The Democratic Party Might Be Due For Some Changes

[Big RR]

Meade--I was responding to your assertion that the "liberal" view point is being rammed down the throat of citizens, and pointed out that conservatives not only seek to loudly raise their opinions, but to try and give it the force of law. "Liberals" generally try and promote their opinions and assure that all are treated equally under the law (assuring that no one is forced to have an abortion, enter into gay marriage, or is forced to listen to their religious teachings in government funded schools), conservatives tend to restrict the rights of others. The baker example you raise is quite different as no one is forced to be a baker nor is required to make wedding cakes or inscribe anything on the cakes at all, but if you are a registered business you must treat all equally. But le's save debating that for another thread, as we have been through it over and over again. Face it, the governemnt cannot (and should not) prohibiting anyone from mocking or ignoring opinions you express (not sure what silencing refers to--is it telling you to shut up? then it also cannot be prohibited), but it can assure we are all treated equally under the law, or at least it should.

[Sue U]

Having the head of state and the head of government embodied in one person seems like too much to me. Having a constitutional monarchy seems to work well in some places and I'm sure Her Maj could be talked into it.

Seriously though - I'm not a fan of monarchy but it does have the one advantage of being apolitical in theory.

I think that the US Presidency as practiced is a long way from that envisaged in the Constitution. It seems to me that the FFS wanted the Administration to administrate: the legislative branch sets out policy and goals and the Administration gets on with it. So the President would be akin to head of the civil service. Putting him (and of course it was always a him in their eyes) in charge of foreign relations may have been seen as a small matter in those days. Who in Delaware gave a shit about what was going on in Paris or Moscow in 1787?

Well, I think Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin were very concerned about what was going on in Paris and how it affected the US, and certainly the Napoleonic Wars had effects on American trade and vulnerability to British aggressions. But to the point, I am not at all sure it is necessary to separate the roles of head of state and PM, except to the extent a head of state may be desirable for ceremonial purposes and limited pro forma executive functions (e.g. dissolving parliament on a no-confidence vote or designating a party to form a government in the event of electoral tie/minority).

Meade--I was responding to your assertion that the "liberal" view point is being rammed down the throat of citizens, and pointed out that conservatives not only seek to loudly raise their opinions, but to try and give it the force of law. ... Face it, the governemnt cannot (and should not) prohibiting anyone from mocking or ignoring opinions you express (not sure what silencing refers to--is it telling you to shut up? then it also cannot be prohibited), but it can assure we are all treated equally under the law, or at least it should.

What BigRR said.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade--I was responding to your assertion that the "liberal" view point is being rammed down the throat of citizens, and pointed out that conservatives not only seek to loudly raise their opinions, but to try and give it the force of law.

Once again, you clothe semi-agreement with my central point as some kind of disagreement. The "liberal" viewpoint has ruled the roost for a long time now, and is given the force of law. The "conservatives" used to have the force of law; now not so much. But there is a reaction going on, as witnessed by almost 50% of the vote going to the disgusting Donald, despite his . . . one can only call it, anti-American antics. Why?

I explain it by saying that "liberals" have had it their way for so long that a hugely significant chunk of America is ready to throw y'all out. These people are sick of rioters not being jailed/shot (I don't say the latter is a good idea but hey . . . it might work). They are sick of being told marriage means man/man, woman/woman, youth/wombat. They are tired of the argument that murdering babies is not murdering babies. Local libraries should be allowed to keep the homeless out; vagrants should be jailed for shitting on the street. And I'm sure there's more - I don't follow their polemics that much. All these things are so because you (and many many others, to be sure) say they are so. Some day, more others might say they are not so - that equal protection does not mean privilege. That freedom is not license. As you get "your" way by controlling the legislatures, others have the equal right to get their way via the same route.

Your only argument is that "your" way is right and "their" way is wrong.

I have some sympathy with elements of those thoughts - or at least, an uncomfortable feeling that I might be wrong about many things. Four years from now, I might be willing to support a movement to shut down the social rubbishing of this country as long as it is legal and not 1933ish

[Gob]

You honestly believe that? From abortion, to the mandate to teach creationism (or intelligent design or whatever the new euphemism is), or gay rights, or ..., it appears the right (and associated land associated religious groups) try to do the same over and over again.

Religion has always used sex, and sexuality, as a weapon of control, and coercion, on the stupid and bigoted.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Religion has always used sex, and sexuality, as a weapon of control, and coercion, on the stupid and bigoted.

I didn't realize the stupid and bigoted paid any attention to religion.

[Gob]

I thought only they did.

[BoSoxGal]

Meade--I was responding to your assertion that the "liberal" view point is being rammed down the throat of citizens, and pointed out that conservatives not only seek to loudly raise their opinions, but to try and give it the force of law.

