Oh, I see, so you are not suggesting that the Democrats actually abandon their own supporters, just that there are MAGA lies and propaganda claiming they do?
There are lots of fake things the GOP says about the Democrats.
Jim Crow laws and segregation were never the result of progressives “compromising” with racists.
The only way to combat a propaganda machine is strict government regulation or a robust public education system. Otherwise, it’s just arms race for whosever propaganda network is better, and it’s the Right, hands down.
It’s not like the Democrats are going to legislate significant change in this area, regardless. There’s a lot to unfuck about the rule of law and the separation of powers, first.
Jim Crow and segregation were a direct result of the failure of Reconstruction. Reconstruction failed due to the Compromise of 1877.
We can debate what constitutes realpolitik concessions versus abandoning principles. I know I’m not sure where the red line is. But surely we can agree that at a minimum your policies, positions, and opinions must first get you elected.
This issue threatens to split the Democratic Party in event that it wins a comfortable House and Senate majority.
That’s because winning said majority requires winning Senate seats in Trumpy states and House seats in Trumpy districts. The kind of Democrats who can win those districts will be Barney Frank types – economic populists pushing the whole party a bit to the right on trans issues. So passing a “whole bunch of pro-trans legislation” sounds pretty unlikely to me. As can be seen in this thread, such a go-slow approach would be intensely frustrating to progressive Democrats. Some will bolt to the Greens, and I doubt it can be helped.
As has been pointed out, if the Democrats pass even a little pro-trans legislation concerning whatever polls the best, Republicans will use that to paint the Democrats are pro-they anti-us. Whether that works for them, I do not think anyone can now know. No one should confidently say what public opinion is going to allow years from now.
Where Barney Frank could be wrong is that public opinion may quickly become more tolerant of trans youth, and trans people in general. Then the Democrats from Trump constituencies would almost be forced to vote yes on a lot of trans legislation to survive not just their next primary fight, but also their next general election.
Right now, I think Frank is correct on the politics here and that the Democrats had best go slow on trans legislation. Reversing bills Trump signed is wiser than putting in place new rights.
I think you meant “indirect”. Withdrawing federal troops from the South did not mean “we agree that segregation and Jim Crow laws are just dandy.”
Openly gay?
I meant what I said.
I thought I specified what I meant by Barney Frank type, but openly gay is also possible. Trump has a gay man in one of our great offices of state (Treasury Secretary Bessent).
I just checked, and there seem to be no openly gay U.S. House members in districts won by Trump in 2024. But we aren’t far away from it happening, as can be seen in this CityAndStateNY.com link:
Why did the GOP pick Alison Esposito to challenge Rep. Pat Ryan?
Yes it was. That’s exactly why the idea of settling for “civil unions” instead of marriage was compared to segregation; “compromise” with the Right just means they get to write their bigotry into law and nail it into place for decades.
If you abandon them, then they haven’t gotten you elected. And again, we have no reason to think that sacrificing trans people to the bigots would actually get Democrats elected in the first place. Instead of making the Republicans that much stronger when the Democratic base stays home, and none of the bigots are actually convinced to vote Democrat. Which is what history teaches us to expect.
You’re claiming Supreme Court justices of that time were “progressives”? 
They were hardly the only people involved.
Re discussion of the 1877 compromise/corrupt deal, that has no relevance. What would have relevance to our world of 2026 is if GOP leaders had tried running radical Republicans in districts where conventional wisdom said only moderate Republicans could win, and then radicals won anyway with peace and justice reigning in the land. That one does not have a historical example.
The civil union example is better. If SCOTUS had, back in 2015, the membership it has today, we would still be a civil union country. That’s unfortunate, but civil unions would today, due to public opinion, be gradually becoming more identical to marriage. To do something similar for trans people a few years from now would require court-packing. Progressives are free to favor it, but Democrats in Trumpy districts will probably come out against court packing when they debate their Republican opponents this fall, and then be locked in.
For reasons I gave before concerning how a big Democratic majority brings in Trumpy-district Democratic Party moderates, there is no way that congress is going to pass a bill with a nationwide mandate that girls high school sports always include trans girls. They might pass a law saying that it has to be local option – especially if needed to reverse some federal legislation enforcing the nationalizing Trump policy – and I think local option, as a corrective to Trumpy overreach, would have broad political appeal.
Am I reading you correctly that this is “unfortunate, but not a big deal in the grand scheme of things?” Just put up with separate but equal, and it will all come out fine?
I hope that’s not what you mean.
I don’t want to save the crumbs from your table until I have enough to glue together a cake. American humans should have equal rights, period. Anyone who doesn’t think so should be the one defending that inherently un-American position. I mean, have you talked to Black people (for instance) about how incremental shifts in public opinion are working?
That is very, very unlikely, as history shows. They’d be much worse than marriage and getting worse all the time, since that was the entire point. “Seperate but equal” all over again.
Which is a fundamental problem with any talk of compromise; the Right is ill-intentioned and implacable, give them any concession and they will twist it to do as much harm as possible. They already are, after all.
I went to a House subcommittee hearing in 2009 on transgender rights. Barney showed up to speak. He said, “I know what it feels like to be trapped in the wrong body—when my work goes to the Senate.”
History shows that when civil unions are legally established, a country often later – usually without a court order – establishes full same-sex marriage. Examples include the UK, Germany and France. And history shows not a single example I can find where there was first civil unions legally allowed and then they stopped being legally allowed without full same-sex marriage in the country.
Now, just because history went in one direction for same-sex marriage doesn’t prove it will be the same with trans rights. But history does not show what I said is very, very unlikely.
No, I’m saying pick your battles. Trans rights are a stupid hill to die on, when most of the population and the voters are concerned about economic issues and things like wealth inequity.
Did LBJ pick the wrong battle?