Greg Brozeit notes here an alarming aspect implicit in the Alito draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade. His comment appeared on the blog. Alito and four other radical conservatives demonstrated that precedent and stare decisis mean nothing to them. Despite their assurances under oath to the Senators who interviewed them, the radical justices intend to overturn a right declared by the Supreme Court 49 years earlier. Never in the history of the Supreme Court has a right granted by the Court been overturned. This radical, reckless decision will set off more demonstrations and protests. Recent polls show that only about 20% of the nation believes that abortion should be banned under all circumstances. The rest believe that it should be safe and legal, with certain conditions, such as rape, incest, the life of the mother. The sweep of this unprecedented revocation will leave many people wondering what other prior decisions will be overturned.
Greg Brozeit writes:
Just as CRT is not about education, the Alito Roe draft is not about abortion. It is much bigger. Some of you come oh so close to crossing the rhetorical goal line. The real question is not if or why, but how this becomes a legal mallet that makes no decision “safe.”
If the wording “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start” remains intact in the final opinion, it basically creates a precedent that precedent no longer exists. It would effectively be the first mortal wound in the legal doctrine of stare decisis as a check on judicial power. Its goal is to make a mockery out of the idea of judicial review as to render it meaningless. It’s “reasoning” could seep into and dominate all law from civil to maritime to military. And it fits perfectly with ALEC’s strategy to marginalize judicial review with packaged, ready-to-go legislation for lazy, partisan, or stupid (or all of the above) statewide elected legislature or governor.
This was not a legal shot over the bow. It was a direct hit on democracy and left no doubt that the only thing this court wants more is a tailor-made case that will give them stronger legal “reasoning” to be even more draconian. That would be the only reason this language might not be in the final decision handed down. It would be a short-lived “victory” that would be a prelude to something even worse for average and poor Americans.
This is the typical drivel the DNC-driven agenda gives us, focusing on individual policies rather than the real existential threat to democracy the Republican Party poses from local government through the office of the presidency. Now as correct as we may be about the fate of women’s rights and as big as that issue is, this is about much, much basic stakes. The radical right and their few partners on the looney left understand this. Hardly anyone else, it seems, does. Or at the very least, they can’t identify the true threat this enemy is posing. If they do not win now or in the next elections, they will continue to poison and cripple the system until they do. That, it seems, is the best we can hope for now. A slow death with faint hope for a miracle recovery rather than an immediate plunge into fascism.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Sweet, did he tell anyone to kill themselves or challenge anyone to a fight?
FLERP, let it go.
Have to say, Diane, it’s pretty odd that you leave Greg’s most offensive comments on the blog, and mourn his absence when he stomps off, but then delete a comment of mine explaining what he’s said here. Obviously it’s your right to do so, I don’t contest that. But I probably will not stop reminding people what a scumbag Greg Brozeit.
Wasn’t going to comment, but perhaps an explanation is due. The reason I challenged you to a fight was not as you described. For years you have known who I am, what I do, and where I live. I know nothing about you. In a fair world, you would inform me the same about you. But cowards don’t do that. Unfair leverage is their stock in trade.
On the other point, that I wished death upon you for your initial comments on Covid, I plead guilty for feeling that way at the time and apologized, one I later took back. Your comments were hysterical and suspiciously narcissistic (I challenge anyone to take the time to go back to those comments for verification). You were willing to force teachers to teach and students to go to school when the pandemic began. I then made the point that the only thing certain about the pandemic was its uncertainty. If your view had been adopted, thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands would have become sick and died. So in this theoretical cost-benefit analysis, I have no problem with you taking your life if that meant the others would live. And one more thing. Who whines on a blog that they are suicidal because of remarks others make? In a way, I just being as supportive as I could be. I think one who can only see the world through their narrow, selfish lenses and sets of experiences.
