One of my long-standing frustrations with the Democratic Party is they way they will happily campaign and fund-raise on all sorts of important issues, while rarely actually using their power to fight for them. One of the most egregious examples of this, in my opinion, has been the issue of abortion. Democrats have branded themselves as the party of reproductive rights, in contrast to the Republicans, for longer than I’ve been alive. For as long as I have been paying attention, they have been asking people for money to help in their “fight” to codify Roe v. Wade into law. They have also, for that entire time, consistently supported, funded, and conceded to anti-abortion members of their own party. This means that while they have nominally held power in the house, senate, and presidency, they have never made a serious attempt to actually pass a law protecting the right to abortion. Thanks to their definition of a “big tent”, they always have anti-choice party members to stand in the way.
The justification they give is that they have to support these people, in order to get power, and so they have to just give up on this issue every time they’re in power, and hey – if they’re in power, at least abortion rights are protected (except in red states where they’ve been all but eliminated already). They will attack their own in some cases, like when it comes to slandering members of their own party as antisemites for acknowledging the humanity and rights of Palestinians. They’ll play hardball when it comes to keeping someone like Bernie Sanders from winning their primary, and work through the night to fund the genocide Israel is committing, but when it comes to any actual progress, there is no principle they will not sacrifice to maintain their strategy of trying to win over “moderate” Republicans.
I think Nancy Pelosi said it best, when she told reporters that “we need a strong Republican Party”. The Democratic Party has only one real loyalty, from what I can tell, and that is to the status quo, and they are far more comfortable being “pulled” backwards by the GOP than they are working to move forwards. If they were driven by a desire to make things better, then they would constantly be running messaging campaigns about policies to give people more control over their own lives, and to make it easier to get by. They would use the power they have, when they have it, to push the envelope – to use executive power, or to try to pass things like a public healthcare option, or an explicit national right to abortion. In short, they would do the sort of thing the GOP does, except in service of the people, rather than in service to bigotry and the ruling class. They won’t do that, because they seem to view the very act of fighting for something, and of actually caring about something, to be a sign of extremism. They may or may not oppose a given Republican policy, but they won’t “stoop to their level” by putting the same amount of effort into their own claimed agenda. Anything can be sacrificed to gain power, except a “status quo” that seems to be forever stuck in the 1990s.
And so, of course, they have decided that the in the face of a GOP hate campaign, rights of LGBTQIA people are not worth fighting for, because doing so might read as “extreme” to the tiny sliver of the American population that has just about become the sole focus of their political machine. The GOP has fully embraced genocidal rhetoric and policy against trans people, and after a few years of halfhearted opposition from some Democrats and actual action at the state level by others, the national party has decided to just… concede that fight for now.
When Harris said, “I think we should follow the law” about trans rights in October, she did so knowing full well that “the law” is subject to change, if lawmakers want it to change. She also knew that the GOP was fighting to change the relevant laws. Her statement amounted to saying, “This is no longer a priority for us”, and the lackluster response to the GOP attack on Sarah McBride seems to confirm that. This comes at a time when the entire queer community is under attack, both legally and in propaganda. If the Democrats are abandoning that community, then it’s clearly time for LGBTQIA people and allies to change tactics.
Julia Serano has called for everyone with a platform to post something today with the title “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back”, in order to send a clear, coordinated message:
Despite the fact that there is no evidence that trans people pose any threat in sex-segregated spaces, only a handful of Democrats spoke out against this policy change. Even worse, many lauded incoming trans congresswoman Sarah McBride for agreeing to comply with it.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, Mace (who is now selling merch as part of her anti-trans crusade) has proposed a Federal Trans Bathroom Ban that would impact Washington DC airports, museums, and federal buildings across the U.S., impacting trans workers and visitors alike. And it’s clear that Republicans will not stop there.
In “red states” where Republicans have a trifecta (governor plus both state legislatures), they have passed all sorts of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. A quick glance at that legislation confirms that this is not about any isolated issue: Republican lawmakers who rail against trans athletes or gender-affirming care for trans youth are also pushing bans on trans healthcare for adults, “don’t say gay” bills that impact all LGBTQ+ students, drag bans written so broadly that they outlaw most LGBTQ+ performances and pride events, and attempts to censor books and digital media penned by all queer creators.