Once again, you clothe semi-agreement with my central point as some kind of disagreement. The "liberal" viewpoint has ruled the roost for a long time now, and is given the force of law. The "conservatives" used to have the force of law; now not so much. But there is a reaction going on, as witnessed by almost 50% of the vote going to the disgusting Donald, despite his . . . one can only call it, anti-American antics. Why?

I explain it by saying that "liberals" have had it their way for so long that a hugely significant chunk of America is ready to throw y'all out. These people are sick of rioters not being jailed/shot (I don't say the latter is a good idea but hey . . . it might work). They are sick of being told marriage means man/man, woman/woman, youth/wombat. They are tired of the argument that murdering babies is not murdering babies. Local libraries should be allowed to keep the homeless out; vagrants should be jailed for shitting on the street. And I'm sure there's more - I don't follow their polemics that much. All these things are so because you (and many many others, to be sure) say they are so. Some day, more others might say they are not so - that equal protection does not mean privilege. That freedom is not license. As you get "your" way by controlling the legislatures, others have the equal right to get their way via the same route.

Your only argument is that "your" way is right and "their" way is wrong.

I have some sympathy with elements of those thoughts - or at least, an uncomfortable feeling that I might be wrong about many things. Four years from now, I might be willing to support a movement to shut down the social rubbishing of this country as long as it is legal and not 1933ish

The indecency and inhumanity in this post are stunning. I am now disgusted I ever held you in any respect.

[Sue U]

Your only argument is that "your" way is right and "their" way is wrong.

You keep saying this but it is simply not true.The guiding principle of a free society is that individual liberty and freedom to act should be maximized; any restriction on such rights must be proportionally weighed and justified by the avoidance of specific identifiable harm to the society and its members, and any regulation must be narrowly tailored to target only the identified harm which cannot be avoided by other means. Of course any legislation regarding individual conduct is necessarily an exercise in line-drawing, but it is substantially more than "I'm right and you're wrong." If that were the case, "constitutionally guaranteed" rights would be meaningless for any minority, as rights would be solely a matter of majoritarian say-so.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Your only argument is that "your" way is right and "their" way is wrong.

You keep saying this but it is simply not true.The guiding principle of a free society is that individual liberty and freedom to act should be maximized; any restriction on such rights must be proportionally weighed and justified by the avoidance of specific identifiable harm to the society and its members, and any regulation must be narrowly tailored to target only the identified harm which cannot be avoided by other means. Of course any legislation regarding individual conduct is necessarily an exercise in line-drawing, but it is substantially more than "I'm right and you're wrong." If that were the case, "constitutionally guaranteed" rights would be meaningless for any minority, as rights would be solely a matter of majoritarian say-so.

s

I do understand. You believe that "(t)he guiding principle of a free society is that individual liberty and freedom to act should be maximized; any restriction on such rights must be proportionally weighed and justified by the avoidance of specific identifiable harm to the society and its members, and any regulation must be narrowly tailored to target only the identified harm which cannot be avoided by other means". And you believe you are correct to believe that. So, your way is right and an opposite belief is wrong.

Given Trump's loading of the SCOTUS with rightists, I believe it's possible that "constitutionally guaranteed" rights may change. After all, SCOTUS is the supreme (sorry) example of majoritarian say-so, no matter how much lipstick we put on the pig. All that penumbra stuff is extended interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; it's susceptible to drastic alteration, just as it has been since the late 1700s. The Democrats need to win back ordinary people who feel disenfranchised by elites (left and right).

BSG, Cassandra wasn't popular either. Guess I can live with your failure to understand things. Or more likely, being so blinded by assumed anger that you can't read what is actually written. I'm telling you what I see and hear - Democrats have pushed people away with sanctuary cities, the elevation of filth (other than Trump) to the detriment of decent folks (not a code word) and similar equivalents of "defunding". If you don't believe it, ask 73 million of your fellow citizens of whom you also do not approve. Nor do I, for that matter, most of 'em anyway.

[Big RR]

I explain it by saying that "liberals" have had it their way for so long that a hugely significant chunk of America is ready to throw y'all out.

I don't know what country you live in, but it is not the USA. What laws have assured the liberals have "their way"? I've seen the right, often under the guise of religion, use the law to restrict abortion rights by limiting who may perform abortions and where they may be performed, often winding up that they cannot be performed in many areas. I have seen the right pass a multitude of laws to prevent same sex marriage (including the federal (poorly entitled) defense of marriage act); I have seen the right enacting moment of silence laws to bring prayer back into schools and using local boards of education and laws to force schools to teach creationism or intelligent design. And none of these directly affected anyone on the right--no one is forced to have an abortion or nter into a same sex marriage (or require any religious insititution to recognize them), or to provide religious instruction of whatever they believe in their churches, but still they persisted in enacting laws to control others--where are all these laws from the liberals who have "had their way for so long"?

