This is so tiring. What would the government have done to “codify” a fundamental constitutional right? SCOTUS said it existed, therefore it existed. If you’re talking about Congress enacting a sweeping law, please identify any period where there were sixty pro-choice Dem senators.
You cannot. The Left favors a revisionist version of history for which they were not present.
This is so tiring. What would the government have done to “codify” a fundamental constitutional right? SCOTUS said it existed, therefore it existed. If you’re talking about Congress enacting a sweeping law, please identify any period where there were sixty pro-choice Dem senators.
You cannot. The Left favors a revisionist version of history for which they were not present.
They didn't have to codify it at the federal level to actually fight for the issue. The bigger problem is that they took a 50 year strategy of trying to appease Republicans by moving ever so slightly to the left of them on issue after issue, instead of trying to engage in persuasion. After they did that, people like you come along and act as if nothing could have been done differently.
It's true. We gave the Republicans far too much credit when it came to common decency, civility, honesty, honor... stuff all Americans used to be proud of. Now they just want to be ugly bullies and force us to live like sharia christians? Or some really awful perversion like that? Anyway, we do need to stop giving totem the "benefit of the doubt"... there is no more doubt about who republicans are.
To say that Democrats have simply been appeasing the GOP all this time is inaccurate. The moderate left is pragmatic and seeks to pass legislation - and to win. The nation is not bright blue - it is a red, blue, and purple.
I dunno, the Partial Birth Abortion Act was a pretty clear case of attempting to yield in order to win over the Republicans. Here we are, 20 years later, and they're still howling about ""UP TO THE MOMENT OF BIRTH!"
That's certainly the story they tell themselves. As if nothing differently could have been done. As if they didn't control the Senate through the Reagan years. As if they didn't control the House for nearly 50 years before Newt Gingrich came along.
Leaders matter and everyone defending the Democratic establishment seems completely unwilling to admit they made any mistakes whatsoever.
Actually, Dems did not control the Senate through the Reagan years. The GOP had the majority for 6 years. Not to mention there was a large percentage of Conservative Dems (like Sam Nunn, John Breaux, Bennett Johnston, Al Gore, etc.) who were generally pro-life. They would not have gone along with a "codification of Roe" or whatever the heck that would have entailed.
Again, the Left often ignores actual history in exchange for what I call, "fantastical thinking".
The reason why the Democratic Party "walked away" or "abandoned" the working class is simple politics. Fact is, there were simply not enough votes in that group to help win elections. First off, labor unions were already losing members due to plant relocations to right to work states, not to mention shifting overseas. Secondly, the drop in manufacturing and low-skilled labor jobs coincided with an increase in "knowledge jobs". While the northern and midwestern manufacturing working class lost jobs and wages, their college educated children saw increasing wages. We now have a large scale upper middle class in the US (people making a $100K or more). Bill Clinton and the DLC understood this. You know who else understood this? That old conservadem, George McGovern! In fact, many of the members of the DLC, including Bill Clinton, Gary Hart and Tony Cuehlo, worked on McGovern's campaign!
Fact is, Clinton's brilliance was in his ability to both increase Dem's percentages in the Northern, West Coast and Midwestern Suburbs while maintaining or even winning back many of those very working class voters that many like you say we abandoned. Look at Clinton's reelection in 1996. He won every state along the Mississippi River as well as every state in what I call the PAC 12, plus NV and NM. He was the first Dem to win FL since LBJ and he won Appalachia. He won a majority of the vote in LA and TN for goodness sake. Bush won many of these states back in 2000 and 2008, mainly due to his religion and the War on Terror. Also, Bush ran as a moderate GOPer and won many Latino votes, which helped him win NM, NV and CO.
The Left needs to ask themselves how did Clinton do this? How did he win Appalachia and the Mississippi Valley? Social issues, not economic ones. He won by championing welfare reform, being tough on crime, and economic fairness. He ran on raising taxes on the rich, while cutting taxes for the middle class. Dems too often focus on the last one here, when without the first two, most of these people will not even listen to the pitch on the last one. My family is working class, and I will tell you that for them working is a social issue. Even among the poor, people who work resent those that don't. People who play by the rules resent the criminal element in their midst.
