“You can make the argument that you are supporting these institutions, not undercutting them...
Newsom observed that “Donald Trump will represent this nation on our 250th anniversary, and he’s up to this?”
Richardson’s response was“We’re going to represent the nation. The most important office is that of citizen. ‘We the people’ is foundational.”
Newsom quickly seized that assessment. “You’re reminding Americans they do have agency,” he said.“It’s not what happens to us; it’s how we respond to what happens to us. He [Trump] can’t take it away from us if we don’t allow it.”
It’s important to remember things, and to keep “issues” in context.Also, who have we asked for the Epstein files today? 😂
No, Rightwing Sh*tbirds Didn’t Pressure Costco Out Of Selling Abortion Pill by Rebecca Schoenkopf
Let’s not give a bunch of hate groups a win they didn’t earn. Read on Substack
With the neverending firehose of incredibly disappointing information, it’s easy to assume that everything is garbage and everything sucks all of the time. Yesterday, I yelled “Well, fuck Costco!” after reading a Reuters article titled “Costco to stop selling abortion pill mifepristone at its US pharmacy stores” — because that’s some bullshit, right?
Well, it was, just not in the way you might immediately assume. Costco never actually sold mifepristone, so they couldn’t “stop” selling something they never sold to begin with.
Stories later in the day did get it right (our link is to the archived very wrong version!). Costco had apparently been deliberating on whether or not to sell abortion medication at their pharmacies (it requires a certification to be able to carry it), and decided against.
Reuters and several other sources noted that the move came after “pressure” from anti-abortion groups, as well as Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate groups like Alliance Defending Freedom, which even went so far as to issue an utterly insipid victory statement.
“We applaud Costco for doing the right thing by its shareholders and resisting activist calls to sell abortion drugs. Retailers like Costco keep their doors open by selling a lifetime of purchases to families, both large and small. They have nothing to gain and much to lose by becoming abortion dispensaries. Retail pharmacies exist to serve the health and wellness of their customers, but abortion drugs like mifepristone undermine that mission by putting women’s health at risk,” said Michael Ross, the group’s legal counsel.
For the record, mifepristone has an extremely low rate — 1 percent — of complications. It is more safe than Viagraor even Tylenol. Abortion is not the only use for the drug, either. It is also used to help safely expel a miscarriage so that one does not become septic (and perhaps require penicillin … yet another drug that is less safe than mifepristone). Groups like the ADF think that if they just keep confidently repeating blatant lies about abortion medication like they are universally accepted as true, that everyone will just go along with them. Just like maybe they’ll believe that the ADF and other groups are so influential that they actually did successfully push Costco to refuse to sell mifepristone.
But there is no reason to believe, without evidence, that Costco’s decision actually had anything to do with “bending the knee” to them or any other insane religious organizations dedicated to making life hell for women, LGBTQ+ people, and anyone who doesn’t share their religious beliefs.
Why? Because the company has no history of doing that, at all, for any reason. In fact, the company has notably refused to “bend the knee” to Republican Attorneys General and whiny conservatives across the land who have been demanding they ditch their DEI policies.
“If these are the policies you see as offensive, I must tell you I am not prepared to change,” CEO Richard Vachris wrote to a “concerned” customer who emailed him, upset about the company’s DEI policies and demanding to know if the company was hiring people based on “skin color” or “gender identification.”
“Attacks on DEI aren’t just bad for business — they hurt our economy. A diverse workforce drives innovation, expands markets, and fuels growth,” Costco board member Jeff Raikes wrote on social media.
Why would a company willing to risk the ire of these groups in that way suddenly decide to capitulate to them in another?
While it’s certainly disappointing that they didn’t change their policy of not selling mife, and those of us with Costco memberships should let them know that, the company has not said that this decision had anything at all to do with wanting to put a smile on the faces of the bigots at the ADF.
Rather, they said they didn’t think there was a demand for it.
“Our position at this time not to sell mifepristone, which has not changed, is based on the lack of demand from our members and other patients, who we understand generally have the drug dispensed by their medical providers,” Costco said in a statement. It’s not what we want to hear, obviously, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they did this because of pressure from the Right.