But most of what bothers me has nothing to do with this. The easiest way to set you off is to claim that any Black person anywhere is an intellectual. Unequivocally if you disagree with them. Or transgender. Your bigotry shows through quite clearly on these issues and those where you say something to the effect of, “If they would act on this issue, then I don’t care what they do about the others.” You also play an annoying lawyer’s trick of focusing on disagreeing with one sentence or phrase as justification to discount an entire argument without addressing any of the particulars. And your condescension of some commentators really does make your comments on mine seem so much more hypocritical.
So it that makes me a scumbag, so be it. I will likely comment occasionally in the future, so you will have plenty of opportunities to display your pettiness and sophistry. I explained why I feel the way I do about you. I wish you would have the courage to look me in the eye, but I have a feeling the anonymity of a computer screen suits you just fine.
Greg,
I’m requesting that you and FLERP stop exchanging messages. I would love to give each of you to have the other’s email so you could take your disagreements off the blog.
I value you both.
Just drop it and respond to the posts, not each other.
Hale Fellows, Hell Bent …
I see Alito silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouch, Scaramouch,
will you do the Fandango!
I believe that for Kavanaugh it’s “Whiskey bent and hell bound!”
HAAAAAAA!!!! OMG. Rolling on the floor here!!! Thanks, Jon.
The “Hale Fellows” was particularly good. ROFLMAO!
not sure what the previous two comments mean. Also not sure how Alito’s opinion upholds equal protection of the law. Women according to him are not equal to men and do not deserve bodily autonomy. Yet, it seems the embryo does, even though it is not an independent human being that has a chance of survival outside the body protecting and nourishing it. Lawyers for fetuses next? How about common sense, scientifically valid reasoning: the fetus is part of the mother’s body until it no longer has to be, and she alone has the right to decide its fate. Let science and logic not religion determine the laws of this country.
Annette, AMEN! Your comments is “right on.”
Thank you, Annette!!!
“How about common sense, scientifically valid reasoning: the fetus is part of the mother’s body until it no longer has to be, and she alone has the right to decide its fate.”
Yep. Thank you for making it so clear the hypocrisy of those 5 justices.
Women don’t have rights. Embryos have rights and corporations have rights, according to the far right hypocrites.
Thanks, Annette, for the comment
Is this the court that says Corporations are people and may choose to give all the money they want because of the First Amendment? Then it says Women do not have the right to decide when life starts for themselves based on their religion. Did the First Amendment suddenly change?
This all takes place because the right wing of American politics is not comfortable with trying to persuade people to see things their way. Conflict and compromise, necessary for the messy stuff of democracy, is foreign to the populace that longs for conformity and compliance.
re: “based on their religion+: I would change that to “based on their natural rights (to bodily autonomy).”
Re: “Did the First Amendment suddenly change?” Yes, this way of reading the Constitution, the Alito way, changes it. It changes everything. This is something people need to understand about interpretive lenses. They matter. A lot. Alito’s decision is a lesson in how, according to Alito, the Constitution is to be read. It was meant to be that. Scratch the implied, unenumerated rights. Read it in light of legal precedent going back to the days of witch trials. The stuff since then has been all egregiously wrong.
Sorry to say, but he’s absolutely correct in his pessimism. The Religious-Oligarchic-Fascist complex, along with the Military-Industrial complex have both been working towards this day for decades. They play the generational long-game, while the masses wear down due to continual divisiveness & distraction, which have been sown over the years, but on steroids since the advent of Social Media. The attack on Public Education & teachers, in order to dumb down & indoctrinate the hapless masses, is another leg in their efforts to bring about the New World Order that Klaus Schwab & the World Economic Forum are working towards. Have a wonderful day!
“have both been working towards this day for decades”
YES!!! This decision is the realization of a long-held dream on the part of right-wing extremists in the United States.
The king game involves the creation of manufactured culture wars, such as CRT, book banning, Don’t Say Gay laws, to keep the media spinning while the red states dismantle voting rights and gerrymander the states and run MAGA-dopes for Secretary of State (supervising elections) to cement their power.
Yes. Exactly what is happening.
Not “the king game” but “the long game.”
Actually, “king game” works too.
