Agreed, and that’s why Republican party officials aren’t welcome – the party is opposed to the legality of gay marriage.
It’s a complex topic, and getting further into the details in this particular area would be more about why the conservative were previously winning rather than why they have now started to win.
The centrist wing of the Democratic Party has welcomed Republicans like Bill Kristol, George Conway, Tim Miller, Joe Scarborough and Nicole Wallace, sharing a common belief that a gangster and a conman shouldn’t hold the highest office in the land and shouldn’t be protected from the consequences of his crimes.
And although this was initially a specific issue thing , they actually realize the importance of supporting centrist Democrats on a wide range of issues. Let me know when you see Glenn Greenwald working with Louie Gohmert or Gym Jordan on anything,OK.
This actually happens a lot with Democrats, and I’m not even mentioning other Republicans that changed parties once they became well-versed in policy and realized that Republican policies sucked, former Republicans like Michael Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, for three.
Oh, but the two or three Republicans that aren’t batshit crazy don’t completely hate Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss, so that proves…….something? And it’s kind of funny that you throw Matt Taibbi’s name out amidst all these rat-catching analogies, because he did some awesome ( and hysterically funny ) work discrediting Republican economic theory when he was the economics reporter for Rolling Stone.
And here’s the thing about gay rights today. That battle is pretty much won, it’s past the point of seeking half measures from questionable groups in order to advance the cause.
BTW, all these rat analogies are so 2005. Today, it comes down to “Should a guy that once tricked a whole bunch of people that didn’t have a lot of rats into giving him all their rats be allowed to become Rat King so he can hand out the nation’s supply of rats to his cronies?”
Aren’t welcome where? Haven’t quite a few anti-Trump Republican officials like Liz Cheney been embraced by the left recently?
It’s a complex topic, but I think the left’s move to repudiate the idea that rewards should depend on merit is relevant when considering why the Republican party still has so much support.
Her recognition of basic reality and refusal to buy into the Big Lie about the election have been embraced by the left. Those have also resulted in her rejection by the right. Many on the left have enthusiastically applauded the rare clearing of what is a very low bar by a member of the Republican Party, but I’m not sure this translates to a warm invitation to the next DNC barbecue.
This is what the right claim the left believe rather than what the left actually believe. Ironically, it’s the right who place far more weight on non-meritocratic criteria than the left, including race, religion, political affiliation, and personal wealth.
The right didn’t invent the fact that universities are moving away from using the SAT as an entry criterion, school boards are abolishing gifted programs or assigning places in them using criteria other than ability, and that diversity trainings are describing the statement “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” as a racial microaggression. But the right-wing media sure is playing them up at every opportunity.
As someone who considers myself on the left, I would dispute that our current system distributes rewards based on merit. The left doesn’t repudiate distributing rewards based on merit. The left (at least this member of the left) claims that our current system is still in large part based on rewarding people with connections and being born into the right family rather than merit or skill.
Sure. The intention is to distribute rewards based on merit, but in practice it is only partially successful. However, the idea of equity that is currently gaining popularity on the left is not to distribute opportunities based on individual merit at all, but according to race, gender etc.
See for example Biden’s attempt to distribute Covid relief based on race and gender, and this scheme in Oakland, California:
I guess poor white families don’t need money because… other white people are rich?
I don’t think people on the left or center-left - for the most part - think that inequality is evil. I think they object to the large increase in inequality that we’ve seen over the last 40 years, and what that means for larger society. The nuance of “inequality” vs “too much inequality” gets lost in the political positioning of the parties and how they talk about things.
As for productivity at the top lifting those boats at the bottom, this is a trickle-down argument, and I think the implementation of trickle-down since the early 80’s has resulted in the surge of inequality that we have, and has failed to unleash that incredible economic growth that was promised. There’s a good argument economically that trickle-down has failed and that more direct aid to the folks at the bottom is now what’s needed. I think that tax cuts to the top aren’t as economically stimulative as aid directed to the bottom.
I don’t think that’s true. I haven’t done extensive research on it, but I just had a quick look at the Forbes billionaire list. 18% of the billionaires were new to the list. That’s obviously new money. #3 Bernard Aunault joined the company his father owned, but thoroughly transformed it from a civil engineering company into a much more highly valued luxury brand company. #12, Francoise Bettencourt Meyers, the granddaughter of the Loreal founder is 3rd generation rich. Does that qualify as old money? Sam Walton’s kids are #17, #18 and #19. They’re second generation. Of the rest of the top 50, #27 (a first generation wife - should that count?), #32, #33, #40, #41, #42, #48, and #48-tie are inherited wealth from my quick assessment. So 12 out of 50. Maybe if it was US only, the list of inherited billionaires might be higher, but I don’t think it would be a majority.
I think the Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, and Harland Sanders examples are the norm for the very rich, not the exceptions.
What’s your basis for believing that
?
Good point. I think that employers forcing employees to make political statements is just flat-wrong. But I’m much more concerned about the Trump Party insurrection/fallout & what that means going forward. It’s a bigger threat to America than the former by a longshot.
Because the right wing propaganda machine will continuously scream about every perceived confrontation.
You almost had me in agreement until you included that last guy.
There was an opinion piece in our local paper last week, recounting how Reagan gutted funding for the University of California in 1967. Up until then, one of the finest educations in the world was virtually free for California residents. Reagan slashed their budget, forcing them to begin charging tuition…because he didn’t like the politics of UC faculty and students.
Republican hatred for public education goes back a long ways.
Is there room in the big tent for anti-Semitic bigots, for example?
Social media plays a big part in this impression. On social media it’s the most confrontational types who get amplified.
No. Occasionally some Democrats have said something anti-semitic (like Ilhan Omar a few years ago), but if they make a sincere apology (like Omar did), then that’s a good lesson for everyone of goodwill. Everybody makes mistakes, but good people can recognize their own mistakes and apologize for them.
If any Republicans sincerely apologize for and renounce their years of bigotry against gay people, that would be a wonderful thing and I think they’d be welcome at Pride events.
Her latest one was less than one month ago.
Cite? Googling just found some mundane statement that the US and Israel have committed atrocities, which is a factual statement and not anti-semitic in the least.
If you count any criticism of Israel as “anti-Semitism”, sure.