It’s also worth noting that Costco is known to treat their workers well, paying them, on average $31 an hour with good benefits — quite a bit higher than many of their competitors.
They also have a strong history of not being shitty in this way.
It would be a mistake to roll over on one of the few companies out there that isn’t completely evil. In addition, we shouldn’t hand groups like ADF an unearned “win,” which they have made clear they want to use to pressure other companies — including CVS and Walgreens, which are certified to dispense mifepristone — to stop selling abortion medication, as well as to make the rest of us feel that they are winning the culture war.
It’s like when the One Million Moms (one mom) take credit for getting TV shows canceled or commercials pulled off the air when those decisions actually had nothing to do with them at all. Claiming victory, for these groups, is a way for them to rally their base and to make other companies think they have more influence than they actually do.
The majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal, and they’ve demonstrated this by voting in favor of keeping it legal in their states at practically every turn (not in Florida, because Florida requires 60 percent of the population to approve a ballot measure, which is some bullshit).
If Costco thinks there isn’t enough demand for mifepristone (which, yes, is a weird thing to say because it’s not like a medication anyone gets on a regular basis), then we should convince them that there is, by encouraging them to change their mind and get the certification necessary to sell abortion medication. You can go directly to their website and click the “Feedback” tag on the right side of your screen, call them at 1-800-774-2678, or send them a letter at Costco Wholesale, P.O. Box 34331, Seattle, WA 98124.
Snippet: here are your heroes of the day: the Swedish state-owned energy company Vattenfall, who hired Samuel L. Jackson to star in a commercial entitled “Motherfucking Wind Farms.”
If Texas Wants To Play Dirty, Kathy Hochul, Gavin Newsom, And JB Pritzker Are Ready To Get In The Mud by Rebecca Schoenkopf
Texas using its ‘hey let’s do something about flood warnings’ special session to cheat like the dickens. Read on Substack
The Texas Lege is in special session and putting together a redistricting plan aimed at adding five new Republican-leaning congressional districts, in hopes that might improve the GOP’s chances of keeping control of the House in next year’s midterms. No, there hasn’t been another Census that you forgot about, they just want to rig the electoral map for Daddy Trump.
During a committee hearing on the gerrymandering plan Thursday evening, a Democratic candidate for Congress, Isaiah Martin, was tackled and arrested because he wouldn’t yield the floor after his time expired. Martin was testifying to a state House committee against the plan, which is likely to chop up the 18th Congressional District where he’s running to replace the late Rep. Sylvester Turner, who died in office in March.
“You need to have shame. History will not remember you for what you have done. It is a shame,” Martin yelled out as he was shoved to the ground. “It’s horrific for what you have done. You should all be ashamed. America will rise up against you!”
Martin was booked into Travis County Jail on charges of “criminal trespass, disrupting a meeting or procession and resisting arrest,” but eventually all the charges were dropped. But not quickly: Instead of simply being booked and released Thursday, Martin was held in the jail for about 26 hours, only getting out at 9:30 p.m. Friday — and then he told reporters he plans to be at a second redistricting hearing being held today in Houston.
The special session of the Lege was called to pass disaster relief following the deadly flash floods in the Texas hill country a few weeks ago, but Republicans decided — after Donald Trump told them to do it — that it was also a dandy opportunity to try to prop up the slim and increasingly unpopular GOP majority in Congress.
Before his time ran out and his mic was cut off, Martin condemned Republicans for turning a deadly disaster into a power grab:
“And you choose, after we literally got out of one the worst mass casualty events in our state’s history, to go and gerrymander people out of their seats. That’s what you have chosen to do with your time,” Martin said. “Because you are scared of Donald Trump. You are scared and terrified because you are seeking an endorsement.”
Dems Name ‘We’re Not Gonna Take It’ Tune In Three Notes
Also on Thursday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said she’s not ruling out the possibility of redistricting in her state if Texas and Ohio insist on artificially juicing Republicans’ chances. Speaking at an unrelated event in Buffalo, Hochul answered a reporter’s question by saying, in effect, hell yeah, if they’re gonna play dirty, we’re not going to take it sitting down: (vid on the page)
“All’s fair in love and war. We are following the rules. We do redistricting every 10 years. But if there’s other states violating the rules and are trying to give themselves an advantage, all I’ll say is, I’m going to look at it closely with Hakeem Jeffries.”
