Both are responsible. The GOP turned it into a cudgel, but the far left is the one that invented terms like "Latinx", equated ideological dissent with "violence", fell for identity politics rhetoric and essentially sold conservatives the rope they used to hang them with. As @Major is saying, the politics of the left's all-or-nothing stance turns off a lot of people who don't live in New York, Berkeley or Los Angeles. Pew Research says that 1.6% of US adults identify as transsexual but 5% of people under 30 identify as trans or non-binary. I don't know what is driving the delta between those two numbers; have there always been more trans people than 1.6% who were afraid to come out or is growing acceptance and visibility of trans people leading to some level of social contagion among young people? I honestly don't know. But I don't think that demonizing the very people who "evolved" on gay marriage 10 years ago as hopeless bigots is the way to win.
Like I said… all or nothing. You literally didn’t even consider what Biden did because it doesn’t fit your view. Lol. All or nothing…. You and MAGAs have that in common.
Oh you are a victim also. The moment you used the term "Latinx" I knew you were a victim of propaganda. "Latinx" is a academic term that academics use for brevity and convenience in their academic papers. The right made it into a term that apparently the left uses in daily lexicon.
I would rather frame the dialogue around being inclusive in prosperity for people who experience the least amount of it in this nation. I would think by focusing your attention on Americans who experience the least amount of prosperity for whatever collection of reasons, as a positive side effect you would see things like poverty and crime go down without having to frame the dialogue as though you're trying to de-fund anybody or exclude anybody. What the real messaging should be is how to include prosperity for Americans who experience the least amount of it and how to best address their needs so that they too may find prosperity in this nation. By having more people at least achieve a level of middle class, who aren't without their legitimate criticisms of the way things are, in turn you should see less government dependence from people who rely on it in their day to day experiences as by achieving a certain income threshold higher than they experience at present, they also don't qualify for government assistance programs they were previously dependent on. That requires modifying existing systems that tend to benefit some people but less so others and how you want to modify existing systems to meet the needs of people who are experiencing the least amount of prosperity in their lives as a result of systems being the way they currently are. Platform on being inclusive in prosperity for people experiencing the least amount of it and then explain how addressing the needs of people who experience the least amount of prosperity in their lives will lead to things like less crime, poverty and government dependence to simply live day to day. Explain how increasing the level of prosperity for your poorest people to a level of middle class leads to less government dependence overall while simultaneously leading to a greater collection of taxes to fund entities like your law enforcement, your environmental conservationists and just the day to day entities that depend on taxes in order to operate to the benefit of communities.
All or nothing.... Yet I voted straight ticket Democrat. It's as if merely hearing any pushback from the left is enough for you to believe it's some "all or nothing" bs.
We were good boys and girls and kept our mouth shut. We sorry we express our views and apologize. We understand the moderates know what is best for the country always.
I guess I am! I should've known that academic contexts like NPR and the Pac-12, not to mention cloistered personalities like Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, don't carry any weight outside of campuses.
GOP messaging on transgender issues: Democrats care more about transgender people than you, and think you're horrible if you don't support their agenda. DEM messaging on transgender issues: You are horrible if you don't support transgender rights. 90% of the America wouldn't have this issue in their top 10 issues, but if forced to choose, which side will they pick? This is why progressives can't ever win major elections - they can't figure out how to actually talk to people who aren't fully aligned with them. If you want to fight for transgender rights, you need to win in the places they are being taken away. And that means messaging to the vast majority of Americans who don't think about this issue on a regular basis, instead of demonizing them. If someone spoke to you the way fchowd is doing to people in this thread *who actually agree with him on the policy side*, what are the odds they are going to win these people over? This is the heart of what the article is talking about.
I don’t have access to your personal life, I can only go by your rhetoric. You were wrong about your public health claim, deal with it.
I find it the opposite. I find the sincere left, the left that actually does things like investigative journalism, people like Robert Evans, are far more empathic of the issues that rural white Americans face. Leftists will also be less dogmatic about things like firearm regulation. They will criticize the Clinton era NAFTA policy that ushered in a new era of hollering out of middle America. I don't see that type of intellectual curiosity by establishment Democrats. I honestly believe you don't actually know what the left outside of what moderate and establishment people tell you what they are. Like do you even know leftists like Robert Evans? To me someone like him embodies "the left" not what ever homogulation of ideas you have about them from MSNBC and CNN.
Again, I would think framing the dialogue about being inclusive in it's prosperity for Americans that experience the least amount of it, you could subvert the back and forth insults that come from such issues as this. If more trans people experienced prosperity in their lives, they'd probably have less issues to have a platform over from which political divides are created. And what do I mean by prosperity? I tend to think having healthy relationships with friends and family and your local community matters in that equation. Financial independence that is enough to afford the freedom to live your life as you please with respect to other people that doesn't encroach their preferred way to live. Access to healthcare, including those from which there's political divide on granting access. In turn, I would assume things like mental health issues would go down because more members of the trans community are content in their lives. All centered around being inclusive in prosperity for people experiencing very little of it right now.
