An abortion polling Rorschach test
What does this make you think?
Option 1: This is a moral outrage!
Option 2: We need to figure out how to win elections!
Politics is not a morality play, folks! If you think this is an outrage, spend your time figuring out how to win elections. And winning elections may require messaging that does not focus on moral outrage, especially not outrage aimed at Republicans in general (rather than extremists within the Republican party, including on the Court).
Kramer
and…and…?
there is some encouraging news along these lines elsewhere on the web. i’ll try to find some links.
one is some progressives in (insert state here) have managed to oust their old Dem party leaders.
Two is ezra klein promising an answer to the SC challenge. i don’t always (often?) agree with ezra, but his “diagnosis” of how we got here struck me as about right [note to JackD], so i will look forward to his suggestions. I’m a little worried I will be disappointed because he pointed out that the SC cannot enforce its decisions, but the SC problem is that they don’t want their decisions “enforced,” they want NO government to succeed except the state governments that already agree with them and the proposition that no government is the best government. which of course is stupid lie…there is never “no” government. there is either relatively good government or seriously bad government.
as for the new progressives, i worry about them because their new ideas seem to have a lot to do with marijuana. i am disposed to say we have more serious problems. but putting people in jail is always a very serious problem. thing is, it doesn’t sell well to the people who vote.
oh, well, some suggestions i have offered to great acclaim
give up the “white men…” trope.
stop attacking religion..unless you know enough about religion to explain to them that the religion they say they believe in directly opposes what they are doing.
stop saying America is a racist nation, founded in racism, and all the Founders including Lincoln and Eisenhower were racists.
try to remember that the pro-life crowd may actually believe they are pro life.
try not to threaten them with forced vaccinations, or call them selfish morons who deserve contempt.
and remember that they have moral outrage too. government is all about moral outrage, whether people claim they got their morals from god or from marx or their own personal divine inspiration. (which, of course, is where i got mine…except that i can almost point to the book and page (not that book) where i got mine, except, except i’m pretty sure i got it as the common knowledge of mankind except where the people are stirred up to believe that “the other” threatens them with moral outrages.
anyway, good luck with that. [if you are really smart, you can avoid all this by focusing on problems like jobs and wages and security and even inflation if you think you understand it.]
Given that all religions are evil; I will not stop attacking religionists.
“stop saying America is a racist nation, founded in racism”. Well, The majority owned slaves – 41 of the 56, according to one study”
Barnes
and here I always thought Liberals were…liberal.
I have no idea what “41 of the 56” means.
i am guessing you meant 41 of 56 “Framers.” Their owning slaves at a time in history when slavery was the “norm” [in every country in the world, including African “nations,” and every society we know about since ancient times] does not make them any more racist than we are…however much we have learned to deny it since about 1965. The Constitution they wrote “set slavery on the path to extinction,” only threatened by the McConnell’s of the day, who made themselves so obnoxious they were eventually defeated by a “great civil war”…fought on the Union side, even, by people you would call racists… because it takes a long time for an idea to grow and come to fruition… which it did in the 1960’s. My point is that America was “founded in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” and has struggled to achieve that ideal..fought bloody wars for it…for a hundred and thirty years.
And is right now hobbled mostly by the people who shout “racist” every time the wind blows.
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/05/nyregion/signers-of-the-declaration-the-great-and-small.html
THE 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence form a fascinating cross section of late 18th-century America. Some were great men; some were not. A few were the best-known leaders in their states; others were in Philadelphia because the really powerful local leaders stayed home to form their state governments.
Several who debated the question of independence never signed the Declaration; a few who did write their names on our proclamation of freedom just happened to be there when the document was presented for signing.
Among the truly great leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence, one would have to include John and Samuel Adams and John Hancock of Massachusetts; Roger Sherman of Connecticut; Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris and James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee and George Wythe of Virginia…
{ continued at link above }
Ron
thanks for as-always informative content. i couldn’t find the “link above.”
i don’t know if the signers count as “the framers,” and i don’t know for sure what counts as “great” in men (or women” but i would accept your list if i knew what you counted, I have been looking for a record of what the Framers said to each other at the time. Hard to find except second hand….if you count Madison’s second hand. time is beginning to press on me, but i’ll give it a try if you know of good sources about the framers or the signers you mention above.
meanwhile, for anyone else who cares… i recognize that my own writing is not clear. i think the remedy for that is honest conversation. i could practice trying to be more clear, but that takes a lot of time which i don’t really have, especially when replies show a lack of interest except a chance to expostulate about three or so words i might have said in a short essay trying to explain “it’s more complicated than that.”
Coberly,
In my browser that link above shows up as an image of the NYT logo. In any case, as that story goes then the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were not all great men, even of their own time. Some were just expendable men representing great men that thought better of exposing themselves to King George’s retribution.
