But “we” didn’t “agree,” ever, not on this point. The Supreme Court “agreed” for us, and short of impeaching a Supreme Court Justice, there’s no remedy for the people who weren’t given a chance to contribute to such “consensus.”
Does everybody have to abide by the same rules on abortion, or (following the S.C.'s recent discovery of a long-dormant right to sodomy), judicial prohibitions regarding restrictions of same? Yes, absent forcible revolt. So there’s 100% uniformity as to the positions that are at the moment politically available to Americans on these issues – if you don’t agree with five Justices of the Supreme Court (our national consensus-maker), your preferred policies are worth nothing. If you do, they sweep the table.
No, I don’t agree that this is a consensus in any meaningful sense. OED: “consensus – Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons.” That (the “unanimous” part) is even stronger than I remembered. But even if you water down “consensus” to “more people agree than not,” it’s hard to show that that’s true of a couple of your issues (again, I agree with you on many of the others for which you purport to find, I won’t call it consensus anymore, but a prevailing middle of the road agreement/acceptance). Manufactured consensus is no more worthy of deference or praise than manufactured consent.
I believe they are reasoning that since it didn’t work in 1983, it’s not going to work now. Personally, I don’t think it looks good for the future of this country if both parties are pro-war, but it does seem to be that way.
Ask Sen. Harry Reid, pro-life Democrat, and new Senate Minority Leader.
Sorry to pick out this one thing when you’ve added a whole lot of genuine substance to this thread (and I hope to have time later to come back and respond to some of what you’ve said) but I did want to point out that the Democratic tent clearly has room for pro-lifers, even near the top of the tent.
It’s certainly harder for pro-lifers to succeed in the Dem party, since the party as a whole is strongly pro-choice, but it can happen.
I keep hearing this, but I don’t think it’s true. On some issues, certainly; Big-budget welfare programs are gone, for instance. But consider:
– The president supports same-sex unions. Inconcievable in 1970. Yes, he opposes gay marriage; but the fact that it’s even an issue shows how far we’ve moved in 30 years.
– A lot of people were upset that the FCC cracked down on Howard Stern … but again, the controversy hides the fact that he routinely says things that he couln’t have even thought about saying on the air a generation ago. The censors in the 70s wouldn’t let Barbara Eden show a navel, and there were less people upset about that than there were people who had no problem with Janet Jackson flashing a boob.
– Is anyone seriously going to say women and minorities have’t made huge strides in the last 30 years? “Diversity” and “muticulturalism” weren’t even part of the vocabulary. My god, segregated schools were just becoming the norm.
– Does any cold-eyed realist think abortion is going away? There are far, far more pro-choice Republicans than pro-life Democrats; that should tell you the direction the wind’s blowing right there. The absolute worst-case scenario for pro-choice advocates is seeing Roe reversed in the SC … at which time it would fall to state legislatures and pass immediately in 40 of them.
Certainly there are more things one could name. Not, mind you that I’m saying that there has been a “liberal” trend. It’s both and neither.
IIRC, the constitutional amendment he supports would ban civil unions as well, prohibiting gays from receiving the rights of marriage even if it’s not called “marriage”.