Wednesday, December 13, 2017

A few morning-after thoughts

It says much about the state of our culture that we're astonished by the victory of a decent, well-qualified Dem over an accused child molester. Even before the WP first published the investigative piece which sealed Roy Moore's fate, he was considered a bizarre character -- bizarre even by Alabama standards.

This race should not have been this close. The fact that it was close must force Democrats to rethink their strategies.

In order to defeat Trump and the fascist revival, Democrats need more wins in purple and red states. In other races, Democrats won't run against accused molesters. We cannot expect the gods of politics to keep tossing Roy Moores at us.

Losers don't legislate. In many parts of the country, "progressive purists" will always lose. So we need to define areas where purity can be compromised. I propose these three:

1. Abortion. I know that the very mention of this word will set off feminists, who will no doubt want to recite a pro-abortion speech that I have heard many (MANY) times since the 1970s. Please don't bother. I already agree with every word of that speech. If women lose the right to choose abortion, the nation will suffer a great tragedy. I also strongly support Planned Parenthood.

But: As paradoxical as it may seem, a woman's right to have an abortion faced less danger back in the days when the Democratic party made room for a nearly-extinct creature called the anti-abortion Democrat. In order to comprehend this paradox, you must remember that, on this issue, the great danger comes not from Congress but from the Supreme Court. If women lose the right to choose abortion, the Court will be to blame.

A Democratic majority in the Senate means that a Republican president cannot expect an ultra-conservative zealot to sail through the confirmation hearings. A Democratic senator who opposes abortion is still likely to vote against a far-right nominee if a Democratic Senate Majority Leader says no way to that nominee. Although arms may need some twisting and horses may need to be traded, any Dem, even a rather conservative Dem, will probably hew to the party line. Probably. A Republican won't. Definitely.

I agree with those who argue that, in the days of Reagan and the Bushes, top-level Republican strategists were not serious in their opposition to abortion. The issue always helped to herd evangelicals and conservative Catholics into the polling booths; the actual abolition of abortion rights would have hurt the GOP in subsequent elections. Such was the old dynamic. I suspect that this dynamic no longer holds, and that the Bannonites have a genuine desire to see Roe reversed. If that's true, then we have all the more reason to fight like hell for a blue Senate, which means that we must support Dems who may not be our preferred shade of blue.

(As the reader may have noted, I refuse to employ the commonly-heard euphemisms "right to life" and "pro-choice." Since the word "fuck" is now heard in places where it once was considered unspeakable, why should we shiver in supernatural fear of the word "abortion"?)

2. Religion. Few things have been so destructive to the Democratic brand as the ludicrous conflation of liberalism with the neo-atheist movement. In particular, I am appalled by the growing perception (pushed by Bill Maher, Greg Proops and others) that one cannot be a proper progressive unless one embraces the "mythicist" position of the historicity of Jesus. This position is shared by no academic specialists in first century history -- even though most of these historians are not very religious, and many are agnostics and atheists. In other words, the mythicists occupy a "fringe" position analogous to that of the climate change denialists: Neither viewpoint commands any scholarly respect. Yet mythicism and progressivism have become, in the minds of many, closely related concepts.

(Bart Ehrman, who hovers between agnosticism and atheism, wrote a book explaining why every university-level religious historian does not question the fact that Jesus existed. This book infuriated many "new atheists." I recently heard a podcast in which Ehrman had to answer a mythicist assault on his credentials. Bart Ehrman teaches history at an ivy league university! Meanwhile, the primary "apostle" of mythicism is a ludicrous, fringe-dwelling dolt who writes under the cringe-inducing name of Archaya X.)

In my view, the Democratic party should welcome people of all religious faiths and all levels of faith, including the lack of religious belief. From the perspective of hard-nosed, pragmatic politics, Dems should do everything possible to encourage committed Christians to run in contests in the red states. The last Democratic presidential candidate to do well in the south was Jimmy Carter in 1976, whose "born again" Christianity seemed novel, even exotic, on the national stage in that year. (The novelty has since worn off.) Although we're very unlikely to see another 1976, I still think that southerners are more likely to vote "D" if the candidate flaunts his faith.