Greg is absolutely right. Mullah Alito’s decision is revolutionary and was meant to be. The closest historical parallel I can think of is Luther’s 95 Theses, which set the world ablaze and changed everything. The Dobbs decision provides a template, a boilerplate, for overturning a whole body of law based on unenumerated rights and giving an autocratic state the power to use its monopoly on “legal” violence for command and control over behavior and thought. Even as it overthrows the precedents of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it becomes precedent for trashing lots and lots and lots of other Supreme Court precedent foundational to democracy and liberty based on strict originalist readings and historical precedent going back to the days of witch trials. Mullah Alito knew precisely what he was doing, and this is not just about abortion, as profoundly horrific as its consequences will be in that area. As an immediate result of this decision, Jane Crow Laws will be triggered and introduced all around this country. Women, mostly poor women and women of color will die. Women and their allies will be imprisoned. The drug cartels will have a whole new business line in abortifacients. But that’s just the start. We are Germany in 1932.
Hi Bob,
And men might better watch out, too. In states where rape and incest exemptions exist, women will make those accusations.
Yup. This is going to get really ugly.
The question this raises for me is: Why does the R Party appear to be so much more skilled at working persistently & effectively toward a major long-term goal & achieving it, even contrary to the will of a substantial majority of the population in both parties? It seems it wasn’t always that way. In previous times, D’s achieved long-fought gains in civil, women’s, & LGBTQ rights (at least on paper, if frequently not in practice), & now 50 years of work appears to be coming undone within a few years.
For all the jeering from D’s about the R base, including some of their elected officials, being uneducated, barely literate, anti-science knuckleheads, what does that make us to have been so soundly beaten by them? I don’t mean this as derision or discouragement; I’m really puzzled & ask sincerely. Have we become that incompetent, & what do we do about it? Our current approach clearly isn’t working, so it’s unlikely the answer is, “more of the same.”
“When they take the low road, we take the high road.”
Not saying Dems should take the low road too but this kind of moral righteousness isn’t going to cut it anymore. Democrats want to know how the party going to fight for them. And people have the perception that Dems haven’t been doing so. Just listen to Gavin Newsom.
Two reasons: a) the Repugnican Party has a LOT of money behind it–think tanks that generate boilerplate legislation and strategic plans for propaganda campaigns. b) our system makes a lot of Democrats into DINOS as dependent as the Repugnicans are on campaign donations from oligarchs. Money talks.
Republicans spend a LOT of money on issue-related propaganda. Democrats very little. Here’s an example. Why isn’t the Democratic Party running ads explaining that healthcare in the United States has poorer outcomes and costs literally twice as much per capita as in the rest of the developed world, which has universal, government-run healthcare? Answers: because of lot of Democratic politicians, like Republican ones, are dependent on the money they get from people in the U.S. healthcare RICOs–health insurance, pharmaceuticals, hospital chains, etc.
Yup.
Many Democratic politicians won’t go where Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez are willing to go, even though they share the same private beliefs, because they don’t want to offend wealthy donors. The National Democratic Party will continue to back “moderates” for fear of giving offense to the wealthy oligarchs who lean Democratic.
The answer to this is rather simple, in my opinion, and it goes back to what I used to tell my players: “It’s much easer to play a destructive game and win. We’re going work on playing a constructive game.”
Hey, buddy!
What did you coach, Greg? Soccer? I coached track, years ago. And speech and theatre more recently.
I was born 10-15 years too early to make a decent living as a soccer coach.
Some years back, I made an appointment with the linguist George Lakoff to ask these questions about why the right wins so often and how they get people to vote against their self-interest. We talked for two hours. Basically, he said that liberals appeal to facts and rationality, while conservatives tell stories and appeal to emotions. The CRT hysteria would be an example today, also the Big Lie. Conservatives believe in a world where father is always right, questions have right and wrong answers. Liberals have a complex world view that is confusing to those who think father always knows best.
Hi Diane,
Again I recommend Iain McGilchrist’s book The Matter With Things and his other book The Master and His Emissary. They’re both really illuminating and tie in with Lakoff and a lot of other things.
