Elvert Barnes from Silver Spring MD, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
.jpg){kind=link}
Featuring the Fabulous Dadbots: Mark M., Dave O., Mark O., Paul C., Dennis Curley, and Geoff Carter
Hello Bots,
Had no idea just how adrift the ‘progressive’ state of fighting Bob is on this issue:
Politico: Abortion Laws by State
–Dave
Time to put the Republican Party out of business!
–Paul
Yep. Before they burn down the Reichstag.
G
A thought on legislative strategy.
Biden and Democrats vow to return abortion access to American women by “codifying Roe”. Meaning, pass a law through Congress and then have it signed by the President. This bill would apply nationwide.
Great idea! But there’s one tiny drawback. Because of the filibuster in the Senate, this new law requires a 60-vote majority in the Senate. Meaning, under the current Senate, the 50 Democratic Senators -AND- ten Republicans would have to vote for it.
Of course, if the Dems can simply elect another TEN Senators, mission accomplished. But the Democrats will be fortunate to hold on to their 50+1(VP) advantage in the November elections.
So, the only realistic alternative, if you are serious about codifying Roe, is to take the simple majority vote of the Senate to ELIMINATE the filibuster. This doesn’t seem likely to happen, given Manchin’s and Sinema’s opposition. And in any case, this move could have a nasty kickback. Once the filibuster is eliminated, the Senate party in power need only a simple majority to pass ANYTHING. And, come November, that “anything” could include a full Republic-of-Gilead-style NATIONAL ban on abortion. Surely you don’t think Republicans are satisfied with the return of abortion law to the states!
So, in reality, the talk of “codifying Roe” is basically hot air. We’re left with the reality that Democrats can’t restore rights to women without restoring themselves to power.
–Mark M.
Makes perfect sense…unfortunately.
Just one question/thought: What IF, they did get the 60? This would codify Roe while retaining the filibuster. l wasn’t aware of this codifying option—thanks Mark. What a delicious thought: the arrogant (5) black robes rendered irrelevant/muted. The people will have spoken, not just The Donald.
And my question is more about the Republican voting base. Seems to me I’ve heard that abortion is one of those issues that is a little more grey…guns: black and white…immigration: black and white…but there are a lot of female Republicans and a lot of Republicans with female teen age daughters (and sons if you think through the instant lifelong responsibility scenarios suddenly facing a lot of people), thus there may be a fair number of Republican senators that would flip—savvy enough to see just how whacko the Court went on this one—in fact, perhaps sensing a win or a least not risking a loss from their base over breaking from the fold on this one. There are a lot of red states where the margins (in the presidential election), were in the single percentage points, not double digit.
Call me crazy…(or inane),
Dave.
Again, this is back to the question of the POLITICAL impact of the Dobbs decision. Does it wake up unengaged liberals? Does it give serious pause to moderates who have voted R for economic reasons (taxes, regulations) but who haven’t bought into the culture war issues (guns, gays, abortion)? It will have an impact, but probably not enough to noticeably turn the tide.
One of the limiting factors here is the system of intraparty primaries. To be nominated to run for Senate as a Republican, the candidate has to convince a majority of PRIMARY voters. And who votes in primaries? Well, every voter has the opportunity, but primary voters lean toward the heavily committed. And those are going to tend to be the pissed off, committed, fire breathing conservatives. So, any R candidate will be forced to tack right to win the nomination.
(This polarization effect is even more pronounced in-House races, because the districts have been gerrymandered into deep red & deep blue. With Senate races, you’re at least dealing with an entire state.)
This is why I don’t think that the personal moderation you foresee will have a big impact on Republican Senators’ views or votes. The candidates coming out of the primaries tend to be doctrinaire ideological bots, not fully formed human beings. (BTW, A similar impact can be seen on the Democratic side. Anti-abortion Dems are no longer a species. Why? Because they can’t survive the primary process.)
