« Simplification Bait and Switch | Main | Deputy Bolton »
Awesome
You know what I like best of all? Having my views totally mischaracterized as a means of guarding the orthodoxy. I have actual unorthodox opinions -- condemn them. I say -- legalize assault weapons! Drill in ANWR! Let the media consolidate! And that's just off the top of my head.November 17, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8346b52ce69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Awesome:
Comments
Come on. He was just being facetious and trying to make a very good point - much like the one you're making now. If we say screw X for the sake of appealing to the red states, then why not screw everything?
Posted by: Kangaroo Jack | Nov 17, 2004 1:37:09 AM
For what it's worth, I happen to agree with you vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade - the bigger problem is these Federalist Society 'constitution-in-exile' types. They're the ones we should be worried about; if our litmus test is for anything, it should be for that, not Roe v. Wade.
Posted by: Kangaroo Jack | Nov 17, 2004 1:39:09 AM
I think your Roe position has merits, but it also deserves a fair amount of grief for the very reasons you've articulated in previous posts. It is quite possible that overturning Roe would result in a singificant number of women in this Country being denied the right to an abortion, in the short-term. Loss of freedom is never a thing we should feel comfortable with. Also, the Pro-Choice constituency is much the solid base of the Democratic Party as the Pro-Life constituency is the solid base of the Republican Party. So any actual shift to deemphasize Roe carries a number of political risks you haven't really addressed (or I don't remember if you did).
Also, Drill in ANWR?! Consolidate the media further?!?!?!?! WHY? ANWR I can understand, though I also think your position reflects a lack of concern for biodiversity and its scientific and religious/moral importance. However, why would we want to consolidate the media further? Is it good that media consolidation has been accompanied by the increasing influence of media organizations that solely produce propoganda? Is it good that media consilidation has increased the degree to which our national dialogue is defined by the common wisdom and the day long spin cycle? Is it good that as the media has consolidated it has gotten increasingly conservatively biased? Also, do you think monopolies and oligopolies are economically efficient? Why or why would we want further media consolidation? What exactly are the benefits?
Posted by: MDtoMN | Nov 17, 2004 2:21:31 AM
I think Digby's post partially solidifies the split that the Democrats are feeling right now. And it's a palpable split between the moderates, who aren't completely pro-NARAL, and the partisan left, and it's not just the issue of abortion.
There's a reason why many moderate Democrats were so angry with Kerry's defeat -- because during the course of the campaign, we were arguing points that we could see arguing against if they were taken by the other side.
Now, because of Kerry's loss, many moderates are feeling hopeless -- they let off on Kerry because they wanted Bush defeated. But that didn't work; the Bush team somehow endured.
Let's face it, Digby, et al: The Democratic Party is filled with conflicting opinions. Our new Senate Majority Leader is pro-life, remember.
We aren't an ideology of partisanship; we're an ideology of openness and progress. That's why so many independents joined the Democrats this election year. We aren't focused on maintaining power. We just want pragmatism to rule.
Pragmatism, humanity and progress. That should be the Democrats' M.O. in 2008.
Posted by: J. Puckett | Nov 17, 2004 2:29:52 AM
I'd actually like to hear the reasons behind your various unorthodoxies.
Posted by: Toadmonster | Nov 17, 2004 2:54:35 AM
How about people with actual holes in their heads?
Posted by: bad Jim | Nov 17, 2004 2:58:02 AM
As long as Democrats feel its an article of faith that both abortion policy and the definition of marriage should be decided by unelected judges, they will be losing the vote of democrats.
Posted by: abdul abulbul amir | Nov 17, 2004 3:04:02 AM
Right: as long as Democrats are progressive, they'll lose.
Posted by: bad Jim | Nov 17, 2004 4:18:28 AM
Actually, my argument is all about pragmatism. I'm a New Democrat who believed for 15 years that moving to the right on social issues was the practical thing to do. Death penalty, welfare, gun control, faith based programs, school vouchers, mend it don't end it, gays in the military --- I've backed them. I believed that civil unions were radical enough. Partial birth abortion, ok.
Now that we've completely lost the congress, the presidency and are about to lose any hope of having progressive influence on the judiciary to a radical party of zealots and incompetents, I think it's pragmatic to assess if that plan is actually working for us. Waddaya think?
Maybe we just haven't gone far enough. But I'm getting the funniest feeling that our "pragmatism" isn't too successful. There's always something more to compromise on our side, but we're not seeing anything coming the other way for some reason. Why, if I didn't know better I'd think that Republican party keeps moving the goalposts while we desperately contort ourselves into a center that is now only slightly to the left of Joe Mccarthy. And we keep losing while we do it. Imagine that.
BTW Matt, I didn't mean to pick on you. The words "conventinal wisdom" about the idea that ditching Roe for the good of the party just struck me the wrong way.
Posted by: digby | Nov 17, 2004 4:50:38 AM
I agree with you on assault weapons. I think large numbers of disaffected progressives, enviromentalists, feminists, academics, pro-choicers and others should all be allowed to carry them to any and all Bush public speaking engagements. After all, they might need protection from the triumphalists on the right to be found in such settings. Now, if one of them were a little unhinged and let loose a few successful bursts towards the podium, well, irony can be entertaining even in the extreme I suppose....................
