Tag: messaging

Things To Come

 I think a lot of people have no idea what enforcement of abortion laws is going to look like between modern surveillance technology and the War on Drugs mindset. It’s the ideal American form of reactionary governance from time immemorial: a state that is incredibly intrusive in day-to-day life while providing few benefits.

Scott Lemieux, writing for Lawyers, Guns, and Money

This is a key point that seems to be largely unspoken in the wider media complex. Take a state like Texas and then remove Roe. Laws are already in place to ban all abortions. But I think everyone stops here and talks about how bad that would be for people with no resources to, say, fly to Massachusetts for an abortion.

The folks in charge of Texas, of course, have already thought of this. Their vigilante-based law already provides rewards for turning in your neighbor or co-worker who sneaks off to get an abortion. But why stop there? Medical abortion is safe and available. So Texas (and the other red states) will need to monitor the mail, internet searches, connections to specific websites where one might do a consult online; all of it. Same goes for crossing the border and getting the pills in Mexico; it’s all but guaranteed they’re going to clamp down harder on mifepristone than meth. I’d expect that, before too long, women traveling for any reason will begin to face enhanced questioning and scrutiny if they’re going someplace suspicious. Did you get a permission for travel form signed by your husband, Ma’am? Could we see some proof of your meeting registration in Boston? Why are you trying to drive out of Texas? We’re going to need to draw a little blood…

As if that’s not enough, then we get to the “just like an abortion” issue. That’s how these folks now in charge of our legal system define many contraceptives. Turns out that IUDs, Plan B, the regular old pill, and many other common forms of contraception are, in fact, considered abortifacients by the far right who now control the Supreme Court and govern red states across the land. If we’re lucky, married couples will still be able to access condoms in the red states of the near future, though probably not for long the way we’re currently going.

Lastly, can we file the “lets get together and maintain some “popularist” level of regulated access to abortion legislatively” nonsense in the “Tip and Ronnie working into the evenings to hammer out sensible compromises” Drawer of Centrist Fantasies? You could pass such a bill by a collective 535-0 tomorrow and within about six hours it would be struck down by a Trump judge and promptly 5-4’d by the Supreme Court; they might not even bother to hear it. There will be no plausible way (short of amending the Constitution, and I don’t consider that approach plausible) to pass any legislation guaranteeing a right to abortion in this country that will survive judicial “review.” These people don’t give a fuck and will contort their legislative “reasoning” into whatever non-Euclidean shape that is required to back-solve for “strike this down.” Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t been paying attention and should not be paid attention to.

It’s the Leaks

Perhaps we can get ahead of the “forget the impact of overturning Roe, it’s the leaking of the draft decision that matters” nonsense like this:

The release of the 98-page document is unprecedented in the court’s modern history: Early drafts of opinions have virtually never leaked before the final decision is announced, and never in such a consequential case. And early drafts of opinions often change by the time the decision from the court is announced.

Michael D. Shear and Adam Liptak writing in the Times of New York

if we actually bother to point out that this characterization is categorically false. Thirty seconds of Googling would net you this highly relevant bit of information that the Post somehow managed to find and print:

…it is not true that rulings have never been given to journalists before the announcement of the decision by the court. In fact, the result in Roe v. Wade itself was leaked by a Supreme Court clerk to a Time magazine reporter in January 1973. The issue of Time, with an article titled “The Sexes: Abortion on Demand,” appeared on newsstands hours before the decision was announced by Justice Harry Blackmun.

James B. Robenalt, Washington Post

We knew this decision was coming and we know that birth control is next. Codifying into law national bans on both would be planks in the GOP platform if they bothered with such documents anymore. This almost makes one think there’s a reason they don’t put out platforms anymore.

As it stands, the GOP is out there every day messaging against Griswold as being of a piece with Roe in the “wrongly decided” department of GOP jurisprudence i.e. “privacy for me but not for thee.” With a functioning Democrat party you might be able to message against that because, last time I checked, access to birth control both in and out of marriage is a pretty popular thing. Access to “safe, legal, and rare” style of regulated abortion is also a 70/30 “for” proposition. But our Establishment Democrat is still not sure they should do anything about being characterized daily as part of an organized pedophilia cult that likely drinks baby blood. This is why they fail.

