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

Share This Page