[…]
I propose that on Tuesday, December 3rd, 2024 (the first day that both the House and Senate are back in session), all of us who are invested in this issue and have a platform (whether it be a blog, newsletter, column, podcast, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, etc.) publish a piece with the shared title: “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.” Yes, I know, it’s a cheesy title, but it holds Democrats accountable to their own talking points and makes it clear that backsliding on LGBTQ+ rights is nonnegotiable for us.
What you write or say or express in your op-ed or article or video or podcast etcetera is up to you. I encourage you to make it personal and feel free to tailor it to your audience. My only request (other than all of us using the same title) is that you implore people to contact their Congressperson and Senators (and perhaps even local politicians) and tell them that 1) you will not tolerate any backpedaling on LGBTQ+ rights whatsoever, and 2) if they fail to strongly stand up against these attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, then you will take your vote elsewhere next election.
What does “take your vote elsewhere” entail?
Well, that’s up to each individual to decide for themselves. It could mean simply refusing to vote for them, or voting for their primary opponents, or voting third party. The purpose of this endeavor is not to dictate how you should vote in future elections, but to remind your representatives that your vote should not be taken for granted, and if they abandon LGBTQ+ people or backslide on LGBTQ+ rights, then they will pay a political price for that decision.
It looks like the coming years are going to be very dark indeed. It’s important to reach out to each other in the darkness, to remember that even if we can’t see any light, we are not alone, and by working together, we can find our way forward. Check out Serano’s post for more information, and post something yourself if you have a platform and the time. I’ve been a bit tuned out in the last few months, so I didn’t hear about this until yesterday, but it shouldn’t be hard to post something small, or even just the “title” on social media.
Hey, sorry about the long silence. I’ve been reshaping my life a lot in the last few months, and adjusting some of my priorities. I plan on posting more frequently in 2025, but probably with a slightly different approach than in the past. More essays, fewer reactions to news and events. Hang in there, everybody!
I’m so frustrated by this argument, so forgive any lapse in decorum. But when was there a time that Congressional Democrats could have taken steps to codify Roe v. Wade? Not within the last 24 years, so are you mad at Clinton-era Democrats or something before then?
There is very real damage to LGBTQ rights and health that the Republicans are now positioned to do because of Congressional control of federal agency funding and policy. And as milquetoast as some Democrats are about trans rights, that damage wouldn’t be possible without Republican control of both House and Senate. I think there’s a lot that Democrats do that they get no credit for, and a lot that they’re expected to do that they can’t possibly do without a Senate supermajority. Republicans have gotten extremely good at controlling narratives, and I worry about whether it will ever be possible to recover from the damage they’re about to deal. Much more concerned than I am about what Democrats say on Twitter about McBride.
i have been interested in the eocene thermal maximum – how it compares to the temps we’re going to reach and if that could help us guess at effects of global warming. next year?
@invivoMark – the point I’m trying to make is that they have not fought to make that possibility come about. They could commit to abortion rights, and run a long-term messaging campaign to sway more people to their side. They could fund pro-choice primary challengers, and play hardball with anti-choice democrats. They have also repeatedly said that it’s not a priority because Roe v. Wade guarantees rights. They could have fought to build a party that COULD pass that into law when they held Congress, and the White House, but instead they always keep people “in the party” who will stand in the way of any progressive legislation. What’s the point of having them to win, if it means giving up on the things you claim to want?
As to “Clinton-era Democrats”, yes. I’m still annoyed at them because they still run the party. The current president is Silent generation. Alsame people have been running that party for decades, and yes – I think they’re stuck in the 90s, which is why I have said as much. We are stuck with the Democratic Party that the Clinton era gave us, which doesn’t actually have all that much disagreement with the Republicans,
As to “what Democrats say on Twitter about McBride”, that’s kinda the point. When you tell a marginalized group, “We have more important things to deal with than your rights,” you are telling them they’re on their own. You mention the Democrats being bad at messaging, and some of that is just that they seem to think it’s beneath them to claim their victories, and do stuff like put their president’s name on checks sent out to people. Some of it is also things like their tendency to attack and belittle their own base for wanting universal healthcare or an end to US support for a genocide, and tell them that better things aren’t possible. To me, that seems like a bad approach to messaging.
@GAS – I’ll try to look into that and see if I can cobble anything useful together.