Thank you.
Lakoff nailed it. They tell stories. “I started with a small loan from my father and became a billionaire. That’s because I know how to make deals. And I can make the right deals for you, unlike these politicians in Washington.”
And THIS, Diane, OMG, what a great line: ” Liberals have a complex world view that is confusing to those who think father always knows best.” I am going to be quoting that one for as long as I live.
Why… the money of Peter Thiel, Charles Koch, Art Pope, Uihlein,…. and politicking by the Catholic Church and its conservative supporters. They want a white patriarchy and colonialism. Getting a significant number of Americans to vote against women and black people was easy after the middle class was hollowed out, courtesy of the billionaires identified above.
The ignorant believe Bill Gates and Mark Zuck are Democrats because they have influence on the Dem platform and in government institutions e.g. the health and education departments. But, their social and economic views are just like Koch’s. Those views prevent Democratic messaging that is progressive. History will judge John Podesta and Tom Daschle as people who undermined democracy out of self interest.
If anyone thinks the decision to overturn R v. W is about the quality of life, I’ll leave this right here for them:
https://thebanter.substack.com/p/the-rights-misogyny-is-worse-than?s=r
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The linked article nailed it. But, I’m a bit puzzled– how does a whole article about subjugation of women fail to identify conservative religion’s role?
80+% of evangelicals voted for Trump in 2020 and 63% of white Catholics who attend church regularly voted for Trump in 2020.
Without right wing religion, there’s no trumped up controversy about women’s rights to birth control nor, equal rights.
Good that the article’s writer called out Chuck Todd who loathes progressives. Or, maybe he is merely a toady for the right wing AEI.
He championed Moms for Liberty on his program and never once broached the subject of the organizations with whom they are linked.
Thank you for posting the article, Diane.
Roe v. Wade is not an issue that affects my vote. However, the argument used to justify overturning the Roe decision could be applied to other issues that are more important to me. This is a concern for anyone who believes that rights are implied by the Constitution.
What the Originalist judicial philosophy clings to is the idea that the Constitution isn’t really open for interpretation. Well, the Founders did not consider anyone that was not white, male and property-owning. There have been amendments that enshrine large issues but this ruling renders any law that has ever passed Congress as vulnerable.
Rulings become a matter of of personal preference rather than precedent based. Remember when Amy Coney Barrett complained about SCOTUS being accused of being political hacks? Well, this is why.
I will copy and share your first (second?) paragraph widely. You say what I try to say much more succinctly. Thank you. This decision will follow the tradition of Dred Scott and Plessy and be scorned by history…if we live to write it…and get it disseminated.
Most if not all brutal autocratic dictatorships are ruled by a small number of families or often small but ruthless regions sects.
In North Korea, it’s the Kim family.
In Russia, it’s Putin and his crime family/mobsters.
In Syria, it’s Marshal Bashar al-Assad. Hafez al-Assad and his son, President Bashar al-Assad, belong to the Alawite sect. Alawites are divided into two main groups: traditional Alawites, who form the majority, and the minority Murshid Alawites (which rose from a modern schism in the Alawite sect at the beginning of the 20th century).
Alawites represent 17.2 percent of the Syrian population, an increase from 11.8 percent in 2010, and their leader rules with a crushing, white hot iron fist.
When Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, he was supported another minority that ruthlessly suppressed the majority of the population. Hussein belonged to the Sunni Islamic sect that ruled the country. The CIA World Factbook reports a 2015 estimate according to which 29–34% are Sunni Muslims and 64–69% Shia Muslims.
The Republican Party is another political minority maneuvering to take over the United States and ruthlessly ruling the country by suppressing the majority, no different than what has already happened in North Korea, Russia, Iran, and Syria.
Overturning Roe vs Wade is but one more step in that process.
If it wasn’t for the GOP’s apparant manipulation of the Electoral College, extreme gerrymandering in RED states, getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine back in the 1980s, dark money funding election campaigns and supporting the endless lies behind conspiracy theories, we wouldn’t be here now.