The Current Crisis, Writ Small

The absolute absence of any urgency among establishment Democrats is evident all over the map today. Both are regional dust-ups that paint a much wider story, the first in Idaho where a Political Science professor by the name of Scott Yenor made some extremely dumb-assed comments:

Our culture is steeped with feminism. It teaches young boys and girls that they are motivated by much the same things and want much the same things. Thus, girls are told to become as independent as boys are said to be. […] They are more medicated, meddlesome, and quarrelsome than women need to be. […] Young men must be respectable and responsible to inspire young women to be secure with feminine goals of homemaking and having children. […] Every effort must be made not to recruit women into engineering, but rather to recruit and demand more of men who become engineers. Ditto for med school, and the law, and every trade.

So, a dumb-ass. Fine. Becca Savransky, author of the linked article, reached out to State Senator Melissa Wintrow, a Boise Democrat and the former director of the Boise State Women’s Center. She apparently called the remarks “dehumanizing,” which is a good start. Then she proceed to say:

We’re not going back to the 1950s, I don’t know what everybody is so afraid of. Let’s drop our weapons. Let people be who they want to be.

Unfortunately, she’s wrong about two things here and missed an opportunity. People like Scott Yenor, the current GOP leadership, and all the many Trump voting GOPers out there aren’t after a return to the 1950s. They want a return to the 1850s. Back when Black people and women knew their place and, when they didn’t, could be and were shown their place. That’s who everybody should be afraid of and it’s not an academic issue to mull over a good whiskey anymore. It’s facing us at the national political level right now and every day until the 2022 midterms. Problem is, most folks don’t even hear much about that because it’s not stated when the microphones are turned on for some “Democratic response” to absolute bile like Yenor all the way up the chain to the extremely similar bile coming from people in actual power or who, you know, were either planning or directly involved in attempting and/or abetting violent insurrection against these United States in January of this year.

Second example, this one from Georgia, where there may be some troubling lack of Democratic voter engagement. Yes, just a drawn out race for mayor of Atlanta, but buried in the story is this bombshell:

Next year, the [Democratic Party] machine is going to be up and running at the fullest extent of its power, and you are going to see all this money flowing into Georgia

Antonio Brown, Atlanta City Council member

Always “next year” with establishment Democrats. Instead of screaming about election access and voting rights, you can always hear them saying “We only need to show up and work when it’s the big election cycles for the top offices,” regardless of vast recent evidence to the contrary. Compare and contrast that attitude with the GOP, currently and aggressively taking control of county election boards in red states across the country (you’ll recall those as the election boards that refused to throw the election to Trump regardless of vote count in 2020), rewriting election laws in every state they can (to make it easier to disregard vote counts when the GOP candidate loses), limiting access to voting in every state they can (including Georgia, where we see in this article that turnout is down, at least in part due to restrictions placed on vote-by-mail and early voting), and blocking any attempts to reform any part of creating guarantees for voting access, controls for the drawing of equitable voting districts, and broad standards for state and local election certification at the federal level.

But it is, of course, perfectly fine for the Democrats to take a long rest and really only bother to wind that old machine up for the really big races. No trouble with that approach at all.

This is why they fail.

Why Nancy Pelosi Won’t Impeach

Required reading from Elizabeth Spiers. Two particularly salient excerpts:

By implying that impeachment in the Senate is the point, Pelosi denies the importance of the process itself—without which impeachment in the Senate wouldn’t happen in any case. And others have argued better and more persuasively than I could that Senate impeachment isn’t the primary or best reason to do it. Referral to the Senate may be in fact be unnecessary and undesirable.

[…]

A slim minority—just 19 percent—of polled opinion supported Richard Nixon’s impeachment at the outset of the Watergate scandal, and by the end of the House Judiciary Committee’s televised impeachment hearings, a strong majority supported it. And that shift in opinion translated into a massive wave of Democratic gains in the 1974 midterm balloting.

