Friday, April 01, 2016

NOT A DIME'S WORTH OF DIFFERENCE

Yeah, keep telling yourself that a Republican victory would be just fine if your preferred Democratic presidential candidate isn't the nominee, because the Democrat you don't like is indistinguishable from the Republicans:
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said during a radio interview Thursday that he supports national “right-to-work” legislation, a type of anti-labor law that Wisconsin passed last year in an effort to cripple the state’s unions.

The Texas senator, who is currently leading in the Wisconsin polls, said in an interview on WTMJ radio in Milwaukee that such right-to-work laws are a “fundamental right,” according to the Associated Press. Right-to-work laws are designed to severely weaken unions by forcing them to provide services without payment from workers.
This is an idea Republicans really like. So is a national 20-week abortion ban, which has widespread support among Republicans in Congress. So is a national concealed-carry reciprocity bill, which means that states with lax laws regarding concealed carry of firearms will get to decide who can pack heat in states with stricter laws.

I'm just scratching the surface here. If you seriously believe that politics is divided into "relentlessly progressive" and "not relentlessly progressive," and that all "not relentlessly progressive" governments are alike, you apparently have overlooked the category of reactionary governments, such as GOP-dominated Wisconsin, North Carolina, Kansas, and Georgia. The federal government, if we have a Republican president and Congress, would be just like the governments in those states. I know I say this all the time, but those state governments are tacking ever rightward, not sitting in the centrist doldrums. Things are getting worse in those states. And if you think the inevitable response to this sort of government is The Revolution, then ask yourself why Scott Walker won a recall election and reelection, or why Rick Snyder hasn't resigned.

I understand why a lot of people loathe Hillary Clinton. But she is not going to sign a national right-to-work law or a national 20-week abortion ban. She's not going to put justices on the Supreme Court who'll vote to eviscerate labor law and voting rights. No, she's not a flaming lefty. But she's not Ted Cruz.

18 comments:

Rand Careaga said...

This.

AllieG said...

You are of course right. There is a small minority of leftists, just as there are a minority of rightists, who'd really rather lose so they can wallow in how horrible everything is.
Almost always, these people stand to lose nothing at all.

Jeff Ryan said...

2Allie G I know you're right, but I'll tell ya, what I'm seeing on some other sites is enough to make me how many "progressives" are actually Democrats.

The vitriol is thick and the righteousness rigid.

Feud Turgidson said...

FWOW. Susan Sarandon has since claimed that never actually said she'd vote for Trump. Which is true! She only said she might. Which is bad! Bud now she's implying ... something. Which isn't clear! But she'd never ever do anything to betray the poors, the yutes and the oppressed. Which she already did in 2000! But she's being misunderstood. Which is because she's hopeless at messaging! But she's deeply principled! So tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Irai dead and the Dubya Dick effect on America.

So, we'll see. Probably almost everyone will forget what she said and move on.

Jeff Ryan said...

Susan Who?

AllieG said...

Mistaking people on the Internet for public opinion is always a bad error.

ChrisNBama said...

Honestly, I've been sitting out the internecine warfare of this primary campaign. I will happily vote for whatever democrat wins the nomination.

Jeff Ryan said...

@AllieG Yeah, I know.

Philo Vaihinger said...

National abortion ban? National gun license reciprocity law?

These guys are tenthers defending states rights and powers against federal encroachment, right?

Insisting on limiting federal government to it's enumerated or otherwise explicit powers.

So how is abortion a fit subject for federal legislation?

How is a federal requirement of gun license reciprocity not an encroachment?

Gerald Parks said...

Sheeze ...VERY WELL SAID!

GOP/Republican governance is and has been horrific in 21st Century America!

GOP/Republican/BUSH/Cheney governance 2000-2008!!!

You think THAT'S the worst they can do???

LOL ...that was laying the foundation ...

Grung_e_Gene said...

Conservatives looooooove Big Government... when they're in charge.

Ten Bears said...

Actually Jeff, I have long questioned how many so-called democrats are actually "progressive". You're running a Republican Lite candidate and treating everyone who disagrees with you the same way republicans treat everyone who disagrees with them.

It's cliche but: all who wander are not necessarily lost, all that glitters isn't necessarily gold. Be careful what you wish for.

Unknown said...

"Loathsome, but not Ted Cruz." Inspiring candidate you've got there. I can't understand why the young 'uns are all voting for that other guy who Can't Win.

But joking aside, from where do you derive this odd assurance that Hillary won't sell you out when the chips are down? This is a woman who sponsored a bill to criminalize flag burning and ooga-booga-ed about "superpredators". And while I'm sure you'd like to consider the statute of limitations on her Iraq War vote as having expired - although the hundreds of thousands of civilians whose deaths she facilitated are still, you know, dead - there is the ugly matter of her not-that-long-ago cheerleading for the rape of Libya. And the all-but-slavering speech to AIPAC just last week.

Steve M. said...

Restrictions on abortion? Loosening of gun laws? Restrictions on voting rights? Reversal of gay-rights advances? Show me where she's supported these things in the past. Show me where her husband has.

The lefty Hillary-is-the-Antichrist crowd always has the same short list of issues, and nothing else matters. The fixation on the differences between her and an ideal progressive is like the pro-New York distorted perspective on that famous Saul Steinberg map. The huge differences between even a moderate Democrt and the insanely reactionary Republicans fades into insignificance, the way the rest of the planet fades on that map.

Unknown said...

You have me there, Steve. Hillary has not reversed any gay rights advances that I know of. She simply hasn't advocated for them until the public approval polls reached 53%. A real Profile in Courage.

As for my pet issues being different from yours, I'll point out that mine are the more progressive in not valuing American lives more highly than foreign ones. So please spare me any lectures on parochialism.

In any case, you're performing a service by exposing for what it always was the "the time to push for liberal candidates is during the primaries, not during the gerenral election" talk that Obama's apologists liked to trot out.

Leo Artunian said...

Unknown -

I'm not sure how progressive your values are if you don't mind restrictions on abortion, more intentional and accidental gun deaths, and further restrictions on voting rights aimed at suppressing the votes of the poor and minorities, all because Hillary didn't do the right thing on your schedule. If you would be personally affected by any of the possible changes listed above, don't vote against your own interests; if you wouldn't, don't sacrifice others' well-being for the sake of ideological purity.

Ken_L said...

The position I read frequently from Sanders' supporters - that they'll stay home or write in a vote for Sanders rather than "selling out their principles" - is nauseating self-indulgence. But at least it's an honest revelation of the way their voting decisions are all about their own feelings, not a rational analysis of political alternatives.

Luigi said...

B, b, but... Revolution, Man.