This article is pretty short-sighted- the author seems stuck in the 90s and doesn't recognize that young voters will not support a party that tries to hedge its support for minority and marginalized populations. Parents may be exasperated with pronouns, but the kids recognize that the real issue is treating people with dignity and fairness. If the Democrats show signs of caving to GOP misinformation, these young voters won't switch to the GOP but they will stay home. Better that the Democrats tie their support for minority and marginalized people to their broader issue of fairness and equal opportunity. For example, if a GOP politician accuses a Democrat of supporting "doctors whose only agenda is to turn kids into transgendered," the Democrat should respond as follows; 1) The only agenda I support when it comes to doctors is ensuring the health and well-being of their patients 2) Any doctor who is attempting to change the gender of a child without having followed proper standards and protocols should lose their right to practice. 3) Finally (and here's the important pivot), Democrats support the same standard for all medical professionals for all medical issues - we don't want doctors to make premature recommendations/actions on gender dysphoria, cancer or heart disease. So I support legislation to stop bad doctors from taking advantage and pushing bad practices on anyone, whether it be for gender dysphoria, cancer, depression or heart disease. The key is to emphasize that their committment to dignity and fairness is not limited to "those other people." When it comes to tying that concept to rural voters, focus on the need to improve rural opportunities. But don't cave to xenophobia and promise them that you'll deport anyone who doesn't go to the correct church in town - that message will only work until the current generation of seniors pass away. Similarly, the reason abortion is a winning issue for Democrats is because voters know they won't try to hedge when the issue comes up as a referendum or as legislation. Democrats support abortion rights wholeheartedly and as we've seen, the voters will turn to them when that issue is on the line. So overall, the Democrats have to convince voters that they'll hold the line on a multitude of other popular issues. As far as "liberal patriotism," I think finding the right metaphor to articulate the generally held liberal belief that "America has been great but I want to keep it that way/make it better" would go a long way. I'll have to think about this some more, though - it's a concept that I haven't given much time to. Where I somewhat agree that Democrats need to improve is demonstrating the economic as well as the cultural/moral utility of their policies. Democrats love to say "health care should be a right," but they should also say "a government option will free up more entrepreneurs to start their own businesses because they won't be handcuffed to the insurance offered by big corporations." They need to emphasize that green energy is not just the future for moral and environmental reasons, but because there is a much greater potential for job growth in these industries than there is in fossil fuels.
My point is i don't think Democratic voters really care about labels as much as people like Joe Rogan make it seem like they do by going on nonstop about "wokeism". Only think Democratic voters care about... and I think it's obvious most Democratic candidates get it too.... is that their fundamental rights aren't hampered. Not that they are catered to with pronouns, etc. This is most pronounced in the whole school board debate, the bigotted policies they put in place, and the reactions from the kids that are LGBTQ that my wife teaches. These kids (which are future genZ voters, and show what most mainstream lgbtq people believe) respond by just saying "I just want to be treated normally, and focus on the normal things that people learn in school like math, science, english, etc. In that vein I would assume that most LGBTQ people, when talking about it from a state, or nation wide policy perspective, have the same response... which is... I just want to be treated normally, and have this debate about the policies I really care about... education, healthcare, etc. Treating them as if they are some sort of problem that needs to be fixed is the issue. I didn't see ONE Democrat that was running on providing puberty blockers, or whatever. I saw them running on Womens reproductive rights, protecting democracy, expanding medicare, etc. The message to LGBTQ people that is focused on their identify is more focused on calling out people like Joe Rogan or these school boards, or whoever to basically say let's keep these people out of office so they don't make your sexuality the issue, and instead focus on the stuff you REALLY care about.
Yes, but in the political spectrum that's not "centrist".... that is still pro-LGBTQ and the other side will label it as "woke." You really can't win on this issue if you start trying to cater to some mythological "centrist" voter. Look at John Fetterman and Josh Shapiro. Neither guy tried to walk a fine line catering to the middle on an issue like this. It was always, "here your (LGBTQ) voice matters" etc. etc. and let's talk about the issues that actually matter.... and they won. As a Democrat, you just freaking move on, and don't overthink this crap. Talk to them as though they care about the same things everyone else cares about, and BOTH the LGBTQ people, and those others who maybe aren't understanding of their sexuality but don't want to be bigotts will applaud you as a candidate. Say things like "And to all the LGBTQ people here in Texas, or Florida, or wherever.... I'm here to tell you that you have a place here in this state under my leadership, and a voice. Because in the end, the things you want are the same as everyone else... healthcare, financial security, safety, etc." That's the way to go. All the punditry around this crap is just made for TV arguments for Joe Rogan, and Bill Maher. Nobody really gives a sh$t about pronouns, etc. Don't be a "centrist"... just F-ing full throated tell that community I HAVE YOUR BACK on the issues you really care about, and I won't stand for the garbage legislation that is there to make you feel like you don't belong in this democracy.
I don't think Democrats will win over much of anyone that considers any and all support of LGBTQ as Woke-ism. They don't need to try. But they can make those that push that noise be seen as extreme if they go about it the right way. The more they can show things like same sex marriage is part of the mainstream and are being threatened by the extremists who want to label everything as Woke, the better they will do with swing voters. It isn't that the issues will motivate or drive those voters but they won't want to see more rights removed.
Any politician worth their salt knows this is a Red Herring trap argument. There is no mythological "centrist" position on trans people in sports. In the end, it's not endemic. Name me 5 cases in the US of trans girl competing in girls sports. It's not happening so it's not something that is an endemic FEDERAL or State level problem. As a party the response to this question if a troll FoxNews reporter asks a Democrat about it should be to say that This is not an issue that is life or death for most Americans who are worried about their next paycheck. There are far too few cases to require federal intervention, and I recommend you have the discussion with your local school board where you can address those concerns based on the individual cases in your school district. All I care about is making sure that these policies are not discriminatory in either way, and we aren't creating a generation of kids who think society has ostracized them. The response isn't that hard and doesn't have to be centrist or extremist at all. Again... focus on what people care about, and what your job is to do as a federal Democratic party member. Local School Board Candidates though... yes they need to have a plan they can speak to. That is NOT a Democratic party issue though because most school board candidates who aren't Qanon nuts go out of their way to not be affiliated with a federal party.