You can see the “primary” effect right now in the Wisconsin governor’s race. The TV ads from these Republican jokers are just a messy slobbering race to try to prove who is the most Trump-lovin’, lib-owning, oil-drilling’, baby-savin’ radical. It is crazy.
–Mark M.
Astute.
–Dave
I was looking at a recent CBS Poll published in Bloomberg that stated 59% of people—67% of women—disapprove of the Dobbs decision. Perhaps not coincidentally, according to a Pew Poll, 67% of those polled want to ban semi-automatic weapons. Yet—except for the relatively weak new gun law recently passed in the wake of the Uvalde massacre—the majority will is being ignored and has been ignored for years.
Minority rule has been the rule for some time. Republicans have managed to garner and consolidate power like squirrels hoarding nuts. In Wisconsin, they’ve gerrymandered state districts so unfairly that even though Democrats have won statewide offices in the past two major elections, the GOP maintains a stranglehold over the state legislature. And there’s nothing we can do about it because they’ve also stacked the Supreme Court, which they’ve now also managed to do on the federal level. The filibuster—a favorite Republican tool—has effectively stalled any sort of majority rule in Congress.
It’s harrowing to think that Dobbs decisions was made by a Supreme Court containing three justices who were appointed by a president who attempted to overthrow the government and a fourth who is married to a woman who was actively involved in said coup. The truth is that we’ve been undergoing a slow-motion coup for years. Our constitutional rights, including the right to vote, the right to a free quality public education, the right to due process, the right to equity, the right to control our own bodies, and the right to live in safety have been slowly eroded, and now—in some cases—completely extinguished.
I don’t know if we can beat the filibuster or mobilize enough voters to change our system. I suspect not. I hate to be pessimistic, but the Republicans have been a step ahead of us for some time now. They probably still are.
—Geoff
Well, yes to all, but how do you motivate people?
Trump is good at one thing, marketing. He recognized, and appealed, to the demons in our society.
Serious Americans with a moral sense see through this and do the right thing, unfortunately there’s not enough of us.
The majority of Americans will need to be “marketed” in order to break through to them. We will need charismatic leadership with a solid, moral message that can easily understood and appreciated by those that don’t take the time to take politics seriously.
Popular culture rules in America, successful leadership must understand this, find the message, and market it.
Nothing else matters if you don’t win elections.
–Paul
True that. Obama had it. Clinton (Bill) had it. Kennedy had it. Jesse Ventura had it. Arnold Schwarzenegger had it. Who’s out there for us now? Jamie Raskin is appealing in sort of a Woody Allen way, but I can’t think of a current politician with that kind of charisma. Maybe AOC, but she’s a lightning rod for the far right; I think she’d be deemed unelectable.
Maybe we should recruit an actor with charisma to run. Matthew McConaughey. He did a good job addressing the press after Uvalde. Maybe Chris Rock with Will Smith as his running mate? What about Melissa McCarthy and Rosie O’Donnell? Who knows?
—Geoff
I believe Al Franken (beloved former Senator from Minnesota) had it. He was funny, charismatic, intelligent, and genuine, and could have made a real run at the Presidency as a bona fide progressive. Unfortunately, in an all-too-common act of fratricide, the Dems cancelled him for a childish video prank on a plane. “Zero tolerance” Me-Too kangaroo court action instigated largely by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. It moved her one place higher in the crowded Dem race for the presidential nomination at the time. She still finished a less than respectable eleventh place (by my unofficial count) in the final results, but hey, she gave it the old college try…
It seems like Democratic politicians, at least at the national level, are only interested in winning races and holding office as individuals. They don’t seem nearly as interested in truly advancing a political program. They don’t care about winning an ideological battle or instituting a platform of positions nearly as much as the Republicans. The Dems love to stump on specific cultural issues but not really do anything about them. What progressive successes we’ve had in the last 50 years have largely come from the courts, and now they seem to be getting rolled back by those same courts.
It’s always darkest before the dawn! Cheers!
MarkO
Got it! Herschsel Walker.