In answer to a follow-up question, Hochul added, “I’m not surprised that they’re trying to break the rules to get an advantage. But that’s undemocratic, and not only are we calling them out, we’re also going to see what our options are.”
That could be easier said than done, because unlike Texas, New York actually has a bunch of dumb clean-government laws aimed at preserving electoral fairness, including a constitutional provision specifying that redistricting can only be done once every 10 years, following the US Census. Lousy stinking good government!
In 2022, the state’s highest court threw out a Legislature-drawn electoral map that gave an advantage to Democrats (22 D-advantage seats and four R-leaning seats, compared to the prior map’s 19-8 split), so the maps were redrawn by a state court. That gave Republicans a chance to win more seats in Congress, but the good news here is that thanks to Trump’s fuckery and to their support of the Big Ballocky Buggery Bill that everyone hates (and that not even Republican voters are all that fond of), many of those narrowly elected Republicans are likely to be in trouble next year anyway.
“This is not a bluff,” Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said on Friday afternoon, minutes after meeting with Democrats from the Texas House. “This is real, and trust me, it’s more real after listening to these leaders today, how existential this is.”
Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois issued a similar pledge. “Everything is on the table,” he said on Friday.
Pritzker added that he considered redistricting in between Censuses to be “cheating,” but if Texas Republicans go ahead and “take this drastic action, then we also might take drastic action to respond.”
As in New York, redistricting in either state could be a heavy lift, since Illinois’s electoral maps were already redrawn in 2021 to add one Democratic district and eliminate two Republican-advantaged ones — a move that also led to more extreme Republicans winning their primaries for the remaining R-leaning seats.
In California, district lines are drawn by an independent commission, but Newsom said Friday that he’s considering several different options that could change that process in time for the 2026 election. That could include maybe a voter referendum, or getting a two-thirds vote in the state Lege to allow changes. He said after meeting with the Texans, “We have got to fight fire with fire,” emphasizing that it’s really up to whether Texas goes ahead with its gerrymander.
And back in Texas, Democrats in the Lege are considering all their (very limited) options. Friday’s trips to meet with Pritzker and Newsom took place while the special session was in recess, but the idea of blocking a quorum in the state House by skedaddling from the state — a time-honored tradition in Texas politics — is just one thing Dems are looking at if it becomes necessary. If they do that, each member could be fined $500 a day for being absent, under a 2021 rule change Republicans passed after the last time Democrats went on Rumspringa, that time to delay passage of Republicans’ voter-suppression bill, which eventually passed anydamnway, because electoral fuckery is a time-honored tradition for Texas Republicans, the end. (snip)
Trailblazing Illinois Democrat reflects on political career and says party is ‘in a daze’ about how to combat Trump
Carol Moseley Braun speaks after Rahm Emanuel wins Chicago’s mayoral race in February 2011. Photograph: Nam Y Huh/AP
“Oh, I wish I was in the land of cotton … ”
Carol Moseley Braun was riding a lift in the US Capitol building when she heard Dixie, the unofficial anthem of the slave-owning Confederacy during the civil war. “The sound was not very loud, yet it pierced my ears with the intensity of a dog whistle,” Moseley Braun writes in her new memoir, Trailblazer. “Indeed, that is what it was in a sense.”
The first African American woman in the Senate soon realised that “Dixie” was being sung by Jesse Helms, a Republican senator from North Carolina. He looked over his spectacles at Moseley Braun and grinned. Then he told a fellow senator in the lift: “I’m going to make her cry. I’m going to sing Dixie until she cries.”
But clearly, Moseley Braun notes, the senator had never tangled with a Black woman raised on the south side of Chicago. She told him calmly: “Senator Helms, your singing would make me cry even if you sang Rock of Ages.”
Moseley Braun was the sole African American in the Senate during her tenure between 1993 and 1999, taking on legislative initiatives that included advocating for farmers, civil rights and domestic violence survivors, and went on to run for president and serve as US ambassador to New Zealand.
