Monday, July 04, 2005
'Clobbering Republicans': Mickey brings up a political subject that I've dwelt on before: Why don't Democrats let Republicans appoint their anti-Roe types to the Surpeme Court and watch the ensuing political realignment unfold? ...
Update -- From Reader No. 1:
"You and Mickey raise a good point about why Liberal Democrats don't just let the Republicans nominate themselves off the cliff. Three suggestions:
"1- The national Liberal Democratic leadership is not, and has never been, especially democratic. Its political consciousness was formed in significant part during the 1960s by protest marches and sit-ins. The party has been dominated for decades by lawyers. ...
"2- A somewhat psychological analysis: the party has lost so many national political elections during its leaders' lifetimes that national liberal Democrats associate popular elections with political losses. If national Democratic leaders really thought they could get abortion legalized through state elections - and lead to a national 'realignment' - they'd call for those elections. But they don't really believe deep down they will win those elections.
"3- Through the years, sexual freedoms are a core issue around which the otherwise fractious national Dems find some common cause. Look at the phenomenal solidarity behind President Clinton during his impeachment travails, not least from womens' rights groups. Note that the explosion of sexual freedom also coincided with the formation of this generation's political awareness.
"Roe v. Wade permits national Dems to maintain their commitment to sexual freedoms without much unpleasant and diversionary debate that might lead to a realignment, but also further weaken the party."
Hub Blog's reaction -- He kind of lost me in in the sexual freedoms part. ... Still think Roe's overturning would A.) send voters to Dems B.) push some Repubs toward pro-abortion and C.) thus alienating anti-abortion types who now have such a huge say in the GOP ... At the very least it'd be fun to see who's right.
Update II -- In case I was thinking too much of the bluecheese burgers I'm going to eat this evening, Reader No. 1 spells out in more detail his sexual freedoms thoughts:
"Which part of the sexual freedoms discussion lost you? I am still waiting for a modern history of the Democratic party that directly addresses how the preoccupation with sexual issues has dominated the party over the past 40 years. Oddly, it remains a great unmentionable.
"Because the majority of Americans are, as William F Buckley put it on FIRING LINE 20+ years ago 'philosophically conservative and operationally liberal,' it's a huge advantage to the Republicans to have the present state of affairs on Roe v. Wade. So I agree with you that it would be fun to find out. But I am not holding my breath that the Dems will be so Machiavellian as to call the Repubs' bluff on this one so that we may find out -- for all the reasons cited in my earlier Email, but most particularly because deep down, the national Democratic leadership does not trust American voters. Until they do, they won't win national elections."
Hub Blog's response -- Now I get it and I guess we're in agreement. Republicans do have an advantage as long as Roe festers. FYI: Dems might not have to call Republicans' bluff. Bush might do it for them. ...
Update -- From Reader No. 1:
"You and Mickey raise a good point about why Liberal Democrats don't just let the Republicans nominate themselves off the cliff. Three suggestions:
"1- The national Liberal Democratic leadership is not, and has never been, especially democratic. Its political consciousness was formed in significant part during the 1960s by protest marches and sit-ins. The party has been dominated for decades by lawyers. ...
"2- A somewhat psychological analysis: the party has lost so many national political elections during its leaders' lifetimes that national liberal Democrats associate popular elections with political losses. If national Democratic leaders really thought they could get abortion legalized through state elections - and lead to a national 'realignment' - they'd call for those elections. But they don't really believe deep down they will win those elections.
"3- Through the years, sexual freedoms are a core issue around which the otherwise fractious national Dems find some common cause. Look at the phenomenal solidarity behind President Clinton during his impeachment travails, not least from womens' rights groups. Note that the explosion of sexual freedom also coincided with the formation of this generation's political awareness.
"Roe v. Wade permits national Dems to maintain their commitment to sexual freedoms without much unpleasant and diversionary debate that might lead to a realignment, but also further weaken the party."
Hub Blog's reaction -- He kind of lost me in in the sexual freedoms part. ... Still think Roe's overturning would A.) send voters to Dems B.) push some Repubs toward pro-abortion and C.) thus alienating anti-abortion types who now have such a huge say in the GOP ... At the very least it'd be fun to see who's right.
Update II -- In case I was thinking too much of the bluecheese burgers I'm going to eat this evening, Reader No. 1 spells out in more detail his sexual freedoms thoughts:
"Which part of the sexual freedoms discussion lost you? I am still waiting for a modern history of the Democratic party that directly addresses how the preoccupation with sexual issues has dominated the party over the past 40 years. Oddly, it remains a great unmentionable.
"Because the majority of Americans are, as William F Buckley put it on FIRING LINE 20+ years ago 'philosophically conservative and operationally liberal,' it's a huge advantage to the Republicans to have the present state of affairs on Roe v. Wade. So I agree with you that it would be fun to find out. But I am not holding my breath that the Dems will be so Machiavellian as to call the Repubs' bluff on this one so that we may find out -- for all the reasons cited in my earlier Email, but most particularly because deep down, the national Democratic leadership does not trust American voters. Until they do, they won't win national elections."
Hub Blog's response -- Now I get it and I guess we're in agreement. Republicans do have an advantage as long as Roe festers. FYI: Dems might not have to call Republicans' bluff. Bush might do it for them. ...
