Seems to me this issue results from a much larger one: many Americans still don’t have access to the healthcare they need. I can’t imagine this question being a big deal in the UK: prisoners in jail can join the long queue for NHS treatment alongside everyone else. But criminals getting treatment to improve their quality of life, that is not necessary for survival, while law abiding, taxpaying citizens cannot access the equally or more necessary treatment they need is bound to rankle. Addressing this larger issue is what I would have suggested as an answer.
“The issue here is not hormones and surgery for transgender prisoners, it’s that law abiding Americans are often not able to access or afford the care they need. And here is our plan for changing that, to make sure every diabetic can afford insulin, and everyone disabled by arthritis can get the surgery they need to get back on their feet…”
At the moment … I can’t think of a way to explain it better. Except maybe to note that Kuo’s tactic, from the Democratic side, never directly addresses the voters or asks them to care less about anything (or do/think anything else, for that matter). Short of that, perhaps Kuo’s tactic is better grasped intuitively than through reason – it fundamentally is an emotional appeal.
What might be happening here, in this thread, is that you feel that a Democrat not directly debating a Trumpian Bogeyman automatically looks bad for the Democrat, every time and without fail. While I can’t prove otherwise with facts and evidence … I don’t think a Democrat using Kuo’s tactic would automatically look bad. But now we’re in the province of opinion, where we just disagree about this matter and there’s no common ground for understanding.
This kind of statement could be part and parcel of Kuo’s tactic. Not obligatory, but it could fit. Only that you don’t lead with it immediately – you emphatically call out the Trumpian Bogeyman first.
I’m wondering whether our disconnect in communication here is much deeper. There are plenty of issues that I think are important, and also that are outside my area of expertise. Consider:
How many legs, and of what composition, should a moon lander have?
Should schools be K-5, 6-8, and 9-12, or K-6, 7-9, and 10-12?
What care is medically necessary for incarcerated individuals?
On all of these issues, absent clear reason not to do so, I want politicians to stay the fuck out, and delegate the decisions to the professionals in the field. It’s not that these are unimportant issues, it’s that politicians aren’t the ones qualified to make these decisions.
Are there issues that you both think are important and think are outside your area of expertise? Or is a delegation to professionals for you only possible for issues you don’t care about?
I’ve tried every way I know to say that it’s not that these issues are unimportant, it’s that they’re not the issues we should be discussing on a national level: there are more important issues for politicians to take up, issues that are in the politicians’ appropriate wheelhouse. Culture war issues like gender affirming surgery in prisons are things that should be delegated to professionals. It’s not that they’re unimportant, it’s that they’re distractions.
At this point, I don’t see much productive conversation in further responses to posts that so vastly misrepresent what I say. And I think that’d be a good strategy for national Democrats, too: when culture war aficionados keep harping on things and misrepresenting (deliberately or otherwise) Democrats’ positions, change the conversation, critique that strategy, and pivot to the important issues.
This is EXACTLY WHAT THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN DOING SINCE 2015 OR SO when we decided that if we just cancel anyone who says shit we don’t like, their ideas will magically be defeated without us having to sully ourselves by ‘platforming’ them.
In case you haven’t noticed, this strategy got us two Trump terms (so far). If it wasn’t for the worst pandemic in 100 years, Trump would have probably won in 2020, too. It does not fucking work.
Back in the Bush era, Left leaning people on this board were obsessed with the phrase “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”. And now, here you are, advocating that we do the same moronic shit that hasn’t worked since 2016, and you expect it to work now? WHY?
I think LHOD was casting about a bit – in the ballpark, but not putting his finger on quite the right tactic. I further though that Kuo’s tactic is a refinement and improvement on what LHOD was suggesting.
Precisely. And thus such issues should not become planks in a Democratic presidential campaign. Further, the Trumpian candidate should not be allowed to dictate the planks in the opposing campaign.
Not at all what I’m saying. I just did a cursory search of my posts in this thread to make sure I didn’t misspeak at some point, and I can’t find anywhere I said “I don’t care” or “voters shouldn’t care.” Saying an issues is much smaller than other issues and should be left to professionals is not the same thing as saying I don’t care. It’s saying it shouldn’t be a major topic of conversation.
For what it’s worth, I do have an opinion about how trans folks participation in sports should be handled. It’s not what either side is mostly talking about, and it’s not in my wheelhouse, so I’m not offering it.
Sure, technical issues. “What should the role of government be in providing medical care to prisoners” isn’t a technical question, like your moon lander examples. Neither is the question of how schools should be split up; that’s absolutely something the electorate could have a say on.
“What is gender affirming care and how is it performed” is a technical question best left up for the doctors. “What level of care should the government provide” is not a technical question, it’s a political one.
Sure; technical issues, like “how is gender affirming surgery performed”, are up to doctors.
That is fine for your opinion, but you don’t get to decide what the electorate focuses on. If the electorate cares about something, you can repeat that there are more important issues to focus on at a national level until you’re blue in the face, but it’s up to the electorate if they decide you represent their interests once you’ve done so, and experience seems to show that when Democrats ignore what the electorate cares about, they fail electorally.
Not at the presidential level, but in the 2019 Louisiana governor’s race, incumbent centrist Democrat John Bel Edwards defeated Trumpian candidate Eddie Rispone. Rispone ran television ads about such topics as number of genders (" … there’s only two genders"). I’d have to research a bit to find quote and such from both candidates.
I hesitate a bit to research this example and research for others, because it’s too easy to reply “You’ve found me a rock … now find me ten more” or “You’ve found me a rock, but it’s the wrong one”. If Kuo’s tactic doesn’t make sense to you, then so be it. It’s merely my opinion that his tactic makes sense – I’m not trying to win a debate here.
This is a classic “correlation does not equal causation” error, of the subcategory “My preconceptions will be confirmed by political outcomes whenever possible.” Experience seems to show me that when Democrats don’t pivot to a clear plan for universal healthcare, they fail electorally, and it has nothing to do with how they approach the handful of trans athletes.
This is not about trans athletes. This is about the electorate, including the Democrats’ own base, indicating they care about various issues - yes, trans athletes, but also the border, inflation, and a dozen other issues - that Democrats decide to dismiss rather than engaging with. The problem isn’t trans athletes; that’s just one example of a pattern of behavior Democrats have that is extremely counterproductive.