In a wide-ranging interview with the Guardian from her home in Chicago, she recalls her history-making spell in office, argues that sexism is tougher to crack than racism and warns that the Democratic party is “walking around in a daze” as it struggles to combat Donald Trump.
As for that incident with Helms, she looks back now and says: “I had been accustomed to what we now call microaggressions, so I just thought he was being a jerk.”
Moseley Braun was born in the late 1940s in the post-war baby boom. Her birth certificate listed her as “white” due to her mother’s light complexion and the hospital’s racial segregation, a detail she later officially corrected. She survived domestic abuse from her father, who could be “a loving advocate one minute, and an absolute monster the next”, and has been guided by her religious faith.
In 1966, at the age of 19, she joined a civil rights protest led by Martin Luther King. She recalls by phone: “He was a powerful personality. You felt drawn into him because of who he was. I had no idea he was being made into a modern saint but I was happy to be there and be supportive.
“When it got violent, they put the women and children close to Dr King in concentric circles and so I was close enough to touch him. I had no idea at the time it was going to be an extraordinary point in my life but it really was.”
Moseley Braun was the first in her family to graduate from college and one of few women and Black students in her law school class, where she met her future husband. In the 1970s she won a longshot election to the Illinois general assembly and became the first African American woman to serve as its assistant majority leader.
But when she planned a historic run for the Senate, Moseley Braun met widespread scepticism. “Have you lost all your mind? Why are you doing this? But it made sense to me at the time and I followed my guiding light. You do things that seem like the right thing to do and, if it make sense to you, you go for it.”
Moseley Braun’s campaign team included a young political consultant called David Axelrod, who would go on to be a chief strategist and senior adviser to Obama. She came from behind to win the Democratic primary, rattling the party establishment, then beat Republican Richard Williamson in the general election.
She was the first Black woman elected to the Senate and only the fourth Black senator in history. When Moseley Braun arrived for her first day at work in January 1993, there was a brutal reminder of how far the US still had to travel: a uniformed guard outside the US Capitol told her, “Ma’am, you can’t go any further,” and gestured towards a side-entrance for visitors.
At the time she did not feel that her trailblazing status conferred a special responsibility, however. “I wish I had. I didn’t. I was going to work. I was going to do what I do and then show up to vote on things and be part of the legislative process. I had been a legislator for a decade before in the state legislature so I didn’t at the time see it as being all that different from what I’d been doing before. I was looking forward to it and it turned out to be all that I expected and more.”
Carol Moseley-Braun watches the delayed launch of the space shuttle Discovery in Chicago in October 1998. Photograph: Michael S Green/AP
But it was not to last. Moseley Braun served only one term before being defeated by Peter Fitzgerald, a young Republican who was heir to a family banking fortune and an arch conservative on issues such as abortion rights. But that did not deter her from running in the Democratic primary election for president in 2004.
“It was terrible,” she recalls. “I couldn’t raise the money to begin with and so I was staying on people’s couches and in airports. It was a hard campaign and the fact it was so physically demanding was a function of the fact that I didn’t have the campaign organisation or the money to do a proper campaign for president.
“I was being derided by any commentator who was like, ‘Look, this girl has lost her mind,’ and so they kind of rolled me off and that made it hard to raise money, hard to get the acceptance in the political class. But I got past that. My ego was not so fragile that that it hurt my feelings to make me stop. I kept plugging away.”
Eventually Moseley Braun dropped out and endorsed Howard Dean four days before the opening contest, the Iowa caucuses. Again, she had been the only Black woman in the field, challenging long-held assumptions of what a commander-in-chief might look like.
“That had been part and parcel of my entire political career. People saying: ‘What are you doing here? Why are you here? Don’t run, you can’t possibly win because you’re not part of the show and the ways won’t open for you because you’re Black and because you’re a woman.’ I ran into that every step of the way in my political career.”
Since then, four Black women have followed in her footsteps to the Senate: Kamala Harris and Laphonza Butler of California, Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland and Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware.