Just like Arnold (and probably some of the others you list), his charisma has him some undisclosed children that keep popping up.
–Dave
Hmmm. I don’t know if Herschel would run as a Democrat. What about Aaron Rodgers? Would he be the American Justin Trudeau?
—Geoff
Don’t know who, could be more of a thing from a Winston Churchill quote …
“Does the man make the times or do the times make the man?”
People can rise to the challenge, and of course, substitute person for man.
And, it’s really all of us doing what we can in a support role. Nobody can do it alone.
–Paul
….Nice. Reminds me of another Churchill quote re Architecture: “We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us”
–Dave
Whoa!!! Silent Paul has finally entered the fray! Good to hear from you, dude.
I like Paul’s comment about Trump and marketing. Somehow, however, it goes even further than his message. Trump’s supporters IDENTIFY with Trump in a way that very few left side politicians can hope for. For example, look at Trump’s overwhelming support among white evangelicals. This group should despise a thrice married libertine. Yet they embrace him at an emotional level. It’s his brash attitude and shameless braggadocio they love.
I think that the right wing— whether in the US, Germany, Japan, Italy, or Russia— is susceptible to that authoritarian cult of personality hero worship. Liberals just don’t go for that, and never have. I’d like to say it’s because liberals are smarter, but I think it’s really more of an issue of how differently the brains are wired on the two sides. For example, have you ever heard liberal AM talk radio? Not much! Because it basically doesn’t appeal to the liberal audience. There’s something about the libs that makes them NOT want to hear prepackaged political pablum.
Geoff, you are right on the money about minority rule. The rules of the game are slanted toward the Right. For example, two Senators from every state, including the small rural red states like ND, SD, Kansas, and Oklahoma. And the Electoral College. And the quirk of fate that allowed one President to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices.
Even with these built-in advantages, the Republicans have shown no compunction about bending rules and destroying norms to get their way.
MO, you are right that Al Franken had a good shot to be a charismatic national Dem leader. Thanks, Senator Gillibrand. We cleared the decks of embarrassing Senators before the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. Wow, that really helped!
Trump and McConnell, and Republicans in general, lack the shame gene. It might be time to get down in the mud with these SOBs.
–Mark M.
Great to hear from everybody. Good thought-provoking discussion.
I don’t know that it’s the case that evangelicals love Donald Trump, or even like him personally. I believe that most vote for him with noses tightly pinched. He gets their almost universal support because he has proven he will deliver for them on their issues. In concert with Mitch McConnell, Trump has effectively flooded the judiciary with conservative Christian ideologues. I don’t think Trump and McConnell like each other on a personal level either, but they understand what they need to do to please their base. Trump certainly doesn’t give a damn about pro-life or religious school voucher issues, but he understands his base and will deliver. The desires of their base are more important to the current version of conservative leader than rules and norms of the “process”. Liberal leaders will tie themselves in knots over process rules and norms and if some morsel of legislation dribbles out for their base, great. If not, that’s OK too because they can run on those issues again in the next election.
MarkO
Wow Bots,
All this well-said punditry here re. Roe and Dobbs, Republicans and Dems. inspires me to chime in. As you guys have pointed out, the will-of-the-people has once again been trampled by the most strident elephants in the GOP herd. Stampeding elephants are not known for their wisdom or foresight, but they can definitely get their way as they wreak havoc plowing through the jungle we all have to live in, crushing everything in their path while the rest of us duck for cover. When the dust settles, the elephants will look around and say, “Hey what happened to the jungle?” Despite the glaring evidence of their stampede, they will blame the monkeys. “Let’s get those traitorous, jungle-wreckin’ monkeys,” the leaders of the stampede will say—and will then keep the herd occupied trying to head-butt down the trees where the monkeys live. The monkeys meanwhile are too busy throwing their poop at each other to do much about the elephants shaking their tree.