That said, then in context of my own opinion upon such matters then I have no place for hero worship and rely greatly on the proof is in the pudding. If the US Constitution had formed an actual democratic framework for government, then we would not have had so much extreme political conflict leading to Civil War, inequality, the Great Depression, and least of all President Trump.
Ron
i don’t think the NYT wants me to see what they have written, but I’ll take a look.
in the meanwhile I am not so sure about an “actual democracy.” Some of the Framers were quite deep scholars on the subject (John Adams) and knew, they believed, that actual democracies always turned into actual dictatorships because, because people are like that.
I think the Constitution worked pretty well as designed, but no Constitution can survive determined, clever, men bent on destroying it, or the liberties it represents, in favor of their own eternal power.
If I had it to do over, I’d make some changes based on the current trouble (a supreem court with limited, staggered, terms, and much as i hate the idea, a long apprenticeship as appeals court judges so we have some idea of what they are likely to decide when they get to be Supreme. Supreme is very dangerous, as we have seen, but I don’t see a way to get around it and have it still protect us from the abuses of our “rights” that are sure to come along from the other branches of government. I wish there was someone smarter than me to to design something better, but there doesn’t even seem to be anyone who really wants to… or wants to “fix” it by making it worse…so it only protects them from the last thing they think cost them an election, not caring particularly much about the rights of those who disagree with them.
Ron
my reply disappeard.
it went something like this: [first, I think NYT doesn’t want me to read what they wrote unless I pay them money.] but mostly
some of those framers were serious scholars of the history of governments, and they believed that “actual democracies” always turned into actual dictatorships, because that’s what people are like.
there are “fixes” I would try, but have no reason to believe my fixes would work out any better than those of the people who are sure that whatever they think cost them the last election should be done away with, and don’t really give a damn about the people who voted against them.
in the end I don’t think any Constitution can survive determined and smart men who want to do away with uour freedom entirely in order to make themselves the ultimate ruler forever. [“smart” here is a very limited kind of smart which is only interested in gaining advantage for themselves.]
Coberly,
Although sophists can seem quite scholarly, then that does not mean that a sophist either is or can even be a scholar. Until modern technology came along, then democracy on any national scale of significance was physically impossible merely as a matter of lack of necessary communications facilities to make democracy functional on any more than a community scale. Of course that does not mean that elites were not scared to death of democracy on any scale, but it was more a matter of paranoid guilt than actual impending threat.
Ron
well, i thought I knew the diggerence between a sophist and a scholar, but we can never be too sure of such things. a sophist, i believed was a person trained to make the good cause seem worse and the worse course seem good. there is not a trace of sophistry in John Adams, the scholar I had in mind, though i am sure there were others.. he was so blunt and so honest that he was the despair of Ben Franklin and other more sophisticated politicians.
and while i am sure paranoid guilt was and is a factor in “elites” distrust of democracy, the stories i heard were always those of some wannabe dictator working up a crowd with appeals to emotion and bad logic. of course, not being a scholar myself and not wanting to be a sophist…i dunno.
you may be right about democracy not being successful over a “nation” of any size until the invention of newspapers. radio. television, and now god help us the internet.
Sen. Joe Manchin May Not Be Kingmaker in West Virginia for Long Daniel Boguslaw, The Intercept Boguslaw writes: “For decades, Sen. Joe Manchin has presided over West Virginia’s Democratic Party, crowning candidates and throwing cushy appointments to allies while the state’s jobs, wages, and environment have gradually been ground to dust.” READ MORE
Dobbs Is Not the Only Reason to Question the Legitimacy of the Supreme Court
Ezra Klein/The New York Times
not a slam dunk, but a possible start:
How the Founders Intended to Check the Supreme Court’s Power
Joshua Zeitz/POLITICO
Public opinion has no impact on political outcomes, regardless of party. Only cold hard cash influences our government.
No amount of electioneering for Democrats will reverse this situation.
Millenials and Boomers can’t stop talking about and using Marijuana (respectively), it’s just a fact of American politics.
Goodwin
all true most likely
still, we can try. have to try. at this point i would not exactly electioneer for Democrats. I would go to Party meetings to meet people and learn something about electioneering. but then I’d recruit “independents” from the party and hit the streets. what else can we lose?
just to make the problem worse, us herd frogs think that “progressives” go too far with unsound “demands.” aim lower, and if it works, run on your success.
The reason we had rights was not because they were in the Constitution, or because people voted for Democrats. People before us fought for the rights that we have (or had until recently). I’m afraid that’s the only way to get them back or keep them from being eroded further. But that requires people willing to demonstrate and to disrupt business as usual, and that can get you arrested. With our heavily armed police and abundant prisons (which the Democrats have been and are happy to vote to fund), it is doubtful that they’ll be enough people brave enough to do that (the police in one city killed a fellow policeman in a demonstration of how to deal with protestors, if I read the story right). The Supreme Court issued a bunch of horrible decisions, and I’m sure there’s more to come. I think I’ll start taking Social Security sooner than I planned, because they could declare it unconstitutional. That’s what the far-right wealthy want, and the Court has been happy to oblige so far.
