Days off are for layabouts anyway. It’s no damned wonder nothing gets done anymore. And then of course employees need to “ease” into a holiday by taking the day before off, and dragging in late the day after. Everyone is seven years old, and getting out of bed is just too damned challenging.
2 Likes
Trying to replicate donnie from the left would be a poor approach not only because it would reinforce undemocratric principles. It would most likely fail. SCOTUS could wipe away any attempt to do so. Winning back the Senate is probably as or more important than POTUS.
3 Likes
I think the author has hit on something, but I am not sure the take away is exactly right. I don’t think I would pat myself on the back and say Democrats are for liberal democracy. I suspect a lot of democrats are more driven to win their personal culture war than to find a healing compromise. This is the result of the current disparity between money and voters. A handful of very committed rich people fund both parties and they are all driven by their own personal issues. They control all of the media in America.
Where the author is right is the money they contribute is spent using media to whip up poll tested groups to one side or the other and then to keep them enraged. Nobody has a chance to talk to people on the other side. God help you if you ever suggest reaching across the divide to either recruit people who are different or to reach a compromise. As a result we are all have our own poll tested never challenged versions of reality and no culture war problem is ever solved, because culture issues aren’t intended to be solved, they exist to control regular Americans. They exist only to keep us from demanding better from the people who control the media and accountability from our politicians.
We are living in a media world that makes George Orwell’s 1984 seem primitive by comparison.
1 Like
Columbus Day. Some businesses in NYC give the day off (or let you take it), not many, but some. There’s a parade here every year, streets closed to traffic, etc. Big deal parade to (some) Italo-Americans, but the stock market’s open so…
1 Like
So many contentious issues do not lend themselves to compromise. Either you believe a woman can have an abortion, or not. People of the same sex can marry, or not. People in a same sex marriage can adopt children, or not. The Earth is billions of years old, and species evolved, or the Earth is a few thousand years old, and God created everything exactly as we see it now. LGBT people deserve equal rights, or they are excluded from enjoying equal rights. Vaccines are a harmful sham, or a medically needed prophylactic preventing diseases. You can fill entire books with points of dispute between people where there is literally zero room for compromise. The Right usually defaults to the most restrictive, narrow, illiberal, exclusionary, provincial, averse to change way of approaching issues. Many want conduct and rights based on a Biblical outlook, which is contrary to our Constitution. Yet even that is disputed by them. The Left wants to expand rights, while at the same time enacting policies protecting general health and welfare.
Frankly the polarity we see has been years in the making, and there is no middle ground on such a large number of pressing issues I think some sort of cleaving is called for. We are two nations, but unfortunately the citizens of each of these two nations are scattered across all 50 states. Somehow we need to decide on 20-25 states where people can go and live like it’s 1892 again, and let them have that life.
8 Likes
That is the point. As long as we are kept apart and unable to see or hear the other side there is no way we can find compromise. Most social issues don’t really involve the people committed to one side or the other. Take abortion for example. From the perspective of someone who has never had to make the choice the idea that abortion is murder is easy, but the moment your teenage daughter is pregnant or your niece dies from a botched abortion, your perspective changes. The propagandists who drive the abortion debate discovered long ago that it is important that the most committed social warriors be completely free from unwanted pregnancy in their lives.
Another example is gay marriage. Marriage equality is a centerpiece issue for many evangelicals because they don’t acknowledge homosexuality is not a life style choice. Once their son or daughter comes out, many confirmed opponents to marriage equality quickly change their views.
A third issue involves the “war on drugs.” Drug addiction is bad. Drugs harm people. We have adopted a “war on drugs” approach to drug addiction. Instead we should have embraced a drug treatment model. Why didn’t we. Well the politicians and our media embraced a war on drugs model to keep the cost of treatment down. A lot of people were whipped into a “war on drugs” frenzy. My son, who was convicted of possession of a small amount of an illegal drug would have been better served in treatment than in prison. That prison sentence has ruined his life. Even though he finally got the treatment and is off drugs, he still can’t find a good job.