Bill Clinton said it best, and all Dems and the Left would do well to remember this: "We are for people who work hard, play by the rules, and want a fair shake, an opportunity to make their lives better."
This should be the Democratic Party's mantra and they should repeat it over and over. Instead, if you say something like this, you will immediately get some Left winger who will complain about the rules, what does fair mean, and all other BS.
The problem here is that the Supreme Court would still have overruled anything else you suppose the Dems should have done, and you are unclear as to exactly what they should have done.
It was 44 years, and until about 1992 a huge chunk of their caucuse was pro-life.
Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision in which five of the seven were Republican appointees.
Casey v Planned Parenthood, in 1992, awas a 5-4 decision in which ALL FIVE VOTES(!) were Republican appointees.
The realignment of parties around abortion politics wasn't complete until John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointee who was in the Roe majority, stepped down in 2010 for Obama to appoint his replacement.
Nonsense. The Democratic Party has moved to the left over my lifetime, not toward the increasingly autocratic right wing. Unless you were either around for Gingrich or well-versed in The Contract for America, your interpretation of the past fifty years is stunningly naive.
I find that in civilized argument, avoiding the ad hominem “people like you,” to be the wiser course if you’d like anyone to listen to you.
The Dems have moved slightly left, while the Republicans have lurched rightward. then they call anyone who opposes Trump a "leftist." even though there are nearly zero actual leftists among the Dems.
Okay, I won't use that language again if you find it offensive. If you'd prefer, "apologist for the strategic errors of the democratic party" I can say that as well.
Anyway, I'm well aware of Newt Gingrich and his antics. I'm also well aware that Democrats had a majority in the house for nearly 50 straight years before he came along. Republicans were convinced they were a permanent minority, until they weren't. Yet, I'm still told there was nothing that could have been done differently.
A House majority may enable the first step in passing a bill, but the real ability rests in the very cantankerous Senate whose will has generally been to either pigeonhole it in committee or invoke the filibuster if it gets to the floor. The latter has an interesting history.
"The filibuster as a legislative tool was accidentally created in 1806, when the Senate, at the urging of Vice President Aaron Burr a year before, eliminated the "previous question" motion, a rarely used rule that allowed the Senate to vote to move on from an issue being debated."
Filibuster, explained: What it is and how does it work in Co…
Okay, I misstated the exact number of years, which I have edited.
That said, I don't see what exactly your point is. I believe the Democrats made strategic errors for decades at a time if they actually cared about defending abortion rights. The fact that so many House Democrats were pro-life is only more evidence of that.
I think that abortion has been an issue that the Dems were happy they didn't have to touch with legislation on the federal level. Roe bailed them out. The Democratic coalition could be strongly pro-choice, but not have to hang their hat on a divisive law. And they didn't have to, until now. They had their cake and were eating it too, but the party's over.
All I'm going to say is, "infantile morons", is not a good faith way to have a discourse. I've seen comments like this deleted before, but I guess if it's a popular enough opinion though, then the staff at the Bulwark think this kind of language is fine.
It may still get deleted. The Bulwark staff figure that paying money to post comments promotes self-moderation. They come across comments; they do not monitor them. Anyone is always free to report a comment. All you have to do is click on the three dots.
I agree with Peter T. Can we cut back on the ad hominem attacks. They don't help your arguments (which I generally agree with) and just create an atmosphere of unpleasant partisanship.
Some people are irritating and unpersuadable, but others who aren't can be turned off by what are unnecessary personal attacks.
I happen to agree with you like 80% of the time, including the sentiment here. But...you do tend to yell and scream a lot. If this were Breitbart, I'd get it. But it ain't. It'd be nice if we could keep our swell little Bulwark community civil.
Yeah, OK, intervention over. Mind my own business, yada yada.
This is so tiring. What would the government have done to “codify” a fundamental constitutional right? SCOTUS said it existed, therefore it existed. If you’re talking about Congress enacting a sweeping law, please identify any period where there were sixty pro-choice Dem senators.