[Sue U]

I do understand. You believe that "(t)he guiding principle of a free society is that individual liberty and freedom to act should be maximized; any restriction on such rights must be proportionally weighed and justified by the avoidance of specific identifiable harm to the society and its members, and any regulation must be narrowly tailored to target only the identified harm which cannot be avoided by other means". And you believe you are correct to believe that. So, your way is right and an opposite belief is wrong.

Do you have some "opposite belief"? Because if you do, it is opposite to the bedrock principle on which the US and A is premised. If you oppose that principle, then this may not be the society for you. The principle applies whether one is liberal or conservative, capitalist or socialist, religious or atheist.

Given Trump's loading of the SCOTUS with rightists, I believe it's possible that "constitutionally guaranteed" rights may change. After all, SCOTUS is the supreme (sorry) example of majoritarian say-so, no matter how much lipstick we put on the pig. All that penumbra stuff is extended interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; it's susceptible to drastic alteration, just as it has been since the late 1700s. The Democrats need to win back ordinary people who feel disenfranchised by elites (left and right).

If "SCOTUS is the supreme (sorry) example of majoritarian say-so," then there would be no point in doctrines of precedent and stare decisis under which the courts operate. That is why courts write lengthy opinions providing the justifications for their decisions in the contexts of the statutory texts, practical effects, existing jurisprudence, historical origins and current/future needs. When courts abandon principled and thoughtful justification in favor of majoritarian say-so, they lose legitimacy as arbiters of constitutional questions and become just another house for partisan political squabbles. And the efforts of the current Administration and its Senatorial enablers to do precisely that are explicit and obvious. Which is why idiots such as the President are twattering about how "his" appointees will ultimately decide the election for him and others are posting memes celebrating the death of one justice or asserting that another is somehow the "new master" of the President Elect.

You may think that "all that penumbra stuff is extended interpretation," and that may be due to either the inadequate justifications employed by the Supreme Court when writing its opinions (if you have read them) or the spin that certain commentators use to undermine them in the public's perception. Nevertheless, I doubt you could find any American who does not believe there is a fundamental right to privacy as one of the unenumerated rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

[BoSoxGal]

There are no abortion services in 80% of American counties.

The liberals have definitely not had their way, they have barely hung onto great society gains in the backlash years since Reagan and Schlafly took the stage, gay marriage notwithstanding. We have enjoyed the veneer of ‘progress’ by PC language and culture as depicted in the media, and a victory here and there, all while the whole works was being gummed up with conservatives from local to state government and all through the judiciary so that in fact most people’s day to day lives are still subject to a great deal of rule of the minority, in point of fact.

[MajGenl.Meade]

There are no abortion services in 80% of American counties.

The liberals have definitely not had their way, they have barely hung onto great society gains in the backlash years since Reagan and Schlafly took the stage, gay marriage notwithstanding. We have enjoyed the veneer of ‘progress’ by PC language and culture as depicted in the media, and a victory here and there, all while the whole works was being gummed up with conservatives from local to state government and all through the judiciary so that in fact most people’s day to day lives are still subject to a great deal of rule of the minority, in point of fact.

I can see that. It's not the thing itself but the perception of the thing, I'd guess.

Sue; no, I don't have an opposite belief (hence the doubt I expressed more than once). I admit to being unsure of the right to privacy . . . one that is being undermined by the internet minute by minute. I've often thought it would be best if all/most things were public (except behaviors perhaps ). It's because things are hidden that people lose power over their own lives and surrender that power to others. Or because they are hidden (Trump's tax returns, etc. - not just him) that people get away with criminality and downright dishonesty. Not sure about cellphone numbers and definitely not SSN and other info like that. . . tricky

Corporately, wouldn't it be best if everyone knew what everyone else was paid? One example. Socially, could it hurt? I won't go so far as to have red/green lights on people's foreheads for lie/truth (was that TZ?).

[Crackpot]

What we are touching on here has been the genius of the Right wing in my lifetime. They do not fight the lefts excesses (at least not effectively) as it serves as a good recruitment tool for their side. At the same time thier policy and legislative agendas attack and erode the middle and moderate left. Which pushes the partisans farther left and either disenfranchises centrists and moderates or sends them tentatively twward the right. Neither party is fighting for the center anymore.

[Sue U]

I admit to being unsure of the right to privacy . . . one that is being undermined by the internet minute by minute.