Greg-
Your warning makes those who process information, understand the right wing’s road to fascism has no way back.
The right wing’s selective scare tactics portray a democratic system, characterized by equal opportunity, as the cause for the once-middle class, white guy’s loss of social and economic position.
In America’s history, those who warned against theocracy, fascism and the loss of democracy would have been on Greg’s side.
If the Democrats want to keep losing elections, they should use your rhetoric and continue to emphasize that the problem is white men. There are a lot of white men in America. And there are even more mothers, children, and spouses of white men.
The vast majority of Americans–including white men–have many more interests in common than at odds. The only way to save this country is to unite those interests.
How? When the Republicans are able to traffic in hate and appeal to their belief in their superiority and get their votes.
The white men who are not like that are not embracing lies about how they are the real victims, and no one needs to pander to them to get their vote. They tend to be college educated and they know that the way to save this country is for them to unite with people who are not white, instead of believing the Republicans who spew lies and give them scapegoats.
I know a lot of white men like that and they don’t need to be pandered to like you say. I know many white men who used to vote for Republicans and are neither liberal nor progressive, but do believe in truth and democracy. They usually have college degrees. And they left the Republican party.
The ones who remained did so because they were drawn to the Republicans’ ideology of hate and lies. Pandering to them is what got us into this mess. Normalizing their reprehensible views. One reason we often disagree is not because you are right wing but because you go out of your way to normalize the right wing ideology and legitimize it as if it was something that it is not. People did that in Nazi Germany, too. And they probably blamed the Jews for not being able to convince the Aryan Germans drawn to the Nazi ideology to “unite” with them.
The vast majority of people who aren’t Republican apologists know that the only way to save this country is to marginalize those who are drawn to hateful rhetoric instead of constantly reinforcing their view that they are our victims. Nazi supporters believed the rhetoric that they were being victimized by Jews. And complicit Germans gave that rhetoric legitimacy instead of calling it what it was.
If you think it’s not possible to unite most Americans with their common interests, then give up.
I don’t know if it’s possible to unite most Americans, based on the deep polarization of the past several years. I can barely talk to certain members of my family. It was never this bad in the past. Although I was only 7 when World War 2 ended, I remember the wonderful sense of unity that almost everyone shared. I can remember other events—mostly tragic—when people felt unity. The assassination of JFK; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Bobby Kennedy. The explosion of the Challenger space shuttle. 9/11.
Now the division between red and blue seems to be a deep chasm. As the saying goes, the current GOP is not your father’s GOP. Ike commanded bipartisan respect. Politics stopped at the water’s edge. By contrast, Trump insulted and ridiculed everyone who didn’t scrape and bow. He whipped up hatred for the press. He is a master divider. I don’t know how the rifts will close.
The language about white men/ race vs race, and patriarchy/ men vs women does not get us there. There is a much larger movement afoot. This is about creating autocracy that looks like democracy on the surface, but craters the democracy from within by steadily chipping away at its foundational norms and institutions. Getting the judiciary under control and supporting that effort is one of the primary requirements of such a movement.
Diane, I do believe abortion is an issue that it should be possible to get agreement from most Americans on. A right to abortion with restrictions that most people find reasonable—be it 12 weeks in some states, 15 weeks in other states, longer in others—this should be doable, even with the massive rift in party politics.
I know referenda can be problematic, but I wonder if increased use of referenda might be a way to remove important issues from the realm of toxic representative politics.
I agree, FLERP. Polls repeatedly show that a large majority of Americans support abortion with reasonable conditions: timing, life of the mother, rape, incest. Many states allow referenda but many do not.
The advice to “unite” seems to miss an important point:
Republicans have specifically acted to prevent us from uniting. There is a reason that so much of their legislation and rhetoric is about stopping democracy in its tracks.
“Voter fraud” leading to legislation to disenfranchise voters. And then if they can’t disenfranchise them, to intimidate them by having their own private “police” to look for a reason to arrest them. And arrange their own handpicked judiciary to condone their tactics.