I am not particularly pious, and I often find religious zealots annoying -- yet I would happily support a Dem who bleeds on Easter Sunday if doing so gets us closer to the goal of turning Congress blue. The Mueller probe is in mortal peril, which means that we need real congressional investigations of Trump. Congress must go blue or fascism will triumph.

3. Guns. Personally, I favor modest regulations in this area, such as background checks and the closing of the "gun show loophole." But we must face facts: Gun control is a toxic issue in the red and purple states.

That said, even a Democrat who hews to the NRA line will be accused of favoring Total Gun Confiscation. Many rural voters believe that anyone who has a D next to his or her name is a gun-grabber. Trump successfully convinced many that Hillary Clinton would somehow rescind the Second Amendment, even though she has never voiced a desire to do so, and even though she would not have had the power to do so.

Do they still teach civics in high school? Americans are more politically engaged than ever before, yet few Americans understand how our system works.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

The most important lesson is that black women are the most politically savvy, committed group of people in this country. Bernie catered to Guns owners all his political life, he wouldn't be a senator without their money. Yet it seems that doesn't hurt him one bit with progressive. Also, the Berns didn't like jones

CambridgeKnitter said...

I don't mind your not using the term "pro-life", since I find it a lot like current usage of the term "patriot", co-opted by the right wing when they don't merit it. However, you should strongly reconsider the term "pro-abortion". It needlessly puts the emphasis on one of the possible choices, when I think the important part is having the choice. Additionally, it makes it sound as though abortion is being pushed or even forced on people, and that is hardly the case. You have rightly recognized the importance of how we express ourselves. I think this choice of yours doesn't meet your own standard.

Mr Mike said...

2018 will tell us if the Bernie-bros&hos learned anything. The barometer leading up will be the recognition the Justice Democrats get. Or is it Democrats for Justice, IDC. The ones wanting to get rid of Feinstein and Boxer.

Marc McKenzie said...

You knocked it out of the park here, Joseph--well done.

joseph said...

I think you have misidentified the problem. Anti-abortion single issue voters simply will not be a part of the Democratic party. For those who are not, Casey for example, we can at least have a conversation about the issue. I don't think anyone is telling them they can't be Democrats. Same with religion, believe that Moses, Jesus and Mohammed actually existed and no one cares. What I, and many liberals find objectionable, are those who wrap the notion of God around themselves and then ignore the ethical teachings of religion. There are many Democrats who believe in private gun ownership, the difference being that Democrats want to be able to rationally discuss the issue. The more important thing for Democrats to do is to level with voters. Democrats, at least since FDR, have represented labor while Republicans have represented business. When labor gets too strong, there is the possibility of anarchy, but when business gets too strong there is the reality of feudalism. And with what is going on now, with Republicans representing only the obscenely rich and business, oligarchy and feudalism will be the result. The Democrats have to further explain that there is a tremendous change going on, as explained in Future Shock and we had best be prepared for it, that jobs are disappearing to robots and we had best learn had to live in a brave new world, and that the depression, which seems to be the condition of the masses, will not be cured by convincing ourselves that we are better than our fellow citizens.



































































































Matt@Occidentalism.org said...

Why can't democrats run against "accused child molesters"? All you need is to get some women to come forward with some unprovable but also ubfalsifiable allegations that something happened 40 years ago. That's how accusations work.

Bob Harrison said...

Here's a piece from a blog post I wrote in 2005:
"...Rather than bemoaning the ignorance of the Southern voter, why not give up a few trivial positions and win the majority back? Of course, what I may characterize as trivial is certainly not going to be so with everyone, but compared to the larger issues of looting the Treasury, high crimes in the White House, and the lives lost in Iraq, I certainly don't think these positions amount to much..."
Unlike some drifty types, I will not claim every liberal idea since the dawn of time began with me.
Needless to say, I agree with you said.