Moseley Braun says: “I was happy of that because I was determined not to be the last of the Black women in the Senate. The first but not the last. That was a good thing, and so far the progress has been moving forward. But then we got Donald Trump and that trumped everything.”
Harris left the Senate to become the first woman of colour to serve as vice-president, then stepped in as Democrats’ presidential nominee after Joe Biden abandoned his bid for re-election.
Moseley Braun comments: “I thought she did as good a job as she could have. I supported her as much as I knew how to do and I’m sorry she got treated so badly and she lost like she did. You had a lot of sub rosa discussions of race and gender that she should have been prepared for but she wasn’t.”
Trump exploited the “manosphere” of podcasters and influencers and won 55% of men in 2024, up from 50% of men in 2020, according to Pew Research. Moseley Braun believes that, while the country has made strides on race, including the election of Obama as its first Black president in 2008, it still lags on gender.
“I got into trouble for saying this but it’s true: sexism is a harder thing to change than racism. I had travelled fairly extensively and most of the world is accustomed to brown people being in positions of power. But not here in the United States. We haven’t gotten there yet and so that’s something we’ve got to keep working on.”
Does she expect to see a female president in her lifetime? “I certainly hope so. I told my little grandniece that she could be president if she wanted to. She looked at me like I lost my mind. ‘But Auntie Carol, all the presidents are boys.’”
Still, Trump has not been slow to weaponise race over the past decade, launching his foray into politics with a mix of false conspiracy theories about Obama’s birthplace and promises to build a border wall and drive out criminal illegal immigrants.
Moseley Braun recalls: “It was racial, cultural, ethnic, et cetera, backlash. He made a big deal out of the immigration issue, which was racism itself and people are still being mistreated on that score.
“They’ve been arresting people for no good reason, just because they look Hispanic. The sad thing about it is that they get to pick and choose who they want to mess with and then they do. It’s too destructive of people’s lives in very negative ways.”
Yet her fellow Democrats have still not found an effective way to counter Trump, she argues. “The Democratic party doesn’t know what to do. It’s walking around in a daze. The sad thing about it is that we do need a more focused and more specific response to lawlessness.”
Five years after the police murder of George Floyd and death of Congressman John Lewis, there are fears that many of the gains of the civil rights movement are being reversed.
Over the past six months Trump has issued executive orders that aim to restrict or eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. He baselessly blamed DEI for undermining air safety after an army helicopter pilot was involved in a deadly midair collision with a commercial airliner. Meanwhile, Washington DC dismantled Black Lives Matter Plaza in response to pressure from Republicans in Congress.
None of it surprises Moseley Braun. “It should have been expected. He basically ran on a platform of: ‘I’m going to be take it back to the 1800s. Enough of this pandering and coddling of Black people.’”
But she has seen enough to take the long view of history. “This is normal. The pendulum swings both ways. We have to put up with that fact and recognise that this is the normal reaction to the progress we’ve made. There’s bound to be some backsliding.
More than 30 years have passed since Moseley Braun, wearing a peach business suit and clutching her Bible, was sworn into the Senate by the vice-president, Dan Quayle. Despite what can seem like baby steps forward and giant leaps back, she has faith that Americans will resist authoritarianism.
“I’m very optimistic, because people value democracy,” he says. “If they get back to the values undergirding our democracy, we’ll be fine. I hope that people don’t lose heart and don’t get so discouraged with what this guy’s doing.
“If they haven’t gotten there already, the people in the heartland will soon recognise this is a blatant power grab that’s all about him and making a fortune for himself and his family and has nothing to do with the common good. That’s what public life is supposed to be about. It’s public service.”
It isn’t timidity. It’s a complete reconstruction of what is acceptable rhetoric, and it makes gentler more collegial conversation and work impossible.
Whether it’s bloodshed at Glastonbury or starving people on benefits, their ‘irony poisoning’ seeps obscene ideas into the range of the possible
Illustration: Nate Kitch/The Guardian
Imagine the furore if a Guardian columnist suggested bombing, say, the Conservative party conference and the Tory stronghold of Arundel in Sussex. It would dominate public discussion for weeks. Despite protesting they were “only joking”, that person would never work in journalism again. Their editor would certainly be sacked. The police would probably come knocking. But when the Spectator columnist Rod Liddle speculates about bombing Glastonbury festival and Brighton, complaints are met with, “Calm down dear, can’t you take a joke?” The journalist keeps his job, as does his editor, the former justice secretary Michael Gove. There’s one rule for the left and another for the right.