They did this with help from folks who keep trying to scapegoat Democrats for “not uniting” people! Pushing the lie that it is the Democrats fault.
The Republicans have morphed into an entirely neo-fascist party where any dissent from their lies leads to ex-communication and demonization. And instead of calling that out, our side kept blaming the Democrats.
There is nothing that can be done when going up against the neo-Nazi Republican party except to stop normalizing them and stop legitimizing their neo-Nazi agenda. Why do folks post links to right wing twitter feeds to normalize and justify whatever reprehensible propaganda the Republicans are offering? Why don’t they join in the outrage? Why the need to bend over backward to find some kernel of truth among the lies? Do folks think it would have been helpful when the Nazis were spewing lies about Jews to post a link to some story about a Jewish businessman doing something bad and telling Jews they better find a way to get the Aryans to like them more. What is helpful is all of our UNITED voices saying that the Republicans are liars. Not 20% or 30% of our voices instead focusing on saying that the Dems are no different or it’s the fault of the Dems that people like the Republicans.
The irony is the Republicans already understand that their policies have no real appeal which is why their main goal now is to end democracy and only allow people who agree with them to “unite” to express their agreement.
It’s Putinism. And Putin loves it when Russians push the narrative that the only reason that he is in power is that his opponents haven’t “united” Russians to vote against him. Notice how that reinforces the lie that it is possible to “unite” and defeat Putin at the ballot box when he has already made it impossible to do so. It reinforces the lie that there is real democracy in Russia when there isn’t.
The Republicans are a neo-fascist party now and their main goal is to do everything in their power to remain in power DESPITE the fact that 55% of Americans oppose them. Or 75% oppose them. It doesn’t matter once real democracy no longer exists. And those who are helping the fascists by saying that democracy never existed and the Dems are just like the Republicans were complicit and continue to be complicit in ending democracy.
NYCPSP, I get what you’re saying and I understand your concerns, but I am more optimistic that most states will be able to avert the worst-case scenario on abortion policy. I believe there are a lot of Republicans in red states who do not want a total ban on abortion, and I am hopeful that their voices will be heard.
I’ll ignore the various digs you made at me in your comment. I’m trying to follow Diane’s advice and turn over a new leaf and not take things too personally, even when they are personal.
Thank you, FLERP. I appreciate your civility.
FLERP!,
This is much bigger than Roe v. Wade or abortion rights. That’s my point. But in terms of Roe v. Wade, I acknowledge your optimism. I just don’t understand the basis for it. The states that aren’t under Republican rule will likely protect abortion rights, and those have become fewer states. Are states under Republican rule likely to pass legislation that protects abortion right? Are states currently under Republican rule likely to change to Democrat rule to pass abortion rights? No, because of what has happened once Republicans codify their power and make it far more difficult for citizens to “unite”. I hope I am wrong and you get a chance to tell me “I told you so”.
“I’m trying to follow Diane’s advice and turn over a new leaf and not take things too personally, even when they are personal.”
I believe you could contribute a lot to the conversation and there were times I agree with your posts and other times where I may not entirely agree but find the arguments you use to support your opinions to be well-reasoned and sound. I have occasionally responded positively when you did.
Regarding taking things personally. I didn’t take a personal “dig” at you or at others who aren’t like you who post pro-Putin/anti-Dem propaganda. I was pointing out something that I see happen that I believe has hurt this country. If this country continues to abandon honest political debate and discussion in favor of lies and misleading narratives, our democracy is done. If you recognized yourself, and you believe what you do is justified, then why consider it a “dig”? Maybe that should be a signal to rethink what you are doing. Or maybe defend it instead of going on the attack. That’s what I try to do, and I readily acknowledge my own failings in using too many words and making too long posts attempting to defend my views. But I defend it instead of playing victim because someone challenges what I say.