You cannot. The Left favors a revisionist version of history for which they were not present.
They didn't have to codify it at the federal level to actually fight for the issue. The bigger problem is that they took a 50 year strategy of trying to appease Republicans by moving ever so slightly to the left of them on issue after issue, instead of trying to engage in persuasion. After they did that, people like you come along and act as if nothing could have been done differently.
It's true. We gave the Republicans far too much credit when it came to common decency, civility, honesty, honor... stuff all Americans used to be proud of. Now they just want to be ugly bullies and force us to live like sharia christians? Or some really awful perversion like that? Anyway, we do need to stop giving totem the "benefit of the doubt"... there is no more doubt about who republicans are.
To say that Democrats have simply been appeasing the GOP all this time is inaccurate. The moderate left is pragmatic and seeks to pass legislation - and to win. The nation is not bright blue - it is a red, blue, and purple.
I dunno, the Partial Birth Abortion Act was a pretty clear case of attempting to yield in order to win over the Republicans. Here we are, 20 years later, and they're still howling about ""UP TO THE MOMENT OF BIRTH!"
That's certainly the story they tell themselves. As if nothing differently could have been done. As if they didn't control the Senate through the Reagan years. As if they didn't control the House for nearly 50 years before Newt Gingrich came along.
Leaders matter and everyone defending the Democratic establishment seems completely unwilling to admit they made any mistakes whatsoever.
Actually, Dems did not control the Senate through the Reagan years. The GOP had the majority for 6 years. Not to mention there was a large percentage of Conservative Dems (like Sam Nunn, John Breaux, Bennett Johnston, Al Gore, etc.) who were generally pro-life. They would not have gone along with a "codification of Roe" or whatever the heck that would have entailed.
Again, the Left often ignores actual history in exchange for what I call, "fantastical thinking".
The reason why the Democratic Party "walked away" or "abandoned" the working class is simple politics. Fact is, there were simply not enough votes in that group to help win elections. First off, labor unions were already losing members due to plant relocations to right to work states, not to mention shifting overseas. Secondly, the drop in manufacturing and low-skilled labor jobs coincided with an increase in "knowledge jobs". While the northern and midwestern manufacturing working class lost jobs and wages, their college educated children saw increasing wages. We now have a large scale upper middle class in the US (people making a $100K or more). Bill Clinton and the DLC understood this. You know who else understood this? That old conservadem, George McGovern! In fact, many of the members of the DLC, including Bill Clinton, Gary Hart and Tony Cuehlo, worked on McGovern's campaign!
Fact is, Clinton's brilliance was in his ability to both increase Dem's percentages in the Northern, West Coast and Midwestern Suburbs while maintaining or even winning back many of those very working class voters that many like you say we abandoned. Look at Clinton's reelection in 1996. He won every state along the Mississippi River as well as every state in what I call the PAC 12, plus NV and NM. He was the first Dem to win FL since LBJ and he won Appalachia. He won a majority of the vote in LA and TN for goodness sake. Bush won many of these states back in 2000 and 2008, mainly due to his religion and the War on Terror. Also, Bush ran as a moderate GOPer and won many Latino votes, which helped him win NM, NV and CO.
The Left needs to ask themselves how did Clinton do this? How did he win Appalachia and the Mississippi Valley? Social issues, not economic ones. He won by championing welfare reform, being tough on crime, and economic fairness. He ran on raising taxes on the rich, while cutting taxes for the middle class. Dems too often focus on the last one here, when without the first two, most of these people will not even listen to the pitch on the last one. My family is working class, and I will tell you that for them working is a social issue. Even among the poor, people who work resent those that don't. People who play by the rules resent the criminal element in their midst.
Bill Clinton said it best, and all Dems and the Left would do well to remember this: "We are for people who work hard, play by the rules, and want a fair shake, an opportunity to make their lives better."
This should be the Democratic Party's mantra and they should repeat it over and over. Instead, if you say something like this, you will immediately get some Left winger who will complain about the rules, what does fair mean, and all other BS.