The same applies to the recent comments on GB News by its regular guest Lewis Schaffer. He proposed that, to reduce the number of disabled people claiming benefits, he would “just starve them. I mean, that’s what people have to do, that’s what you’ve got to do to people, you just can’t give people money … What else can you do? Shoot them? I mean, I suggest that, but I think that’s maybe a bit strong.” The presenter, Patrick Christys replied, “Yeah, it’s just not allowed these days.”
You could call these jokes, if you think killing people is funny. Or you could call them thought experiments. Liddle suggested as much in his column: “I am merely hypothesising, in a slightly wistful kinda way.” This “humour” permits obscene ideas to seep into the range of the possible.
Academic researchers see the use of jokes to break taboos and reduce the thresholds of hate speech as a form of “strategic mainstreaming”. Far-right influencers use humour, irony and memes to inject ideas into public life that would otherwise be unacceptable. In doing so, they desensitise their audience and normalise extremism. A study of German Telegram channels found that far-right content presented seriously achieved limited reach, as did non-political humour. But when far-right extremism was presented humorously, it took off. (snip-MORE)
Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island gives 300th climate speech on the US Senate floor
Sheldon Whitehouse at a Senate confirmation hearing on 6 February 2025. Photograph: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images
The Democratic party and the climate movement have been “too cautious and polite” and should instead be denouncing the fossil fuel industry’s “huge denial operation”, the US senator Sheldon Whitehouse said.
“The fossil fuel industry has run the biggest and most malevolent propaganda operation the country has ever seen,” the Rhode Island Democrat said in an interview Monday with the global media collaboration Covering Climate Now. “It is defending a $700-plus billion [annual] subsidy” of not being charged for the health and environmental damages caused by burning fossil fuels. “I think the more people understand that, the more they’ll be irate [that] they’ve been lied to.” But, he added, “Democrats have not done a good job of calling that out.”
Whitehouse is among the most outspoken climate champions on Capitol Hill, and on Wednesday evening, he delivered his 300th Time to Wake Up climate speech on the floor of the Senate.
He began giving these speeches in 2012, when Barack Obama was in his first term, and has consistently criticized both political parties for their lackluster response to the climate emergency. The Obama White House, he complained, for years would not even “use the word ‘climate’ and ‘change’ in the same paragraph”.
While Whitehouse slams his fellow Democrats for timidity, he blasts Republicans for being in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, an entity whose behavior “has been downright evil”, he said. “To deliberately ignore [the laws of physics] for short-term profits that set up people for huge, really bad impacts – if that’s not a good definition of evil, I don’t know what is.” (snip-MORE)
that according to my email from WordPress on 7/10/24, I was added as an author on Scottie’s Playtime. My mission, as I understood it, is to post some posts often to keep the blog lively while Scottie recuperated from a thing, to keep track of and acknowledge/reply to comments, to thank other bloggers who link to us, and to make sure that readers who feel marginalized know we see them and want to see them here at Playtime. Scottie has the blog mission statement linked up above. I hope I’ve been doing that, and I’m so complimented by Scottie’s continuing support of the stuff I do here. I always want to make sure everyone knows I’m an old woman ally who has plenty of free mom hugs, and I also make some excellent chocolate chip cookies that are not only excellent, but healthful, and I love to share. All are welcome here.
I am up for suggestions on material, too! I’ve been posting the Peace & Justice newsletters here for a year, so they will be becoming redundant. I’m wondering about culling a little something from each one, and maybe posting them weekly, though I’m not adverse to continuing as I am. The one thing about it, some of their links are no longer active, so I’m able to search for newer info and use those links, but otherwise, the newsletters are much the same each year. (I’ve been reading and sharing them since 2002. Not here since then, but other places.😄)
I’ve really been enjoying the Queer History Substacks! I like some lusty language with my facts. However, is there something I can do to make those easier on readers? Let me know!