I think we might get away with demonstrating without disrupting business. Boycotts might get more attention. Local elections have worked well for the Right.
But yes, avoid confronting the cops or angering the people who are not yet on your side.
Surely you can tink of someting.
Meanwhile the Social Security Works people have figured out a way to destroy social security so you will never notice it until it’s too late. Meanwhile the R’s have started a new campaign of old lies about SS. and the dems have nothing to offer but new lies of their own.
I think in principle we give rights to each other. But Jefferson seemed to think we were endowed by our Creator, and I like that idea too. Except that the history of people acknowledging that others had rights “from above” is not encouraging.
It is not altogether clear to me what rights we fought for. the right not to be ruled by someone we didn’t vote for? the right not to wear a mask in a crowded theater?
I didn’t say we fought for them, but our predecessors. The right to form unions and strike, women’s right to vote, the civil rights movement, the women’s right movement that led to Roe (people went to jail just for talking about birth control, from the early 20th century through the early 1960s in Massachusetts), the environmental movement that led to the now-gutted EPA under Nixon, the gay rights movement (sometimes said to start with Stonewall and direct confrontation with the police). That’s off the top of my head – I’m sure there are others. Even FDR is said to have pushed the New Deal because he was afraid of revolution.
Mike B
re FDR
he might have said that to help sell it to Wall Street. he might even have sort of meant it. but there is nothing I have seen (heard or read) about his character that suggests he was not wholly and full heartedly sincere in his desire to help the people,
Mike B
i’m willing to grant you your terms. I prefer the we give them to each other because it avoids both the god-given argument and the sense that we need to fight as in fight a war to grant each other the rights we all want.But you have a good point that it seems it has always taken something like a fight for those without rights to persuade those who have the power to grant them.
Trouble for me is that i don’t want to have to shoot people, or be hanged by them, to get the rights i think we all ought to have by divine right…that is, that there is something inherent in humanity, or “the universe” that makes these rights “un alienable.” so that when we have to fight for them we feel like we are asking for something we “ought” to have, or do have, and not something we have to take by force. or take back by force.
a comment to AB appeared in my inbox but is not found here. i suspect it was deleted. just as well. i don’t know if it was meant to be sarcastic or represents the writer’s true feelings.
if the latter, it terrifies me. the best i can offer in defense of abortion is that “it’s none of my business, and it’s none of “our” business. I’d rather see a right to privacy than a specific “right to abortion.” but i doubt anybody but me sees the difference.
it’s a question of what kind of a world do we want to live in, given the choices.
I abhor violence and never recommended it. I gave some examples of people fighting for their rights, some of which involved violence (mostly from the other side) and some not so much. I agree that it would be nice if people just automatically got these unalienable rights (written by a slave owner), but they don’t.
Mike B
I think we agree with eah other here. At least I agre with you. We may only be arguing about a choice of language. It is easy for me to imagine having to resort to violence to protect the rights that protect us. And you were right to remind me that we have had to fight both wars and oppression by armed police (“our” police) to preserve what rights we have, and to get what rights we believe we always had “by our creator” if not recognized by the current local (includes federal) power.
I only wish to de-emphasize the “fight” part of it because, first it is dangerous, and second, because it makes us arrogant and less likely to come to terms with people who don’t agree with us, but should if they were not confused by claims of “other rights” by people who have no interest in respecting either their or our rights.
For example, those guys who demand second amencment rights are terrified we will come and take away their means of protecting their “real” rights. So we end up arguing against ourselves, and against their basic fears…which are legitimate.
The more I try to explain this the worse I seem to get. Probably because I am arguing against human nature. Maybe I am just wrong, or maybe I am just being an example of what we are all up against.
I almost used “struggle” instead of “fight,” if you like that better. My main point was I don’t think helping Democrats win (Eric’s advice) is enough. I think I’ve written enough. You can have the last word if you want.
MikeB
nah. i don’t think i need the last word..unless you count this. Especially since I think I agreed with you. keep the word “fight”; “struggle” is too weak.
i know it’s hard to accept when someone agrees with you after disagreeing with you, but i hope my point of view might have been worth thinking about.
well, again i find that an AB comment that appeared in my in-box is not here when i come to reply to it.
that letter agreed with me about right to privacy, and suggested it should extend to vaccines.
to which i agree hartily. I am not so fond of catching criminals or terrorists that i think we should give up the rights that protect us from our government, from each other, from the kind tyrrany we have fought against more than once in our history.
what i come up against is because i “sound like” some of the propaganda from the Right, I am automatically thought to be an advocate for the Right. Nah, I am just trying to point out we don’t fight evil with evil. If for no other reason than it gives evil a case against us.