Clearly not in the direction progressives want it to . . . which, if the dystopia is already here doesn’t fucking matter.
…can you be a bit more specific?
The progressives are being quite clear on what they want at the moment. For example:from AOC
I don’t think any of that is unreasonable. I don’t think asking those questions hurt the Democrats. Do you?
So what direction is the Democratic Party currently moving to at the moment? And is that at odds with what the progressives are asking for?
Again, if the dystopia is already here it doesn’t fucking matter what AOC wants. IT’S ALREADY OVER, WE LOST.
I think it would have been a bad idea. Why should the Democrats have spent resources on enacting laws to get something we already had via the Roe decision? It would have been an empty symbolic gesture. It was a much better use of resources to pass laws that mattered.
The problem is too many people get wrapped up in political principles and don’t pay enough attention to political reality. It’s easy to come up with good ideas. But it takes a huge amount of work to turn a good idea into an actual program.
I don’t have a strong opinion about what Democrats “should have done” prior to Roe being reversed, but if they don’t have a plan now for what they are going to do, or at least propose to do, then I’m not sure what to say…
If they were asking me, I would have the party propose a very clear federal law mandating the right of all Americans to receive any and all medical services, including abortion, in instances of rape and incest. And run hard on that. Make every damn GOP candidate explain why he thinks rape victims should have to bear their rapist’s fetus.
Is this sufficient? Not at all. But liberal states will go further in what they allow, and it is better than what many conservative states will allow. And it’s pretty damn hard for purple state Senators and Reps to vote against. It’s time to use this wedge and make the GOP to defend the indefensible.
But I doubt the Democrats will align on such a common sense and, I think, winning strategy. Because they are idiots, and many are idealists, and have trouble understanding the idea of compromise even in areas where it hurts. Instead they will propose things like full federal abortion rights, which is obviously a non-starter politically. Or things like packing the courts which is both a non-starter political and actually unpopular.
…I mean, what do you think the progressives are fighting for? Look at what has happened to trans people in the last six months. Look at the treatment of indigenous folk since the very beginning. Its been a dystopia for them for a very long time.
But they haven’t stopped fighting.
So what direction is the Democratic Party currently moving to at the moment? And is that at odds with what the progressives are asking for?
Who. Cares. You. Said. It’s. Over.
…how are you imagining compromise works when you’ve already got seven States who have already outright-banned abortion, and another 20-odd States with heavy restrictions/considering a ban as well?
…the people who the progressives are fighting for care.
And I never said “its over.” I said the dystopia is already here.
You seem to be imagining that I’ve said something I haven’t actually said. Perhaps stop doing that.
So what direction is the Democratic Party currently moving to at the moment? And is that at odds with what the progressives are asking for?
That’s the last time I’ll ask the question. If you choose not to answer, I’ll accept your concession.
By passing federal legislation that guarantees access in those cases where 75%+ of residents agree it should be allowed? Like rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother.
Then you start working on laws that protect things like significant health impact to the life of the mother.
Then maybe something specifically targeted to very early pregnancy.
You work the edges, just like the anti-choice movement has been doing for decades with things like the “Partial Birth” abortion ban.
Does it suck? Of course! Is it significantly worse than pre-Dodds? Absolute. Will women die and otherwise have their lives altered for the worse? Yup. But politically it should be able to be turned into a winning issue, in the hands of a competent political party.
Cool, declare victory and depart the field.
…I’m sure all the people who will die or otherwise have their lives altered for the worse are thanking you right now for remembering their sacrifices they made in the name of “compromise.”
Somehow, I don’t consider throwing these people under the bus will turn this into a “winning issue.”
…oh, I’m not going anywhere. But concession accepted.
It appears that attacking people who are on your side for “throwing women under the bus” seems to be the preferable approach for some to crafting a winning political strategy.
Myself, I think winning elections is what matters. And if your answer to Roe being reversed is court-packing or a federal “abortion is legal in every state at any stage for any reason” law, I believe that is a recipe to lose elections. I will continue to support pro-choice legislators, as I have since I was in my 20s. I do really hope that some day Democratic party leadership comes up with a plan and a platform that gives my preferred candidates a chance to win in my state.