We never think to close with our opponents and show them the harm their black and white positions impose on the other side… It is much easier to write them off than to engage.
3 Likes
That harm is a feature, not a bug.
6 Likes
This is the entire point of democracy. Simple majority rule to decide the most contentious issues and the losing side needs to accept the outcome or work to get more votes next go at it. It’s stupid and crude but there doesn’t seem to be a better way.
PS It’s way to complex in real life to believe there are only two views or two groups in the country. That is propaganda drummed up by both parties to keep their core memberships fired up. Most people aren’t paying enough attention to have an informed position. You have 50 states each with their own local issues that matter so much more.
You go on in your post to cite examples of people changing positions or attitudes toward an issue, not because of persuasion or engagement with people of differing views, but because circumstances in their life confronted them with the need to bend to reality or employ more openess and flexibility. They had to deal with a gay family member in need or distress. They had a daughter or sister with an unwanted pregnancy. They had a loved one, friend, or co-worker dealing with an addiction.
People change their views out of necessity all the time. Conversely, some will hold fast, and continue to think their gay brother, pregnant sister, or drug addicted uncle are wicked and got themselves in the jam they’re in and can live with the consequences.
But in the main I think you can talk yourself blue in the face, engage, persuade, air out differences and listen with people on the Right until hell freezes over. Your empathy and engagement will produce damned few ephinanies in my opinion. Their personal circumstances may force a change in their thoughts, but you won’t. If they’re firmly anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, or think “addiction” is a catch-all excuse for weak willed sinners, you’re not budging them with a heart to heart conversation. Or several of them.
3 Likes
Wrong. The majority does not impose their beliefs on the minority. If that were true Christians could decree Christianity was the national religion, specifically because non-Christians were in the minority. But the Constitution, subsequent interpretations of it, legal fights and rulings, and SCOTUS decisions, insist the Christian majority in fact cannot decide what religion is observed. That is but one example of the will of the majority being tempered by our laws. There are thousands of others. The majority is prevented every day, on a multitude of matters, from demanding the minority live according to their rules.
3 Likes
It’s still a federal holiday (federal workers have it off), and it’s a state holiday in a lot of states. I’m betting NY is one of them.
2 Likes
I have found myself surprised by my Republican colleagues’ indignation around racism and sexism.
This sentence is ambiguous - they are indignant about racism and sexism, or indignant that racism and sexism are mentioned? Most of the Republicans I know personally (and also a surprising number of Democrats) are in the latter group.
3 Likes
This post seems awfully naive and makes a false dichotomy. Trump is in the mold of any number of pseudo-populist strongmen, often appearing in the twilight of their base’s influence. there were a lot of big city mayors in the mold in the 60s and 70s. The more extreme elements of his base have been around for a long time, but ignored by the mainstream and even blogosphere media. Outside of David Niewert, no one has given consistent attention to the militias and their coddling by right leaning, often mainstream pols. The Klan has been with us on a recurring basis for over 100 years and often used strategically by “respectable” conservatives. The list goes on… Tribalism has always been with us. And the civility thing is mostly concern trolling from the Right or from centrist pundits who are affraid that Republicans will “discover” that they lean left on a couple issues or people in Broder mode who don’t want anyone to know that they are Republicans. Dems need to demonstrate that they have something to offer their base and the broader public and that they want to win. The 2010 election cycle should have been a way to explain Obamacare, instead the Dems ran away from it. Al Gore and company didn’t seem to want a victory in Florida. It goes back further—Dukakis really didn’t seem that interested in winning. Liberal interest groups have done little to move the goal posts since Reagan–gay marriage reflected grassroot more than corportist gay orgs like HRC, despite their appropriation of it as a signature issue. health care has been with us since the Truman administration–it’s an old issue and even co-opting of Republican plan couldn’t make it bipartisan. Obama did a a lot via executive order and that certain provided Trump an opening to do likewise, but the real point is that we need Dems who have a vision and want to win. they should ignore the civility nonsense or at least challenge their opponents sincerity. They need to show awareness of the present and ideas for the future. Their opponents have only nostalgia and its corruption of history. that should be easy to debunk and people with vision can do that and they need to stop listening to cowardly “both sider” types and political consultants who want a paycheck more than a victory. This kind of KStreet-ish approach to “democracy” is doomed–we need real democracy and people who want to crush the Right rather than trying to be nice to it or treating democracy as a delicate flower. The underlying forces unleashed by Trump will not go away–the levers of power need to be controlled by opponents to them and what they stand for.