It takes a supermajority in the Senate to pass anything that the minority party considers a hard-line issue, and abortion is that for the Republicans. Your view on the Democrats’ strategy on abortion seems to be colored by a misunderstanding of this reality.
@4 invivoMark
Buckle up. These next four years we’re all about to see how devastatingly effective a simple majority is when a party actually cares about accomplishing something.
@beholder,
Everything Republicans are going to do will be through must-pass appropriations bills, agency leadership nominations, and judicial appointments.
None of that could have been used by Democrats to pass Roe v. Wade into law.
I feel like you didn’t actually read all of what I wrote. Even if they had a supermajority of Democrats, it wouldn’t matter, because it would include the anti-choice people that the national party helped get elected. Because abortion wasn’t a priority, and a lot of them seemed to be in denial about the danger of Roe v. Wade being overturned, given their absurd credulity in confirming Supreme Court judges.
They never actually TRIED to make it happen. They just fundraised off of it, and used some of those funds to support anti-choice politicians.
This what they’ve been doing for my entire life, on a whole bunch of issues. Whatever their fundraising materials say, they act like there is no urgency (unless it’s for things like weapons going to Israel), pretend the GOP are acting and arguing in good faith, and just kick the can down the road,
Because they will abandon any principle if they think it means they will win, even though that very behavior makes them less popular.
I’m not saying they were guaranteed to succeed, I’m saying they never actually tried, which guaranteed failure.
Could any of that have been used to further other items on their policy agenda?
As soon as you say “if they had a supermajority of Democrats,” we’re off to fantasy-land where nothing we say matters.
Democrats COULD NOT GET a supermajority in the Senate in the last 40 years, and restricting campaign funds for candidates that didn’t explicitly support abortion rights WOULD NOT have gotten them there either. So it makes NO DAMN SENSE WHATSOEVER to complain that Democrats never “tried” to pass it into law. It would have been impossible because there just aren’t the voters in 30 states of the US who value abortion rights that highly.
Could any of that have been used to further other items on their policy agenda?
YES, they could and they DID! Democrats have nominated many qualified and competent agency directors, appointed competent and reasonable judges, and maintained or increased the budgets of agencies to accommodate building infrastructure, creating inclusive policies, and addressing inequality.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Progress isn’t flashy and it doesn’t often catch headlines, but it happens and it’s dangerous to assume that it doesn’t.
The Senate supermajority debate is rendered moot by the observation that it would only take a simple majority in that chamber to abolish the filibuster.
Mark, they don’t TRY to make it catch headlines.
A while back, they passed a HUGE bill, early on in Biden’s term, and you know what they did instead of a PR campaign to draw attention to it?
They attacked Ilhan Omar as an antisemite. That was the headline. Not them saying “hey, look at this important thing they did, but rather “This Democratic member of Congress is an antisemite for pointing to Zionist influence in the US.”
If the Dems TRIED to make this stuff catch headlines, it would more than it does, but they clearly have other priorities.
Bush put his name on checks he sent out to everybody. Democrats refused to do anything like that despite opportunities.
There’s nothing stopping them from messaging more aggressively, except themselves
And the supermajority thing is irrelevant because it is a VOLUNTARY RULE for pretty much everything except changes to the constitution. They could have done a HUGE amount under Obama with their supermajority (minus one sick guy) except that they had INTERNAL party resistance, because they love supporting corporate assholes like Manchin or Liebermann.
With Manchin, for example, they could have run a primary challenger that focused on how Manchin’s family did stuff like increasing the price of EpiPens. They could play hardball but they only do that with people on the left, like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.
And as to progress – we have seen a regression in the last few years, specifically on issues that have been a major focus of the GOP, and now we’re poised to lose everything. They have been told to change tactics again, and again, and again, and again by the left, and they consistently tell those people that they’re “unreasonable” and “unrealistic”, and instead do shit like validating the GOP’s immigration lies and fearmongering, and attacking the Uncommitted voters for making their feelings clear.
Let me try a metaphor.
If this was a police shooting, you are talking about the 5 seconds in which the cop decides his life is in danger and opens fire. I an talking about everything leading up to that moment. The training, the lack of accountability, the decision of how to approach, and the escalation.