I am not interested in personal attacks. If I make a reference to actions that I believe help amplify the right wing propaganda that is undermining democracy that people here do, I am happy to explain my reason why those actions are dangerous. If you don’t think they are, I wish you’d explain why you think they are helpful and useful.
I don’t feel personally insulted when you insult me because I believe in what I post and don’t mind defending it.
Your posts today have been interesting to read, even when I disagree with them.
NYCPSP,
I will consider it a wonderful day if you and FLERP agree.
With regards to my yearning for honest discussion and debate, the irony is that is happening WITHIN the Democratic party. The kinds of discussions that used to happen between Republicans and Democrats — how much government intervention is good, entitlements, policies — is happening within the Democratic party.
And that is always used against the Dems! They do have policy disagreements, and the far right have propagandized some who should know better to help the far right by amplifying the rhetoric that those disagreements are because Dems are corrupt or evil. Or they scapegoat the Dems as the reasons the neo-Nazi Republicans are consolidating more and more power, when it isn’t the Dems at all but the tactics used by the far right to divide us. Including something I see repeated here about how the Democratic party is no different than the Republican party. Those folks never mention that they are referring to the Republican party from 15 years ago and not today’s neo-fascist Republican party. On the contrary, they push the lie that today’s Republican party is no different than it was 15 years ago, which serves to normalize a neo-fascist party that wants to undermine democracy.
We don’t have to be united in policy specifics right now. We need to be united in believing in democracy and completely marginalizing the current Republicans.
I hope some day the current Republicans are marginalized the way their predecessors in the Klan and John Birch Society were marginalized. I hope those neo-fascists no longer represent mainstream Republican thought and instead we have policy debates with Republicans instead of debates about whether reality is actually reality and whether truth is actually truth, or just another lie that the Democrats are telling voters.
Until that day comes, I believe we need to be united in condemning the Republicans and never helping to normalize them. Today’s Republican party is not normal. It does not believe in democracy.
I do not take the view that everything that a Republican says is wrong and terrible. I try to look at things on their own merit. I agree that the national Republican Party is largely insane. But there are views that I share with mainstream Republicans. I share those views because I genuinely believe them. I consider myself a moderate Democrat. But there are matters on which I disagree strongly with those on the left. I don’t worry about whether that disagreement is also shared by Republicans. I’m too old and life is too short.
FLERP,
I appreciate your centrism. Sadly I find it very difficult to find anything coming from Republicans that is honest. They spout Trump’s lies about the election, despite his lawyers losing some 60 efforts to overturn the election in state and federal courts. What has any Republican said in the past five years that you agree with? I can’t find anything at all. Although John Kasich tonight on CNN that his party was behaving disgracefully. I agreed with that but he is no longer a leader in his party.
“there are views that I share with mainstream Republicans.” Do you mean you share with mainstream Republicans from 15 years ago?
Today’s “mainstream” Republicans no longer believe in reality. Saying you share a view with them is – in my opinion – like saying you share a view with the people who believe our country is run by space aliens or you share a view with the Ku Klux Klan because you both support “letting parents have a say in what schools teach.” It’s rhetoric. It’s like saying this country needs to deal seriously with its addiction problems and believe that the Republicans are really offering something you agree with because they offer rhetoric about including law enforcement.
The people I know who were lifelong mainstream Republicans have either turned away from the Republican Party or became so radicalized that what they believe now has no similarity to what they believed 15 years ago. There is no “mainstream Republican” party anymore. Those who used to be on the conservative side of the party are now ex-communicated. Their leaders may give lip service to some policy you agree with, but they serve only power. They serve lies. It doesn’t matter if today’s Republican Party or Putin’s party or the neo-Nazi party or the Anarchist party happen to “share some view” with you. The “mainstream” of those parties represents something that is not normal in democracy.
Did you ever hear one of today’s neo-fascist Republicans saying they share a view that Democrats have? They never say that. Even though for most of their followers, many of the policies the Democrats support they would say they liked if they didn’t know it was being offered by a Democrat.