So, again, I’m humbly pleased that Scottie lets me post here on his blog, and is so supportive of it. I hope to continue for at least the upcoming year, and am always up for suggestions. And comments. And chocolates.
I cannot add up the number of times I’ve been told by good, liberal Dems that these issues won’t float. And that was back in the 1980s and 90s, not to mention the 2000s. Anyway, take a look!
Mamdani And The Left Are Moving The Window – Good by Oliver Willis
What if everything you believed since you have been politically awake is wrong? It isn’t that you have bad intentions or you’re fundamentally stupid, but what if instead you believed for so long that the existing menu of political options was one group of beliefs but in reality, that was a really limited menu that excluded some really tasty items you never considered before?
When a rising progressive figure like Zohran Mamdani makes bold statements about what he wants to achieve, it can make regular old mainstream Democrats/liberals like myself wince. Government supermarkets? We shouldn’t have billionaires? Immediately that kicks in concerns about how Democrats are perceived. It isn’t just Mamdani. Ideas like defunding the police, universal basic income, free health care, etc.? Sure, we say, they may sound good on paper – but they also sound like left wing fantasyland, they’re just not “practical.”
And maybe they are impractical, unworkable, and election losers. But – what if not? We should at least have the conversation, I think.
Because for decades now American political discourse has been operating within the parameters set by the right wing, not the left. Since 1980 we have had 20 years of Democratic presidents and while I think they did a decent job of domestic politics between the three of them (Clinton, Obama, and Biden), much of what they did was within the narrow paradigm of what was acceptable behavior.
Clinton frequently talked about cutting the size of the government, Obama spoke about lowering the deficit, and Biden also used the language of “fiscal responsibility” as the right envisions it. All three men accepted the existence of billionaires and even pushed policies that would theoretically create even more of them. None of them would argue that the police needed to be defunded, and in fact they all oversaw federal spending that sent billions to police departments.
I was among the millions who supported these three presidents, along with other Democrats who ran for office with a similar world view both at the presidential and congressional level to varying degrees of success.
But these people have all been operating within the right’s paradigms. Collectively we never openly debated how we could have it all wrong. Maybe the prison system should be abolished? Maybe billionaires should be taxed out of existence?
Even if we don’t ultimately reach those conclusions, these are debates worth having.
Because while we have been limiting ourselves, the right hasn’t. Since Barry Goldwater in 1964, the right has been shifting the Overton Window – what is considered acceptable public discourse – steadily to the right. We have gone from Republicans like Nixon creating agencies like the EPA to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush cutting funding for vital agencies to Donald Trump trying to completely destroy agencies like the Department of Education.
Things that Trump treats as uncontroversially right-wing today would have been laughed out of the room as the ravings of lunatics in 1958. The right has mounted serial challenges to what was the liberal orthodoxy (not on every issue but most issues) in the 1960s and they have molded public perception of what acceptable dialogue is.
We are worse off for this. One can praise what Democratic leaders have accomplished in a progressive manner (health care, infrastructure, overall policy) and still admit that the thinking has been severely limited and inhibiting.
Voters are making this clear to the party. They keep showing in multiple federal and state elections that they are unhappy with the status quo and in some instances, like with Trump, they are far too eager to flirt with fascism versus maintaining the system as-is.
Think about the world that millennials and Gen-Z have lived in for their entire lives. Not only has it been shaped by Reaganism and Trumpism, but it has also been peppered with Democratic leaders like Obama, Clinton, and Biden who didn’t fundamentally challenge the bedrock of what the right laid but instead focused on (well needed) nibbling at the edges.
It has been a very long time, probably not since the Great Depression, where Democrats articulated the notion that something beyond the acceptable was possible. When Franklin D. Roosevelt first took office, the consensus was that bad stuff just had to happen and that the government had to lie back, helpless. Herbert Hoover couldn’t truly conceive of a universe where the government swooped in and actively combated the forces making things worse for ordinary Americans. Roosevelt shifted the window and set up the infrastructure of the safety net that still exists today (for now). (snip-MORE, + Kal El photo. Click through!)
Scottie's Playtime 