That’s a good question. iiandyiiii and Sunny Daze seem to be, but I’m not sure that’s an answer to my question. How does Franken resigning “allow the fascists to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat”? Are you saying you’re worried that there are additional Democrats who have sexually assaulted women, and urging Franken to resign establishes this precedent that will bite them in the ass when those additional assaults come to light? Is that your concern?
Well then enjoy being stuck with the consequences of a fascist party. Maybe you forgot what happened at the polls in November 2016.
At least some of us are. I’d also like to point out that some Republicans are too. There are Republicans calling for Roy Moore to bow out, which at this stage gives the race to the Democrat. (Some of them later than others, and for a variety of reasons, but they are willing to give up the seat.)
Fascist? Ridiculous hyperbole.
I’m confused on this one too. How does holding Al Franken accountable lead us to a fascist victory?
Well, of course, we can say it right out loud. If any bunch of men is likely to be testosterone addled grope fiends, its gonna be the Dems.
But, see, i might very well mount my principled high-horse and risk the health insurance for millions of other people, but it won’t be mine. So maybe I might want to consider what they might think of my highly principled moral stand.
My ideology doesn’t overrule my humanity, my ideology is my humanity.
There are good people in both parties, as well as people who think that character doesn’t matter, or that your ideology IS the most important part of your character.
Moore makes it so easy though. He’s a first rate asshole and likes little girls. It’s a little harder most of the time.
Abolitionism grew outside the 2 party system. Northern Democrats and Whigs shunned them. Southern politicians from those parties were offended that abolitionists weren’t simply lynched on the other side of the Mason-Dixon Line. Even when “Republican” stopped being a claim of independence from the major parties and they started to work together they quietly asked well known abolitionists not to join the new Republican Party. Even though nearly all of them were opposed to slavery personally.
Open opposition in the North certainly was important in bringing about a crisis of slavery. (Though not as important as the resistance of the African captives and their descendants themselves in laying bare the lie that they were suited to slavery.) But the crisis came to a head with politicians like Lincoln espousing more moderate views such as an end to slavery in new states.
So it’s not a great example but that doesn’t proves you wrong. Political realities will rear their ugly heads but standing up for our values makes for great rallying cries. Maybe you are right. I wish you weren’t going to start by throwing my favorite politician on the scrap heap.
Because much of the Republican party and much of its voting base supports authoritarianism, with the proviso that oppresses everyone but themselves. But that is not how authoritarianism works: once you allow people to abuse democracy for some, that wellspring will be poisoned for all.
In no way am I endorsing Franken’s conduct, and in principle I have no issue with a Democratic governor replacing a Democratic senator. The problem I see is that Democrats could be setting themselves up to fall into a trap of trying to cleanse their party for moral purity, which could backfire. Sexual conduct is a great talking point for the Republican fascists because their voters in their deep red districts have immunized them from incrimination whereas their Democratic counterparts are still susceptible. Talking about sex is also a great tool for distraction. It keeps Democrats talking about culturally acceptable conduct and morality, rather than on their strong suits like economics.
Liberals calling for a hard and fast line against sexual harassment have a new test to contemplate, in some pretty serious and credible allegations about John Conyers.
This guy has survived various ethical transgressions over the years, and remains something of a liberal and African-American political icon. But people are saying sexual harassment is different. Willing to take him down? (Especially if he maintains significant A-A support?)
Was with you 100% up to the word “fascist.” Situation is complicated enough without resorting to hyperbole.
Glad to see in today’s paper that Franken’s staff says he has no intention of resigning, and that Senate Dems are not urging him to do so, so long as he complies with the ethics investigation. (Of course, I realize that since I read the print newspaper, they are reporting yesterday’s news!:))
In the end, the truth comes out. Conservatives are exposed as hypocrites when it comes to sexual propriety generally; progressives are exposed as hypocrites when it comes to defending women in the workplace. I suppose the floodgates have opened and we’re going to be hearing of some interesting names over the coming weeks and months. Prepare to be disappointed. Prepare to have some congressional races flipped.
This wouldn’t change my opinion at all. Even if Conyers were in a swing district (which I’m pretty sure he’s not).
In the case of Conyers the issue is not his seat but alienating the CBC.
Of course, one solution would be for the Democrats to put candidates up for vote who don’t have a past history of sexual harassment. Or is that too much to ask? I think this is also a good lesson for all of us-- be wary of famous celebrities who jump into politics. Don’t be so surprised when it turns out they have exhibited behaviors that entitled famous people sometimes think they can get away with.
I think it is. How in the world are “the Democrats” supposed to know in advance which candidates will turn out to have a past history of sexual abuse? It’s not like they’re putting up people with known histories.
Parties have vetting processes. Beef them up if needed.
Will it be 100% effective? Of course not. No process ever is. You make it better, though, when it’s not working the way it should.
Well…couldn’t they ask them as part of the vetting process (fairly sure they do this already)? Sure, they could lie. But it could be stated that any candidate who has lied about this will unceremoniously be thrown under the bus if that happens.
Of course, this brings up false accusations or ones politically driven, so it’s probably not that easy. But I think in the past and up to today, a lot of this stuff was known ahead of time and swept under the rug by folks who thought that those things would never come to light (or if they did, they would just pay them off to keep them quiet).
Icon or not, it doesn’t change my stance either.
Realistically, this isn’t a new stance. Most politicians confronted with a sex scandal step down. (I said “most”, because there have been exceptions.) What seems to be different right now is the pace at which allegations of sexual misconduct are being made.
I believe that the Left can simultaneously demand higher standards from their representatives and candidates while resisting authoritarianism is this country. I don’t believe that holding our candidates to high standards will result in weaker candidates or a weaker party; the opposite, in fact. Finally, the word “cleanse” that you use conjures visions of McCarthyism or witch hunts, wherein we search out the impure amongst us. I don’t see that happening.
It would take enormous resources to do that, especially for people who start at the lower levels and have established connections by the time they run for higher office.
From a purely political standpoint, it is working the way things are now. Both the Republican and Democratic parties face the same dynamic and are in the same situation regarding candidates with hidden flawed pasts. As long as neither party comes up with a practical way to get around this issue, the other can do similar and the issue is politically neutral (in aggregate).
Guys in safe seats with strong support from major core constituencies - a description that would fit Conyers, much like Charles Rangel - frequently don’t step down. So the question is how far the Democratic leadership would go to push him out.