Posted by: steve duncan | Nov 17, 2004 6:34:14 AM
Digby is a legal moron. Abortion is murder and murder is evil because God says so in the Holy Bible.
P.S. Cause and effect are the foundation of science according to Aristotle, Kant, and Heisenberg. God is the First Cause.
Posted by: Modern Crusader | Nov 17, 2004 6:35:19 AM
Roe Vs. Wade is a blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
Posted by: Modern Crusader | Nov 17, 2004 6:36:36 AM
Roe Vs. Wade is a blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights
no, you are.
Posted by: cleek | Nov 17, 2004 7:13:13 AM
abandoning women's causes is always the first step... The joys of having so many more men in postions of power - be it legislative, judicial or opinionzing. Thanks a lot guys.
What constituency gets abandoned second?
Posted by: majkia | Nov 17, 2004 7:51:43 AM
Matt-
MEDIA CONSOLIDATION?
Sincerely,
theperegrine
Posted by: theperegrine_project | Nov 17, 2004 8:13:22 AM
Cause and effect are the foundation of science according to Aristotle, Kant, and Heisenberg. God is the First Cause.
Actually, cause and effect plays a small role in modern physics, where conservation laws and gauge theories are used instead. You can't build a mathematical formula on top of a "cause and effect" law.
Posted by: Bernie Simon | Nov 17, 2004 8:16:12 AM
Bernie Simon is correct, of course, regarding modern physics. Besides, given that Heisenberg developed the Uncertainty Principle, it is difficult to believe that he espoused "cause and effect" as the foundation of much of anything.
On another matter, would anyone want to speculate about whether this abortion issue will substantially go away once abortion-inducing drugs such as RU486 become available for purchase over the Internet? Maybe they will become as widely available as, say, Viagra.
Posted by: raj | Nov 17, 2004 8:32:40 AM
"Also, Drill in ANWR?! Consolidate the media further?!?!?!?! WHY? ANWR I can understand, though I also think your position reflects a lack of concern for biodiversity and its scientific and religious/moral importance."
No it doesn't - the biodiversity to be found there is minimal. It reflects a concern that tradeoffs need to be made, and the value of whatever biodiversity is to be found in that block of ice needs to be weighed against the value of that black stuff underneath that keeps the lights on and lets us eat well year round, get to jobs dozens of miles away instead of being stuck working for whatever schmucks happen to operate within biking distance, and visit the relatives without having to spend our whole lives in their home state and putting up with whatever economic climate prevails there.
Posted by: Ken | Nov 17, 2004 8:34:19 AM
Totally mischaracterized?
"My biggest fear about the courts over the next few years is that in seeking to protect Roe the Democrats will wind up giving away the store on almost everything else."
"Matt Yglesias and others think that Roe vs Wade is probably a goner and may even be a good thing because if we expend a bunch of energy defending it, more important things will be sacrificed."
Posted by: Philboid Studge | Nov 17, 2004 8:51:21 AM
raj, in the future I'd rethink getting drugs over the internet or anywhere else if the government is against it. Many states now allow pharmacists to refuse filling prescriptions if they're morally opposed to the purpose of the drug. Now there is a pilot govermment program to tag drugs with a transmitter and antennae which will permit tracking of their distribution and sale. It currently is limited to wholesale lots but will surely progress down to the retail level. Once that is in place severe penalties will be enacted for dispensing or possessing drugs without the tracker in place. I'm sure in the coming years the right will put in place highly onerous impediments to buying RU486 and any other drugs or devices relating to reproductive health. The final act will be to make possession of coat hangers illegal.
Posted by: steve duncan | Nov 17, 2004 9:06:40 AM
ANWR is a pretend issue. There is almost no oil there, and there would be minmal environmental damage if it were extracted. It was just something to differentiate the political parties before 9/11. It is not worthy of debate considering the real issues that face our societ.
Posted by: Njorl | Nov 17, 2004 9:11:56 AM
Modern Crusader, there is no God and you know it. If you're so sure, prove it. Facist moron.
Posted by: gregg | Nov 17, 2004 9:15:06 AM
steve duncan | November 17, 2004 09:06 AM
I acknowledge your point, but I'll just point out that the US is not the only possible source for RU486. Canada and Europe are also potential sources, as is Brazil and probably a few other countries. We have a little bit of experience in this regard--although it was not in regards RU486 and not over the Internet. The US currently doesn't have the wherewithall to monitor all individual packages coming in from abroad, and likely won't for some time, if ever.
Posted by: raj | Nov 17, 2004 9:19:51 AM
gregg | November 17, 2004 09:15 AM
You know, if you ignore trolls, they often go away.
Posted by: raj | Nov 17, 2004 9:20:40 AM
"guarding the orthodoxy"? Hardly. More like Digby recognizes that the causal connection between years of DLC-style defensiveness and the rightwing's ascendancy.
Posted by: Bragan | Nov 17, 2004 10:29:56 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