The Dems like to focus on the individual makeup of Congress after the election has happened, and on making sure everybody stays in line during the elections. People talk about “pushing them left”, but I’ve lived through a few of these cycles now, and that’s not a thing that happens. When people try to push the Dems left, they get lip service, like kneeling in Kente cloth, while campaigning on increasing police funding, or paying lip service to climate action while approving more fracking and oil licenses, and refusing to campaign on ending fossil fuel use.
They have no interest in creating a situation in which real change is easier. They don’t try to build up and support movements on the ground – like Uncommitted, or BLM, they see those as threats to be contained and controlled. That’s how they seem to view everything, and so we’re always stuck with that moment – the officer sincerely believed his life was in danger in that instant, so he was allowed to open fire, and no discussion of how that moment was created matters.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Which bill early on in Biden’s term? Which Democrats attacked Omar? And did they spend money attacking Omar? Because PR campaigns cost money.
The only things I can find accusing Omar of antisemitism are a resolution condemning her comments by House Republicans in 2019, House Republicans removing her from a committee in 2023, and a Republican effort to censure her in 2024. I don’t see anything from Democrats in 2021-2022.
Changing the filibuster rule would have almost certainly led to a national abortion ban in 2017, which would put us in a FAR worse position now than we are currently in, so I don’t take any suggestion that Democrats should have done that seriously.
You seem to be arguing that Democrats are intentionally losing, just because it gets them campaign donations, which is an absurd and conspiratorial belief. Most politicians don’t enjoy having to spend time and money campaigning, and losing elections means they lose their jobs, it means their staffers lose their jobs, and when Democrats don’t hold the majority it means they lose leadership positions and power on committees.
The far more reasonable reality is that Democrats want to win and accomplish their goals, but Republicans have been running extremely strong campaigns for the last two decades with messages of hatred and outrage that resonate with poorly educated and highly religious Americans, making it very difficult to make any kind of progress. Dumping money into a primary challenge for Manchin wouldn’t change that reality or give progressive Democrats any more power to accomplish their goals.
I’m talking about the American Rescue Plan, and the first round of attacks on Ilhan Omar because she said “all about the Benjamins” when talking about Zionist lobbying. When they should have been running a PR campaign about that bill, and putting Biden’s name on checks, party leadership was instead validating the Republican attacks on her. They issued a statement condemning her.
On the question of Manchin, they could try running a pro-union/pro-labor campaign focused on how coal barons like Manchin have been bleeding West Virginia dry, while living on a yacht, and the GOP is even worse. Maybe they wouldn’t win the first time around, but the point is to actually push against the people on the right, like they’re happy to do with people on the left.
As to whether the Dems are intentionally losing, I guess that’s a matter of definition and how isolated you think they are. Certainly the party leadership suffers little to no material harm from losing, and it does seem like they have harmed themselves in their eagerness to punch left, and undermine left populism. It could be that they genuinely believe what they’re doing works better. I absolutely believe a lot of these people could have their heads that far up their own asses, but I also think they’d rather lose than have actual left-wing populism take hold.
For one example, they don’t want universal healthcare, enough that they don’t want the political benefits of campaigning for it.
Do they believe those benefits don’t exist? I don’t know, but I know that at least some of the party leadership and politicians just don’t want it.
The same is true of things like eliminating student debt.
When it comes to climate change, it’s hard to say what they really believe or want, all I have to go with is the fact that they keep approving more fossil fuel extraction.
What is clear is that they do not actually share a lot of my policy goals.
Take just one of those Republican hate campaigns – the fearmongering over immigrants, and the demand to further militarize the border, get more authoritarian on rounding people up. What did the Democrats do? They said “there’s a huge crisis that needs this giant draconian border/immigration bill.” They basically SAID “Trump was right about the immigrants all along”.
Presumably they thought that would help them, politically, but it’s also worth noting that they were perfectly willing to have such a draconian law pass.
They also, as a party, are fine with funding a genocide, and demonizing anyone who opposes that genocide.
So which goals, specifically, do you believe they want to accomplish?
The US is in its current crisis because the right wing and their aristocratic backers have been working on a long-term strategy to undermine government function, take over the judiciary, and entrench right-wing, aristocratic power in the US government. The Democrats have no such strategy to the left, and no apparent interest in developing one. The simplest explanation is that they don’t actually want all of the things they sometimes campaign on, so they don’t bother actually laying out a strategy to get them, beyond “give us a nearly impossible level of control over the government, and then maybe we’ll do the good things this time.”