On American Appeasement

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Apr 29, 2017.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I would borrow a moment to flip a coin:

    Heads: Something about whites being biased, along with a dash of self-defeat because the it's-not-pro-racism attack against equal protection advocacy eventually gets around to some manner of self-harm.

    Tails: The idea that empowerment majorities are biased toward themselves is unsurprising in history, yet we might wish to remind explicitly that the fact of such bias does not redefine equality according to the prospect of equal protection and equal rights.

    ↳ Let's start, say, 1962. End of the Long Decade, beginning of the Sexual Revolution: Okay, so ... women are equal. Wait, what? Why does she get to take that pill? Why does she need that special right? Oh, wait, because she wants to have a say in when she gets pregnant? Why does she need that special right? Look, I already said she's equal, why does she keep needing all this special stuff?

    By the time it got around to my developing awareness, men were pitching fits about the idea of "women's lib", the prospect of married women having real jobs, and a nasty dispute over whether or not one can force a woman to have sex just because she is his wife. Apparently not being raped is one of those special rights that feminists claim, and these are the sorts of identity politics yadda blah mahoozit.​


    Sorry, I. uh, just needed to split a hair. Flip a coin. Whatever.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I would say, Imagine that

    Do Democrats need to oppose abortion in order to win in red states?

    That question has led to divisions on the left in recent months, as some—including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)—have argued that Democrats may need to compromise on reproductive rights if they want to increase their influence nationwide.

    But a new poll calls this approach into question. Just 8 percent of Democrats would be more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes abortion, according to a report released by the polling firm PerryUndem earlier this month, ahead of Roe v. Wade’s 45th anniversary on Monday. Meanwhile, 31 percent of Republicans would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights.

    The findings suggest it may be Republicans, not Democrats, who have the most to gain from broadening their approach on reproductive health. That’s something Democrats may want to consider in the runup to this year’s midterms.


    —except those who can didn't need to in the first place, and those who can't ... can't.


    North, Anna. "Should Democrats run anti-abortion candidates in red states? A new poll casts doubt on the strategy." Vox. 22 January 2018. Vox.com. 22 January 2018. http://bit.ly/2BjH9a1
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    How's That Appeasement Thing Working Out?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It's never quite as simple as the lede—

    Nine months from Election Day, political veterans eyeing the House landscape struggle to even identify a single Democratic House hopeful—of the hundreds running—who openly opposes abortion rights.

    Their absence is a significant development for a party in places such as western Pennsylvania, where Democrats even recently would run self-identified "pro-life" candidates (the state's Democratic Senator Bob Casey Jr., in fact, opposes abortion rights in some circumstances). And it's reshaping the cultural agenda of a party that, on everything from immigration to guns, has moved decidedly to the left in the last decade—to the chagrin of some who worry it's reducing their appeal to some right-leaning voters.


    —but, still, this one seems pretty straightforward. Democrats for Life executive director Kristen Day recalleed her fifteen years on the job, explaining, "This is the most difficult it's been", and wondering, "I don't know what's going to happen to pro-life Democrats."

    It's not quite crickets or tumbleweeds:

    [Conor] Lamb doesn't make his support of abortion a big part of his campaign. A Roman Catholic, he says he personally opposes abortion.

    But he opposes the GOP-proposed 20-week ban on abortions and has seen his views come under attack during the special election. And in an interview, he emphasized that the country was founded on the principle of separating church and state.

    "To me, that means we defend the law as it is," he said.

    Lamb's position might surprise some old-school Democrats, especially in a state where men and women for decades have voted for "pro-life" Democrats such as former Gov. Bob Casey, Sr. or his son, the current senator.

    But longtime Democratic officials explain the development as part of the party's natural evolution, especially as both parties essentially finish a decades-long sorting that left each much more ideologically consistent. (On the Republican side, there are few—if any—candidates who support abortion rights.)

    What was controversial within the party 20 years ago, in other words, simply isn't today.

    "For the most part, the things that created real rifts in the party in the 90s are mostly over," said Matt Bennet, a top official at the center-left Democratic think tank Third Way. "No one disagrees, for example, on basic LGBT rights. No one disagrees, fundamentally, on the need for gun safety reform."

