Archive of an article in dhblog blog
So perhaps the nation didn't want to give Mass-a-two-shits a trifecta: superbowl, world series, and a president... all in 1 year. And though, in retrospect, I woulda swapped the first two for the last, that trade wasn't being offered.
So what now?
It would appear that progressives, liberals, or whatever groups ally with the democrats, need to rethink their strategy. There just isn't enough votes going our way, and its not getting better. In consideration of so what now, we need to think about basics. Lots of basics.
One basic is: what direction to go? Perhaps that is too naive, perhaps there are more fundamental questions. Nevertheless, one can identify two basic directions.
Since McGovern's loss of '72, plan 1 seems to be operative. And it seems to have
failed in just the way predicted: it has led to a continual rightward drift of
In addition, plan 2 is more conducive to a coherent workd view. Plan 1 yields endless compromises, all within a constrained and bloodless language. A rhetorical style that just doesn't excite the imagination of the casual voter, that leaves the casual voter emotionally unimpressed. Plan 2 is much more flexible, and thrives in a coherent world-view of the government correcting the venality and corruptions that our inevitable in a society driven by distant corporate powers.
Really? Really? Is this move-to-the-left really going to attract those culturally conservative working/middle class voters into a progressive coalition. Or is something more needed? Do the cultural liberals have to give up something, to compromise something of real importance.
Let's consider issues where compromises might be made.
This argument is especially convincing in the earliest stages, such as within the first 60 days where all you have is a mass of undifferentiated cells. Where the only uniquely human attribute is the genetics of the cells. At the extreme, say the third trimester, it becomes extremely unconvincing to claim that the fetus is not human -- it can survive (with difficulty) outside the womb.
So the compromise is this: can we limit when abortion is permitted, below the current third trimester cutoff? Say, no restrictions in first 10 weeks, and major restrictions until week 16.
Would this satisfy the life-begins-at-conception crowd? At least in the sense they get something? Probably not, but who knows.
The alternative is to swallow hard and ban abortion, even though its just wrong to do so. That would require one heck of a commitment to social justice, etc. by a significant fraction of the right-to-lifers. I'm dubious that enough of them really exist (otherwise progressives who now are single-issue anti-abortionists).
Perhaps there is a compromise: randomly chosen prayer/philosophy, where the set from which it is chosen is determined by all the parents (of kids). Thus, on any given day one might hear a catholic catechism, or something from the torah, or the koran, or the wiccan lore, or a secular humanist speculation on the meaning of relativity. The key is that no minority is actively discriminated against -- they get a fair (relative to their population) shot at having their philosphical/religious ideas advanced in a public setting. And the majority get to hear their prayers/whatever discussed fairly frequently. The point is that the majority can not force their wishes down the throats of the minorities. I can live with this.
|Add comment || View 0 comments|