But like Will Rogers said, I’m not part of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat.
“The dystopia is here” does not have to mean you roll over and die. It can also mean the resistance is forced to switch from the fallen fixed defensive position to a dynamic approach of looking for every avenue that leads to retaking a little more of the lost ground.
As mentioned, part of the matter at hand is that for the first part of the period since Roe, there really wasn’t true mass political support for statuting abortion-on-demand as a national fundamental right… and as we’ve seen repeatedly cowardice is a key trait of our elected class. If they’re not sure it will not cost them votes they will not take the risk.
By the time pro-choice got a real general popular majority, anti-choice had become firmly established as an indivisible part of the “conservative” platform… just in time for the Hard Right “conservatism” to go ascendant and “liberal” become a label people ran away from.
We may have not noticed but women were already de-facto “thrown under the bus” decades ago, when one of the two governing factions decided that low taxes and easy guns (and, for both factions, a rising S&P) were the primary things to aspire to, and if that takes pleasing the social reactionaries, fine.
…you haven’t proposed a winning strategy.
You have literally spelled out what “compromise” means to you.
It means people dying. It means lives altered for the worse.
But thats fine: because you actually think that compromise is somehow a thing that will happen.
McConnell won’t compromise. Abbott won’t compromise. Ivey won’t compromise. Hutchinson won’t compromise.
They have been fighting to ban abortion for decades. That was the mantra. This is the goal.
And they’ve done it. They have control of SCOTUS. They have overturned Roe vs Wade. When they get control they will pack the court and nuke the filibuster. Federal ban on abortion.
They have made no secret of this.
Do you really think “you might die or otherwise have your lives altered for the worse if we win” is a platform that will win you the next election?
Packing the court isn’t the answer to “Roe being reversed.”
People really don’t seem to understand what has happened here.
The court has gone rogue. It has always had the potential to do this. Because SCOTUS is partisan. And has little-to-no oversight. And appointees stay in the job until they retire or die.
Everything you saw this week? Its going to keep on happening. The Republicans are going to keep on rolling cases through the courts until they eventually land at SCOTUS where they will get a rubber-stamp and everything changes, bit by bit.
This isn’t about Roe vs Wade any more. Everything is at risk.
Packing the court isn’t about Roe. Its one of the few options you have left to hold the line and regroup.
Things aren’t going to go back to the way things were. There is no mechanism in place for SCOTUS to go back to “normal” unless something extraordinary happens in the next few months and you suddenly need to replace some judges, or you pack the courts.
Here’s the thing, though.
The stakes, right now, are the highest they have ever been.
And you want to gamble on a platform that says:
"those rights that you fought for and that you have had for the last 50 years? We are done fighting for them now. Some of you may die. Some of you will have your lives that are altered for the worse. And you will no longer have autonomy over your own body.
But hey, vote for us."
You do realize what you are asking people to do here, right? This is your game plan. This is the best you can do.
I think you are wrong. I don’t think that this will win you the election. I think the odds of the Democrats holding the senate are very slim anyway regardless of what you do. But the very least you could do is not to give up without a fight.
Tell the people that you are going to fight for them. Tell them what the plan is. Tell them what seats you need to win. Tell them what you will do when you win the next election. Don’t compromise. Because they aren’t going to settle for anything less than a ban on abortion.
Modnote: Please avoid bringing in off-topic stuff. This is a very charge subject and should stay fairly focused. Your post would be fine as a spin-off post.
The President has said that there should be a filibuster exception for abortion rights (codification of Roe), but that may not matter if Manchin and Sinema can’t be swayed.
Then this is the time to throw them from the platform. Cut them off from any and all fundraising resources.
Sometimes the (D) after your name has to mean something.
To the OP:
From where I’m sitting pro-choice people seem to have been very complacent since '73.
At the very least they should have planned for exactly this scenario. What is happening now doesn’t look like a reaction to something that has been inevitable since RBG died. Acting all surprised that your opponents have achieved the thing they have been after for 50 years is not a good look.
“regeren is vooruitzien” - to govern is to look ahead: Dutch saying.
Perhaps after November’s results? Because right now, handing the chamber to McConnell is not my favorite idea.