This doesn’t seem like a good long-term strategy for the health of the jungle. Can these stampedes at least be tempered by the rest of the herd? Can the monkeys use their poop to fertilize the banana trees—or at least more accurately aim their poop at the craziest of the elephants instead of at each other? Most of us know it’s better for everyone if we focus on taking care of our jungle.
And this is a democracy, right? And as those Pew research polls show, around 62% of Americans are pro-choice, 67% of women are pro-choice and women vote in greater percentages than men. And when it comes to wanting more gun regulation, it’s an even higher majority. But as Mark pointed out, the structure of the Senate favors a right-wing minority—Wyoming, with a population of like 271, has two senators, just like California, population 40 million. And, yeah, Congress and the state legislatures have become hopelessly gerrymandered. In our own “inane island of the Midwest”, the majority of the voters actually still vote Democrat, but the tortured gerrymandering of voting districts ensures that the whackiest Republicans rule the roost.
As Paul says, perhaps better marketing by progressives will shift the balance. And who is the best marketer in the land? Corporate America! Strangely enough, corporations seem to be filling the void left by a hamstrung Democratic Party. From JP Morgan Chase to Disney to Dick’s Sporting Goods to Microsoft, these companies are loudly proclaiming their pro-choice leanings by announcing their willingness to pay the travel expenses of employees who would need to travel to another state to get an abortion. Other issues where many corporations are waving a progressive flag include climate change and LGBT rights.
Corporate America coming to the rescue? I’ve seen bumper stickers proclaiming that “Only The Space Aliens Can Save Us”. Could an even more far-fetched idea soon grace the bumpers of Subaru Foresters and Toyota Priuses across this great land? “Only Corporate America Can Save Us?”
–Dennis C.
Funny Dennis should mention corporations as the unlikely saviors. Here’s the article listing some of them: The Guardian: US Companies Pay Travel Costs for Employees Seeking Abortions.
This isn’t the first time they’ve stepped up—although I highly doubt they’re doing it for purely altruistic reasons. Remember the commercial for Cheerios that caused such a stir because it featured a mixed-race couple? And now look at all the varieties of relationships you see on ads. We’ve come full circle when the evil corporations are the entities standing up for people’s rights—against their own government no less. A few years ago, I might have thought I was having an acid flashback.
–G
Yeah, it’s kinda funny that the consumer marketplace is more democratic than our government. A box of Cheerios bought by a working-class stiff has the same value to General Mills as one bought by a hedge fund manager. In the election marketplace it doesn’t work that way. The Parties will lavish much more attention on the hedge fund manager and “package” their product (i.e. legislative program) accordingly.
MarkO
The “Corporations Will Save Us” movement has definitely gotten the attention of the Repubs. One of the latest salvos they’ve fired in the culture war is against “woke” corporations. Ron DeSantis took on Disney, for God’s sake, because they questioned the wisdom of Don’t Say Gay. The upshot is that the taxpayers in the counties where Disney resides will be on the hook for literally BILLIONS in infrastructure costs. You would think that the rubes would notice. But the elevation of culture war over economics and common sense has paid off big time for Republicans.
The only hope is that they’ve overreached. The Roe reversal, and its attendant foofaraw of anti-abortion laws, may be their bridge too far. They’ve done it in the past.
–Mark M.
Here’s a snippet from Newsweek that presents a good example of the kind of overreach that could backfire on Conservatives.
“In Texas, 14 GOP lawmakers, led by state Rep. Briscoe Cain, have said they intend to introduce laws which will penalize companies that facilitate out-of-state abortions.
The plans were confirmed in a letter addressed to Lyft CEO Logan Green after the ride-share company confirmed the day Roe v. Wade was overturned that it would reimburse travel costs if an employee travels more than 100 miles to get an abortion.
“The state of Texas will take swift and decisive action if you do not immediately rescind your recently announced policy to pay for the travel expenses of women who abort their unborn children,” the letter signed by the Republican state representative states, reported The Texas Tribune.”
Newsweek: Business Pay Employees Abortion Travel Costs
–Dennis C.