    "The debate has essentially ended," he continued. "There are matters of small degrees that are tussled over. But it is not causing a rift in the party at all."

    If the most part of that reads like famous last words, sure, there is a shelf life to the desperately-smiling pretense of peaceful accord within the Party. To the other, it is also true Republicans make it easy. Sort of.

    "Lamb's position might surprise some old-school Democrats", but only according to the Congressional District itself; it is the "pro-choice" marginal answer against outright blue-dogging—or is it red-dogging, now? Old-school Democrats know this particular catechismal parse by rote.

    Nonetheless, by the policy benchmarks available, Democrats have every reason to refuse further appeasement of the right wing's persistent disdain toward women and human rights. Indeed, should the party liberalize, these policy benchmarks will, themselves, come to read like the appeasements they are.


    Roarty, Alex. "Abortion debate is over inside the Democratic Party". McClatchy DC. 13 March 2018. McClatchyDC.com. 14 March 2018. http://bit.ly/2IoMtgQ
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Oh what is this Conor Lamb won, but he was republican lite, he should have totally lost! He is personally opposes abortion that must mean he would vote for any anti-abortion bill and hte enslavement of women as baby making machines. Pretty sure he wants to take away gay marriage and lynch musliums, etc.

    I wonder what Lamb's economic positions are? Tax the rich, protect and expand ACA, expand Social Security, Its a start for me, certainly opposite his republican counterpart.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    All you need to know about the Republican Party and current Republican administration is that Mike Pompeo called Hillary Clinton for advice and help in getting confirmed for Secretary of State and handling the job: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/10/pompeo-hearing-state-clinton-512155

    And all you need to know about appeasement in American politics is that she took the call and had a nice long chat. She enabled the guy, helped him get done what he wants to do. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/politics/donald-trump-mike-pompeo-cia.html
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    A brief recap, in re appeasement:

    #211↑: As a matter of conscience, people are free to believe what they will; but as a matter of policy, no, Democrats should not seek to inflict harm with mandatory ultrasounds or a Hyde Amendment for the ACA.

    #215↑: [explicit reiteration of the #211]

    #372↑: Strike the Hyde Amendment.

    #381↑: Well, what does "universal healthcare" mean? And the reason we must ask this question at all is because of identity politics; we have a nasty tendency in this society to carve out exclusions, like the Hyde Amendment ....

    And the news:

    Alvarado, then 22, was struggling to afford the supplies, like socks, underwear, and boots, she would need for at least six months in the Middle East. She had emptied her apartment of most belongings except for the sleeping bag she crawled into at night and crammed the rest in a storage unit, an expense that would grow over time. Alvarado had two weeks left in North Dakota before pre-deployment training began in Texas. From there, she would go on to serve her country. Alvarado knew she wanted an abortion almost as soon as she experienced her first wave of nausea in the Walmart. But Tricare, the military's health-insurance program, would not cover the procedure.

    Alvarado was subject to restrictions based on the Hyde Amendment, a ban on abortion coverage in federal health-insurance programs, most notably Medicaid for people with low incomes. Congressional Republicans have upheld Hyde for more than 40 years with an assist from an unlikely ally: the Democratic Party. For decades, Democrats have typically campaigned on reproductive rights but “compromised” on Hyde.

    Their deference ends today. A number of influential Senate Democrats will introduce the EACH Woman Act, uniting the party behind a one-two punch of a bill that proposes to end Hyde and require federal health insurance to cover abortion. Led by Senators Tammy Duckworth, Mazie Hirono, Patty Murray, and Kamala Harris, a 2020 presidential contender, the landmark legislation marks the first of its kind in the Senate and closes the final gap in Democrats' opposition to Hyde. Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus cochair Barbara Lee debuted the original version in 2015; Lee will re-up the EACH Woman Act in the House today, with Jan Schakowsky and fellow Pro-Choice Caucus cochair Diana DeGette.