Why Nancy Pelosi Won’t Impeach

Yesterday, Trump tried to attack me at his campaign rally by saying I abandoned Pennsylvania. I’ve never forgotten where I came from. My family did have to leave Pennsylvania when I was 10 — we moved to Delaware where my Dad found a job that could provide for our family. Trump doesn’t understand the struggles working folks go through. He doesn’t understand what it’s like to worry you will lose the roof over your head. He doesn’t understand what it’s like to wonder if you’ll be able to put food on the table. And he doesn’t understand that the longest walk a parent can make is up a short flight of stairs to their child’s bedroom to say, honey, I’m sorry. We have to move. You can’t go back to your school. You won’t see your friends because Daddy or Mommy lost their job. My dad had to make that walk in Scranton, Pennsylvania. It wasn’t until I was older that I realized how hard it must have been for him.
But he was not alone. This story isn’t unique to the Bidens. Too many people around this country have had to make that walk.That’s why I’ve spent my whole career fighting — and I will continue to fight — like hell so that no one ever has to make that walk again.
If you’re with me, I hope you’ll join my campaign and chip in what you can

Joe Biden, responding to Trump and showing that, even though I view his 2020 prospects as pretty dim, he can still bring it. The man understands the power of a simple, yet visceral appeal that is clearly drawn from experience and not some focus grouped amalgam of a “formative experience from my recent book.”

Opinion | Inside the coming campaign to block Trump’s Supreme Court pick

I really don’t understand the Democratic messaging problem here. Every Democrat from dog catcher to Senate Minority leader only needs to remember three words: “Merrick Fucking Garland.” Repeat any time a microphone is near. He is the only acceptible nominee for this or any seat on the court until he is seated. Period. The fucking end. Anything else is window dressing and a needless and message-diluting distraction. After Garland is ensconced, we can start to talk about the legitimacy of any Trump nominee for any position, assuming the Orange Man isn’t already in jail by then.

There should be at least 1 million people surrounding the Capitol right now with one simple demand: Garland is seated or no one leaves this building. These are the messages that the modern GOP can and will understand.

Opinion | Inside the coming campaign to block Trump’s Supreme Court pick

The lesson of the special elections around the country is clear: Democratic House candidates can dramatically outperform Clinton in deep red rural areas by running ideological, populist campaigns rooted in progressive areas. Poorer working class voters who pulled the lever for Trump can be swayed back to the left in surprisingly large numbers–perhaps not enough to win in places like Kansas, Montana and South Carolina, but certainly in other more welcoming climes. Nor is there a need to subvert Democratic principles of social justice in order to accomplish this: none of the Democrats who overperformed Clinton’s numbers in these districts curried favor with bigots in order to accomplish it.

But candidates like Clinton and Ossoff who try to run inoffensive and anti-ideological campaigns in an attempt to win over supposedly sensible, wealthier, bourgeois suburban David-Brooks-reading Republican Romney voters will find that they lose by surprisingly wide margins. There is no Democrat so seemingly non-partisan that Romney Republicans will be tempted to cross the aisle in enough numbers to make a difference.

The way forward for Democrats lies to the left, and with the working classes. It lies with a firm ideological commitment to progressive values, and in winning back the Obama voters Democrats lost to Trump in 2016 without giving ground on commitments to social justice. It does not lie in the wealthy suburbs that voted for Romney over Obama in 2012, or in ideological self-effacement on core economic concerns.

David Atkins nails it over at the Washington Monthly. I’d only add: yep. Though it’s also worth noting the Democrats are also fighting a messaging machine they can’t hope to match at this point. This is worth noting that in light of the South Carolina over-performance in an essentially forgotten race in a deep red district…

I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.

Lyndon B. Johnson, man ahead of his time.

I was struck last night by a comment that I heard made by Speaker Ryan, where he called this [Affordable Care Act] repeal bill ‘an act of mercy.’ With all due respect to our speaker, he and I must have read different Scripture…The one I read calls on us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, and to comfort the sick. It reminds us that we are judged not by how we treat the powerful, but by how we care for the least among us. There is no mercy in a system that makes health care a luxury. There is no mercy in a country that turns their back on those most in need of protection: the elderly, the poor, the sick, and the suffering. There is no mercy in a cold shoulder to the mentally ill. This is not an act of mercy. It is an act of malice.

Joe Kennedy III (D. MA) doing it the right way