?
What big picture?
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 14 January 2007 - 10:58am.
Just compare and contrast here: I'm telling you that the underlying principles of the Republic are being threatened; it doesn't get more basic than the rule of law, separation of powers, empirical analysis. That's bedrock. The picture doesn't get bigger than that.
You're pointing to an obscure book in which it is, to quote, "hard to tell what's real and what isnt", dealing I guess with cryptography. What you're referring to is, respectively, the Echelon surveillance system and the strategic export ban on 128-bit cryptography, both of which are the results of longstanding U.S. government policy, similar to the COCOM list.
Now compare the scope of the two subjects.
Then tell me you're not one of those people who just don't get it, plain and simple. And the reason you're not getting it, just to drive the point home, is that you're seemingly too enamored of the idea of your own cleverness; "I know stuff you don't know about deep, dark secrets". That's not superior insight on your part; that's narcissism and vanity.
Sorry, I didnt mean to go over your head
Submitted by SteamGeek on 16 January 2007 - 6:42pm.
I was going to write a brief summary essay abut what I think of the decades long back door access to the telecoms by the NSA, how the convergence of VOIP, digital broadcast TV coupled to WEB based interactive email blogging and news service, coupled with the unifying common denominator of the Packet / Ethernet / IP6 / Abilene Network bandwidth / Building Automation / ISP access to homes via the powerlines / Patriot Acts / election reform and child protection will force every Internet participant to register full name address social security number email addresses screen names with the Department of Homeland Security and given the Democratic Governor and Mayor of NOLA demonstrated very clearly the 2nd and 4th amendments mean ABSOLUTLY nothing to the Democrats and close in just saying FUCK YOU
but instead the comment I just left on a friend's Blog kind of just sums it up:
Quote me:
You're wrong, dead wrong. My Party is superior to yours, and I'll insult you endlessly until you go away and I can feel like I'm actually smarter, better, and more important than you.
End quote.
Feh.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 16 January 2007 - 11:10pm.
I'm amused, but only slightly.
And you still don't get it.
Oh you guys
Submitted by SteamGeek on 17 January 2007 - 2:14am.
Mole - I was pretending I was from NYC, appraently you didn't get the joke. Maybe I'm also not very good at it. Thankfully.
Michael, if you had gotten off your high horse party rhetoric long enough you might have noticed everything I was alluding to in my original comment, and where I was heading, and with what's happening in the Web world, including tiered access and the reconvergence of AT&T was a direct agreement with the issues you were raising.
But then tunnel vision does prevent one from seeing things from time to time.
You were also right the first time, I'm not like you guys. I like it this way.
Actually...
Submitted by mole333 on 17 January 2007 - 8:08am.
Actually most people around here think you have been rude and very hissy from the start. Not to mention self-rightous. So your "pretending to be from NYC" was something of an improvement over your previous "I'm so rightous and you're not" attitude.
There is something so
Submitted by NanceConfer on 14 January 2007 - 11:41am.
There is something so demeaning about this whole discussion about women's reproductive rights. That there are Ds who even question my right to have total control over my body, who accept less than that . . . that this is still an issue in this country . . . I feel like I have traveled back in time somehow and have run into some very old thinking . . . and I'm on the CK blog!
Still overwhelmed by how this makes me feel. . .
So, about ex-Presidents -- it is interesting to see what Carter and Gore and Clinton have gotten up to as private citizens. With all the PR that goes with being an ex-Pres of course. I think it was Carter, though, who spoke about how much more effective he could be in private life. . . there's a message there.
Nance
Demeaning
Submitted by JJ Ross on 14 January 2007 - 1:36pm.
and overwhelmed would describe how I'm experiencing this discussion too, haven't yet figured out how to explain why, in a way those here who seem to share my political principles but clearly don't share my context base might hear and understand -- but I am working on it!
Demeaning...
Submitted by mole333 on 14 January 2007 - 4:13pm.
It isn't a debate just in the party...sadly the whole nation has been dragged back in time by a fringe group of the Republican party. And it isn't just gender issues...it's race, environment, worker safety, minimum wage, the whole progressive agenda has been threatened by this fringe group of Republicans. And the worst of it is that they have been winning.
I have been faced for years now with the question of how to get the Democratic Party stronger and more progressive in an atmosphere where the media and the government has been increasingly dominated by that fringe right wing...until it seemed like that fringe is suddenly considered the mainstream.
Finally we are seeing a chink in the regressive edifice that has been dominating this nation. Now is when I feel we can start flexing our muscles and start restoring some of what never should have been questioned. Of course, being leftists, that is when we are most likely to fight amongst ourselves.