I don't know if you're being facetious, but that's not what a "right to privacy" is.The constitutional right to privacy means that the government cannot intrude into your bedroom to tell you whether or when to use contraception, or how to have sex or with whom you may have sex (as consenting adults); nor can it intrude into your doctor's office to dictate your healthcare choices; nor can it observe you or listen in to your conversations in settings where people would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you choose to avail yourself of the internets and its private commercial applications, it is also your choice to divulge as much personal information to those private commercial actors as you are willing to -- and they may in turn do with it what they will unless a public law or private contract provides otherwise.

I've often thought it would be best if all/most things were public (except behaviors perhaps ). It's because things are hidden that people lose power over their own lives and surrender that power to others. Or because they are hidden (Trump's tax returns, etc. - not just him) that people get away with criminality and downright dishonesty. Not sure about cellphone numbers and definitely not SSN and other info like that. . . tricky

Corporately, wouldn't it be best if everyone knew what everyone else was paid? One example. Socially, could it hurt? I won't go so far as to have red/green lights on people's foreheads for lie/truth (was that TZ?).

I don't disagree with you, but people value their financial privacy for reasons both rational and ir-. Maybe it's embarrassment that they aren't richer or paid better or more secure. Maybe it's embarrassment that they are. But again, absent a compelling governmental interest, I think it's an individual's choice as to what personal information they might make public.

What we are touching on here has been the genius of the Right wing in my lifetime. They do not fight the lefts excesses (at least not effectively) as it serves as a good recruitment tool for their side. At the same time thier policy and legislative agendas attack and erode the middle and moderate left. Which pushes the partisans farther left and either disenfranchises centrists and moderates or sends them tentatively twward the right. Neither party is fighting for the center anymore.

What, exactly, are "the left's excesses"? Introducing a universal healthcare system like every other industrial democracy has (but now with 40% more capitalism!)? Suggesting that the super-rich and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes? Proposing free or highly subsidized higher education? These are normal centrist positions everywhere esle in the world. By constant media barrage, the far right has succeeded normalizing its extremism so that it is now not only acceptable but commonplace to call Obama a "Marxist," Biden and Harris "socialists" and sitting members of Congress "communists." If you don't subscribe to laissez faire capitalism, you are a Radical Leftist! As to more "cultural" issues, how is marriage equality "excessive"? How is recognition of the value of Black lives "excessive"? How is a demand for de-militarization and a re-thinking of policing "excessive"? I refuse to give in to the misguided narrative that the Democrats somehow need to court "the middle," because -- absent the phony right-wing hysteria -- the Democrats are about as middle-of-the-road as they could possibly get -- and that is actually one of my major problems with that party.

[Guinevere]

Sign me up for what Sue (who is in my head again) and BigRR had to say. I'll not repeat it, except to say, Meade, you sound really cranky and stressed out. Take a deep breath, a walk, so some mediation, watch the clouds, have a sip of wine. Something. I hope your getaway is relaxing and enjoyable.

[BoSoxGal]

Democrats in the USA at present (Biden included) are actually equivalent to center right in most other advanced developed nations.

[Crackpot]

The over obsession with political correctness. Defund the police even “white privilege” (Which while technically accurate alienates the same people they are trying to convince). The right loves these unforced errors and uses them to recruit moderates to their side.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The constitutional right to privacy means that the government cannot intrude into your bedroom to tell you whether or when to use contraception, or how to have sex or with whom you may have sex (as consenting adults); nor can it intrude into your doctor's office to dictate your healthcare choices; nor can it observe you or listen in to your conversations in settings where people would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Sue, well that yes, Of course. Super conservative values there. A person's home is its castle and so on. I have been desperately under the weather for two days; dry cough, temperature, aching bod, fear of the lurgy. Yesterday Doc le Roux decided it wasn't, which is a relief and I'm loaded down with medicaments and unguent, including some delicious codeine-infested cough syrup. Definitely crabby.

[TPFKA@W]

The constitutional right to privacy means that the government cannot intrude into your bedroom to tell you whether or when to use contraception, or how to have sex or with whom you may have sex (as consenting adults); nor can it intrude into your doctor's office to dictate your healthcare choices; nor can it observe you or listen in to your conversations in settings where people would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Sue, well that yes, Of course. Super conservative values there. A person's home is its castle and so on. I have been desperately under the weather for two days; dry cough, temperature, aching bod, fear of the lurgy. Yesterday Doc le Roux decided it wasn't, which is a relief and I'm loaded down with medicaments and unguent, including some delicious codeine-infested cough syrup. Definitely crabby.

If not the lurgy, possibly the epizootic. Drink plenty fluids and rest. No charge for the dx nor the rx.