The problem here is that the Supreme Court would still have overruled anything else you suppose the Dems should have done, and you are unclear as to exactly what they should have done.
It was 44 years, and until about 1992 a huge chunk of their caucuse was pro-life.
Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision in which five of the seven were Republican appointees.
Casey v Planned Parenthood, in 1992, awas a 5-4 decision in which ALL FIVE VOTES(!) were Republican appointees.
The realignment of parties around abortion politics wasn't complete until John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointee who was in the Roe majority, stepped down in 2010 for Obama to appoint his replacement.
I'm just going to copy and paste what I said to this exact same comment:
https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/but-he-doesnt-fight/comment/7671048
Nonsense. The Democratic Party has moved to the left over my lifetime, not toward the increasingly autocratic right wing. Unless you were either around for Gingrich or well-versed in The Contract for America, your interpretation of the past fifty years is stunningly naive.
I find that in civilized argument, avoiding the ad hominem “people like you,” to be the wiser course if you’d like anyone to listen to you.
The Dems have moved slightly left, while the Republicans have lurched rightward. then they call anyone who opposes Trump a "leftist." even though there are nearly zero actual leftists among the Dems.
Okay, I won't use that language again if you find it offensive. If you'd prefer, "apologist for the strategic errors of the democratic party" I can say that as well.
Anyway, I'm well aware of Newt Gingrich and his antics. I'm also well aware that Democrats had a majority in the house for nearly 50 straight years before he came along. Republicans were convinced they were a permanent minority, until they weren't. Yet, I'm still told there was nothing that could have been done differently.
A House majority may enable the first step in passing a bill, but the real ability rests in the very cantankerous Senate whose will has generally been to either pigeonhole it in committee or invoke the filibuster if it gets to the floor. The latter has an interesting history.
"The filibuster as a legislative tool was accidentally created in 1806, when the Senate, at the urging of Vice President Aaron Burr a year before, eliminated the "previous question" motion, a rarely used rule that allowed the Senate to vote to move on from an issue being debated."
Filibuster, explained: What it is and how does it work in Co…
usatoday.com
It was 44 years, and for more than half of that 44 years, a large chunk of of them were pro life.
Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision in which five of the seven justices were Republican appointees.
Even in Casey vs Planned Parenthood, decided in 1992, ALL FIVE justices in the 5-4 decision were Republican appointees.
It's almost like the 30 year transition of the south from Democratic to Republican took a while to manifest in the Supreme Court.
Okay, I misstated the exact number of years, which I have edited.
That said, I don't see what exactly your point is. I believe the Democrats made strategic errors for decades at a time if they actually cared about defending abortion rights. The fact that so many House Democrats were pro-life is only more evidence of that.
I think that abortion has been an issue that the Dems were happy they didn't have to touch with legislation on the federal level. Roe bailed them out. The Democratic coalition could be strongly pro-choice, but not have to hang their hat on a divisive law. And they didn't have to, until now. They had their cake and were eating it too, but the party's over.
that was an exhaustingly roundabout way to call Tom a moron...
please take it down a notch. Or just take it down.
All I'm going to say is, "infantile morons", is not a good faith way to have a discourse. I've seen comments like this deleted before, but I guess if it's a popular enough opinion though, then the staff at the Bulwark think this kind of language is fine.
Duly noted.
It may still get deleted. The Bulwark staff figure that paying money to post comments promotes self-moderation. They come across comments; they do not monitor them. Anyone is always free to report a comment. All you have to do is click on the three dots.
TCinLA... then why are you here? Why engage with any of us? I'm genuinely asking...
I agree with Peter T. Can we cut back on the ad hominem attacks. They don't help your arguments (which I generally agree with) and just create an atmosphere of unpleasant partisanship.
Some people are irritating and unpersuadable, but others who aren't can be turned off by what are unnecessary personal attacks.
I happen to agree with you like 80% of the time, including the sentiment here. But...you do tend to yell and scream a lot. If this were Breitbart, I'd get it. But it ain't. It'd be nice if we could keep our swell little Bulwark community civil.
Yeah, OK, intervention over. Mind my own business, yada yada.