3 Likes
You mention “Biblical outlook,” but that glosses over the fact that the term has itself changed over the decades and centuries. Adherents like to claim that it is constant and unchanging, but all the major denominations have changed over even the last 50 years (whether they acknowledge the fact or not). We shouldn’t cede that fact and let it slip by unchallenged.
Many of the views on marriage, abortion and homosexuality have shifted (and not for the better) over the years. Some of the groups have been dragged (kicking and screaming) toward more liberal positions as public sentiment has changed (the Catholic Church has grudgingly offered various apologies from time-to-time for persecuting people for expressing things we now know to be facts), but others have become more strident in their resistance to acceptance and tolerance because their “faith” has been militarized.
To take one topic, I don’t think there’s anything expressly in the Bible about abortion. (That would be in part because there was no science at the time, so people had insufficient knowledge to understand and control it. Which isn’t to say that abortion didn’t exist, but it was much more unreliable and dangerous because of the ignorance of the time.) Though the Bible has plenty of infanticide and abandonment (which was the common “abortion” of the time; expose the child to the elements and let God take it back and it’s not murder (a common feature of Greek tribal belief as well, incidentally)). This whole idea that abortion is against God’s will is a relatively recent extravagance that only really has arisen because gestation and birth have become understood and safe abortion has become commonly possible.
So there’s nothing “biblical” about the abortion debate and the same is true for most of the rest of the issues commonly referred to as part of a “biblical outlook.”
2 Likes
As a point of information, President Obama averaged fewer executive orders per year in office than any U.S. president in 120 years. So I am not going to buy the argument he undermined our democracy. Dems need to get serious and get stuff done, that’s what voters want.
8 Likes
If you want a model of what is happening look to Argentina. Trump is Peron, who was an authoritarian with no discernible political ideology other than doing what was right for Peron. Like Trump with his bailout for farmers, Peron and his subsequent followers keep power by paying off special interest groups.
2 Likes
Sort of OT:
You are in to something. Trump is going to lose because this time he is needs to sway people this did not vote for him last time, to vote for him in 2020. He is constantly speaking only to his base and had no policy initiatives to sway some one who is on the fence.
2 Likes
eh, this post is kind of naive. The thing is, this was always bubbling underneath the surface, at minimum, since the Civil Rights Era. Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes, all they did was pave the way. The only difference is Trump has forced the GOP to drop the charade and reveal themselves for who they are.
I’m gonna be blunt, things will not change until the Republican Party is gone. Only after it is dissolved will things start moving.
6 Likes
I think there’s an easy framework that we are all familiar with that is at the core of the author’s intent. It’s a “ means vs ends” debate. My personal view is that democracy works only as long as it’s citizens are committed to the process part of America’s ideals. Once people start making “ends justify the means” exceptions, we begin the divide that becomes a chasm, and we end up with McConnell’s Supreme Court strategy, or some unprecedented executive order from whichever side of the political spectrum.
I’m not there yet, but in many ways the world and it’s problems might be too impatient for democracy as we’ve known it to ‘work’ any more. But, as many have said for a long time, all the alternatives are worse.
3 Likes
Seriously. I read the whole thing (okay, I skimmed the last third) looking for some substance. There was none.
which is probably a good thing, given that most of these kinds of “think pieces” conclude that Democrats need to reach out to crazy people and/or focus on “shared values”, and/or move to the center, etc…
5 Likes