    We might look back to #372, again, because striking the Hyde Amendment, so explicitly stated, was part of answering a demand for legislative suggestions; another part was, "Secure reproductive health within insurance schema", and what the Vogue report describes as, "a bill that proposes to end Hyde and require federal health insurance to cover abortion", would certainly appear to address that notion.

    On the House side, one hundred seven Democratic cosponsors have brought a Medicare For All bill that includes the end of the Hyde Amendment (Burns↱).

    True, the question of where vision and dental fall in the new scheme, also part of the point about insurance schema, remains to be seen, but more to the point it would seem appeasement isn't on the agenda. Indeed, what has changed, 'twixt now and once upon a time, is that Democrats feel empowered to have the Hyde fight; their voters aren't demanding such compromises.


    Burns, Katelyn. "Democrats' 'Medicare For All' Legislation Would End the Hyde Amendment". Rewire News. 27 February 2019. Rewire.News. 12 March 2019. http://bit.ly/2T5yz7G

    Grimaldi, Christine. "Senators Introduce Legislation to Finally Repeal the Hyde Amendment and End Wide-Ranging Federal Abortion-Funding Ban". Vogue. 12 March 2019. Vogue.com. 12 March 2019. http://bit.ly/2NYqali
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Then and Now

    Once upon a time—around twenty months ago, in fact—someone demanded I propose a law; this was part of a dispute over political policy direction, appeasement; I proposed five—see #372↑. With Democratic presidential candidates targeting the Hyde Amendment↑, as noted in March, that's one. The Ninth Circuit has addressed wage history, a point of discrimination that makes no sense, but that decision has stayed because one judge died before its issuance. Wage history was enumerated as the second point among the five suggestions.

    Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), a Democratic presidential contender, has proposed close the wage gap between sexes:

    U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, one of two dozen Democrats vying for the 2020 presidential nomination, on Monday proposed closing the gender pay gap by requiring companies to disclose pay data and secure an “equal pay certification” or be fined.

    Harris' proposal aims to shift the burden from workers, who now must prove pay discrimination by employers, to corporations, which would have to show they eliminated pay disparities between men and women doing work of equal value ....

    .... Under Harris' proposal, which would require approval by the U.S. Congress, companies with 100 or more employees would give their pay data to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    They would also have to prove existing pay gaps were not based on gender but merit, performance or seniority, and commit to policies barring mandatory arbitration pacts for job disputes and questions about salary history during hiring.

    Companies falling short of the criteria would be fined 1% of their profits for every 1% wage gap found after adjusting for variables such as experience and performance.


    What will be interesting, of course, is to see who complains of identity politics, since that is the underlying question of policy and appeasement. Seriously, try to imagine nonunionized men complaining that equal pay is a violation of their rights, and, really, it might seem there ought not be any question. To the other, the fact of the #trumpswindle presidency reminds the absurdity of our American heritage. Meanwhile, Sens. Gillibrand (D-NY) and Warren (D-MA) have been pushing equal pay legislation, which of course got the latter inaccurately attacked according to an inaccurate hit report by the conservative Free Beacon newspaper, which achieved its disparity by excluding several women from its data. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I/D-VT) is even willing to pay lip service, and sign his name to cosponsor legislation, which in turn many Democratic presidential candidates have. Gov. Jay Inslee, running on a generally environmental platform, signed equal pay legislation into law last year; the Washington state Democrat has also signed family leave legislation, which, also, is addressed by various Democratic candidates, and would be the third point of five on that list.

    And in terms of those five points, the securing of reproductive health within insurance schema is currently at stake, to some significant degree, in questions of anti-abortion laws presaging a Supreme Court showdown. Still, in terms of health insurance particularly, we'll have to see who comes up with what for a general approach, much as we will with police accountability.

    It does not appear, however, that Democrats are willing to sit by and hope that explicitly avoiding certain issues will somehow compel those problems to magically find resolution.


    Becker, Amanda. "Kamala Harris proposes equal pay measure to close gender gap". Reuters. 20 May 2019. Reuters.com. 20 May 2019. https://reut.rs/2VVspNL
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member


Share This Page