During the primaries I fought so hard to get the most progressive candidates elected...and found very few leftists interested in the primaries. By the time the general election comes around, it is too late. The Republican candidates are bound to be far more regressive, the Democratic candidate is what we are stuck with, sometimes for better, sometimes for mediocre, almost never worse than the Republican...and by and large the third party candidates are lucky to make even a blip on the election returns. By then I have already exhausted myself fighting in the primaries against a wall of apathy.
That is where I am coming from. For what it's worth.
Also demeaning for women is how we lose
Submitted by CALiberal on 14 January 2007 - 5:01pm.
Mole, what's also demeaning for women is how the Democrats lose. I agree wholeheartedly that the primaries are important. When we see Chuck Schumer pushing a candidate on us, when the voice of the likes of Schumer are taken as a given over the voices of the voters, when he made it his mission to have Bob Casey, Jr. be the candidate against Rick Santorum, even though there were qualified pro-choice candidates, that's when women who are in the fight of a lifetime felt demeaned.
Also of utmost importance are the confirmation hearings of judges. The confirmations hearing for Samuel Alito was so friggin' demeaning for women because of the way we lost, not that we were going to lose, we knew that, but why it was demeaning to women is because the senators didn't prepare, they didn't make our rights an issue of standing.
Also the fact that they rolled over on so many of the nominees put forth for judgeships across this country. I know the argument about being in the minority, we would have lost, yes, but we didn't have to lose with the senators tails between their legs now did we?
That's what's so demeaning, that's what's so friggin' frightening for women, that's why some women have drawn a line in the sand. That's why we feel the leadership in this party has a lot to prove to us when it comes to our reproductive rights, abortion and contraception, the refusal clause, the TRAP laws, the waiting period, the roll back of our rights in Roe v. Wade.
AND the fact that we are still not equal in the Constitution, that we still have not seen the passage of the ERA in Congress, and that's true no matter which party is in the majority.
All of that is demeaning, all of that has to be answered for, all of it leads many women to believe we are not only not a top priority, we are not a priority at all. That is demeaning.
I say all of this only in reference to the Democratic leadership, I have tremendous faith in alot of Democrats who spend time working to get Democrats elected, my fight is with the leadership because it is they who supposedly work for the people, it is they who, in my opinion, don't work for half of the population, it is they who have continually told women that our day would come, when our rights would once again be a priority to them.
The sad truth is, we are still waiting on some of the most important issues, the rights that could mean life or death to too many of us.
Then we are largely in agreement...
Submitted by mole333 on 14 January 2007 - 5:28pm.
I remember the ERA fight. For a long time there were states my family wouldn't visit because they had refused to pass it.
Next time the primaries come along, let's discuss some critical races and see if we can make a difference. In the meantime, write letters to the editor, call into talk shows, contact your electeds frequently and discuss issues here. That is the way to get your opinion out there and it is the way the right wing went from being fringe to mainstream.
And I'm deeply troubled by all this.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 14 January 2007 - 6:14pm.
First of all, again: the fact that there is no ERA isn't pejorative of women's equality under the constitution. Repetition does not make it so, either.
And I'm flabbergasted at the 'demeaning' characterization. Just flabbergasted.
The country is going to hell in a handbasket, there's a war going on, we have the worst metrics for equality since the Gilded Age, our industrial base is largely gone, we borrow close to a trillion dollars from overseas every year, the courts have been overrun by rightwing fanatics, the environment is going down the tubes, and yes, unless the trend is reversed, choice is a thing of the past.
Meanwhile, the real problem is Democrats for Life, whoever they are, and Bob Casey. Never mind that he's the vote that keeps the Senate our way, and he was the one guy who was guaranteed to beat Santorum, back in those days in early 2005 when the planning started and things didn't look as rosy as they do now.
That's just amazing to me, and I'm not sure I like the lesson I just learned.
Yes
Submitted by mole333 on 14 January 2007 - 7:04pm.
I see both sides. When I see rising anti-semitism, it becomes a major focus of mine because I see it as being a direct threat. I could see that racism and sexism are direct threats to many people each day and that really would become a defining issue for anyone who feels that direct threat.
But I largely see all of these threats as being part of the agenda of that fringe group of Republicans that took over their party and then the nation. So I see the overall fight against right wing anti-American reactionaries to be THE FIGHT. Dissention and cowardice within the Democratic Party can enable the Republican addiction to attacking rights. But it isn't THE THREAT and so I don't see it as THE FIGHT...except during the primaries which is where I see the internal fights as being critical.