Today’s Republicans get it. They traffic in hate and neo-fascism, and they get folks from our side to normalize them because something they say seems ok.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that the Republicans I know who stayed in the party have become brainwashed that their views are nothing like the views they had when the Republican party was normal and was debating policy with the Democratic party instead of debating reality and truth. The “moderates” have left. The “conservatives” have left. Because it does not matter if today’s Republicans happen to profess to support some policy that those conservative and moderate former Republicans believe in. Today’s Republicans no longer believe in reality. They no longer believe in truth. Anything else is irrelevant for those of us from all political persuasions who believe in democracy.
Thank you for not insulting FLERP. Listen to what he has to say.
I apologize in advance for beating a dead horse, but I believe this is too important an issue and our country is in too much danger not to at least try to make folks understand how they are complicit in normalizing what should not be normalized.
In 1930s, a Jewish person is trying to get their Aryan friend to understand the dangers of the Nazis, and their Aryan friend says “I do not take the view that everything that a Nazi says is wrong and terrible. I try to look at things on their own merit” and then points to a couple ideas where Nazi ideology is more normal.
It is true that there isn’t anything inherently wrong with being patriotic or opposing Communism. What is inherently wrong is an anti-democratic, fascist form of government. It doesn’t matter what policies a political party supports if that party doesn’t believe in democracy. Many conservative Republicans understand that. And the rest of us – whether we are conservative Democrats or progressives on the left need to understand that, too.
Agreed. Our democracy is endangered by the insanity on the right.
Diane Ravitch,
I hope I don’t insult people I disagree with — that’s something I try very hard not to do. Unless the definition of “insult” now includes disagreeing with someone strongly, challenging their positions, and calling them out when instead of defending their positions they go on the attack. I believe there is a difference between a strongly worded post that challenges or questions something that someone says, and “insulting” them. And I say that as someone who brushes off real personal insults some folks on here seem to get amusement from lobbing at me. I ignore them or answer them with a repeat of the argument I was making because I am not interested in insulting them back, I am interested in hearing them defend their ideas.
I have enjoyed reading these posts by flerp! I enjoy debate and discussion with people who have different views. As long as we share the same reality. (Decades ago, that would not even have to be said!)
Flerp-
(1) Understanding consumers/voters and (2) the crafting of a message for them are two different things. For illustration, view ads for new cars or cigarettes.
The GOP’s effective messaging campaigns reflect an understanding about the voters’ insecurities and capitalizes on them. On occasion, they employ a direct approach using racist tropes.
Democrats won’t succeed with their messaging if they ignore the same voter insecurities. As a parallel, they haven’t succeeded by ignoring the formidable and unconscionable acts of politicized right wing religion.
Expect Republicans to say only one word between now and the fall election: inflation. What’s their plan to lower inflation? They have none. I saw Kevin McCarthy on TV yesterday; he was asked about the January 6 subpoena for his testimony, and he replied “inflation.”
It’s not so much about what Republicans say—I don’t follow the nationally prominent Republican politicians—as it is that many of my policy positions are more commonly associated with Republicans than Democrats. (If I listed some here, I’d get pilloried!) But then again most of my policy positions are more commonly associated with Democrats.
FLERP, that’s confusing. You are saying most of what you believe is associated with both sides. You have no obligation to state or reveal what you believe. Maybe just drop it. At the national level, the GOP has no policy other than tax breaks for corporations and the richest. Mitch McConnell said that they would not release their policies until they win control.
Rick Scott released a policy program saying that all federal programs—including Social security and Medicare should expire every five years and be rewritten. That’s scary. He also said every American, including the poorest, should pay taxes but said nothing about raising taxes on those worth billions.
“God, Guns, Babies”- Two of the 3 in the GOP messaging for the central and southern states promote conservative religion. Those two issues provide cover for voters, especially conservative women, to vote for their preference for male patriarchy and colonialism. Frank Schaeffer’s revelations make clear anti-abortion rhetoric was trumped up by evangelicals for reasons unrelated to religion.
“Guns”, the third issue, is about protecting the patriarchal systems from democratic governance.