What would you have done had Yassky won the primary in NY-11? Given the racial and other issues we both know and love, would you have backed a 3rd party Owens or Clarke run? What if it was the same circumstances existed but the Republican, our good friend Dr. Finger, actually was a player? For some the disregard for race and gender issues shown by SOME (not by any means by the party as a whole) Democrats is seen as a deal breaker. I don't buy that. There are far too many votes where the DEmocrats do hold the line. But I know the Alito vote was a serious disappointment to many and I am just glad that the fall out didn't prevent the 2006 take over. But now those people who were disappointed are saying that they want to see some real action when it comes to their key issues.
If this discussion can focus more people on primary races, getting people voting and active during those primaries, then all the better. If all it does is split the left in yet another way, then we aren't dealing with these issues properly.
True enough
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 14 January 2007 - 8:07pm.
What drives me crazy is when people think all of these various issues are singular and completely distinct, because they're not. This is because usually, it's the same people behind the various depredations - and no, it's not Democrats for Life. Try the Club for Growth.
What furthermore irks me is that I'm not supposed to ever work with someone with whom I may disagree on a given issue, but not on others. I'm comfortable (with some major caveats, including that he's not the brightest light in the chandelier) with Casey in the Senate, because his presence there means Mitch McConnell isn't swinging the gavel, and people like Alito will die in committee. In short, so what if he's anti-choice, as long as he keeps that private and out of the legislative process? Meanwhile, he's a reliable vote on other issues, not that there are any or that they mean anything, as is obvious.
We Aren't "Votes" Dammit!
Submitted by JJ Ross on 14 January 2007 - 9:27pm.
On and on and ON about the two parties! Could we talk about the principles just for a couple of days without making it about elections? I thought Michael acknowledged above (and Mole elsewhere?) that legislation and elections
The war against women, in whose hands does it belong?
How often do we hear the Democratic leadership speak to the war against women that has raged on the past 6+ years?
We have a majority leader who voted for S403, a bill so heinous Barbara Boxer said it's one of the most poorly drafted, egregious pieces of legislation she's seen in all her years of being an elected official. On the floor of the Senate she said as a result of the passage of this bill, many young girls will take their own lives because they feel they have no other recourse, they are amongst a group of young girls who are the victims of incest.
The bill gives the father full parental rights, there is nothing that has been taken away from him but suing the aunts, uncles, grandparents or clergy that help the pregnant young girl cross state lines to get an abortion.
Majority leader Harry Reid voted for that bill knowing all of the ramifications it brings forth.
That's merely one example of how silent this leadership has been on women's rights and issues throughout the term of this president. They side with Democrats for Life, they pander to them, they endorse and support them. How many times have we heard them speak out for women's reproductive rights?
John Kerry compromised on the refusal clauses, the right of pharmacists not to fill birth control prescriptions for women. Instead of holding the pharmacists' feet to the fire, he came up with yet another compromise in women's struggles to be free from the assault against us, an assault that is taking us back 30+ years.
This leadership hates, more than almost anything, being pushed to the wall when the issue of abortion comes up. It's as if they dare not utter the very word, a medical procedure that is the right of every woman to choose if she believes it's in her own best interests.
Nancy Pelosi recruited, supported and fought mightily to get Tim Roemer elected DNC chair. Hilary Clinton and Harry Reid have stood shoulder to shoulder with Democrats for Life, an organization that is every bit as strident in their agenda as is the rightwing of the Republican Party.
DFL believe life begins at conception. They heartily endorsed and supported the ban on abortions in South Dakota, leaving in the no exceptions mandate, none for incest, rape or the life of the woman.
DFL also campaigns against stem cell research. They called John Kerry the Democratic Party's answer to Hitler because of his stance on abortion, even though his stand is far from being that of a clearly spoken advocate.
I understand the concern of lumping both parties together. I get that the Democrats were just sworn in as the majority party. I also know, without a shadow of a doubt, that the plight of women in this country did not happen overnight, this war against us has had the support of many in leadership positions in the Democratic Party. Either by their silence or who they stand toe to toe with, women are in a world of hurt in this country and that is so with the help of the Democratic Party.
They have much to prove in my eyes, the burden of proof is theirs because we have a rightwing in both parties and in 'our' party it's considered a more politically expedient thing to do to pander to those who are anti- choice, in the guise of Democrats for Life, all of this while women and young girls' very lives are at stake.
Women are watching and we're deadly serious because it is no less than our lives that are on the line.