https://bsky.app/profile/erininthemorning.com/post/3mynwzsux7k2u
Josh Turek of Iowa, Democrat, comes out with one of the worst anti-trans ads yet.
Not only is it an anti-sports ad, it proposes a ban on federal funding for gender affirming care. That would hit all medicaid and medicare patients, and any ACA federally-subsidized plans as well.
Horrific.
No, they would likely lose votes. Because enough people are following my strategy. They would lose votes, because of people refusing to vote for them if they sell out trans people.
You’re supposed to be arguing against my strategy, not for it. If everyone followed your strategy, the Democrats wouldn’t lose any votes in those states because they’d still be “the lesser evil.” Which is exactly why lesser evilism is bullshit.
No. There are two armies, no matter who wins here, this election is merely one battlefield. And if winning here means a shitty strategy gets adopted by the entire army, in other battlefields, then defeat is preferable. You again, are trying to limit the scope of analysis to only the immediate outcome and only in this one race, refusing to look at how this will affect the war in general. There are countless other battlefields, and not all of them are even elections. I don’t see how it’s possible to not get this, there have to be consequences for treason, or everything breaks down. A single senate seat is a small price to pay, for the bigger picture.
The fact that the enemy is so powerful and dangerous is exactly why it’s so important to face them with the correct strategy. I’m just as afraid for the future as you are. But I’m not going to let that control me or determine my actions.
Unity and solidarity are the correct strategic direction. It’s possible that we take that approach and fail, but that just means we never would have succeeded anyway. Abandoning the whole strategy for some momentary, fleeting gain is shortsighted and self-defeating.
I’ll admit, my very first comment was inflammatory and I meant it to be. There’s too many comments on here that come across as telling me that I need to be willing to die for someone else’s beliefs, and I reacted accordingly. It definitely didn’t help though that you decided to call me a coward for not wanting to die for your beliefs.
I’m not arguing against your strategy entirely. I’m arguing against your strategy when the result of following it is a Republican victory. You still haven’t been able to explain how the Republicans staying in power will somehow be better for trans people than the last two years have been. You also admit that Democrats would lose votes by pursuing anti-trans policies, so I’m not sure how that fits with your belief that they would start pushing those policies nationwide. If two random lemmy users can come to that conclusion, surely at least on political strategist can as well.
You’re right that lesser evilism is bullshit. Unfortunately, the electoral process in the US is also bullshit. Too many people are stuck choosing between the party that wants to kill them now, and the party that might choose to sacrifice them later. But it’s a lot easier to fight for your future when you aren’t fighting for your life in the present.
A single Senate seat is far more significant than you’re making it out to be, especially when we’re talking about flipping the seat. Whoever wins this particular seat will be fairly insignificant as an individual for the next 6 years at least, but majority control means control of rules and procedures, legislative dockets, and committee appointments. And the wider that majority, the less power traitors like Fetterman or (potentially) Turek have.
It’s simple. If everyone follows your strategy, then it will spread. If enough people follow my strategy, then it will not spread. If it’s true that it wouldn’t spread, that’s purely because of people who reject your way of thinking. So people need to continue rejecting your way of thinking, or the policy will spread.
Lesser evilism is not an inevitable consequence of the electoral process that we have. It is a specific ideology, a specific strategy for approaching that process. And it’s one that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
If one faction within a party votes for the party unconditionally, on the basis of it being the lesser evil, and another faction votes conditionally on getting certain policies that they want, then there’s a clear incentive for the party to appeal to the second faction. The lesser evilist approach means giving up any bargaining power you might have had within the party. That’s why collectively setting red lines is the better approach.
Turek isn’t going to stop you from fighting for your life in the present, he is literally running on taking away our rights. And if we accept that, if we don’t demand better, that’s how we wind up in a situation where trans rights aren’t even on the ballot (in the bad way).
The Democrats may well take the Senate regardless, they’ll almost certainly take the house, and the Republicans will hold the presidency for at least the next two years. During that time, both a Republican and Democrat trifecta are impossible. Both sides will be able to prevent the other from doing things but won’t be able to do much themselves, and that remains true regardless of who controls the senate or by what margin.
Could it make a difference beyond that? Sure. But if we’re talking about future elections, that means looking beyond the immediate term, and looking at the precedents that get set. And even if enough the Democrats are concerned that people will follow my strategy, and do not try to run more transphobic candidates in other races (which I highly doubt, if Turek wins), there’s still the fact that the narrative has gotten muddled. In fact, it’s already gotten muddled to a degree from Turek getting this far.
What do I mean by that? Right now, there’s a great ad being run called, “Republicans in your bathroom” which paints Republicans as creepy perverted pedophiles for caring so much about trans people and wanting genital inspections of children. But how will they be able to run ads like that, if they’re also running transphobic candidates themselves? Are voters meant to believe that transphobes are freaky perverts, or that transphobes have reasonable concerns that the party should accommodate? It’s mixed messaging.
And the more they retreat, the more they validate Republican narratives. The same thing happened on immigration. In 2016, the line was that building the wall was racist (which it is). But by 2024, the Democrats were running as border hawks, the narrative was, “We’re the ones who are actually going to build the wall, Trump’s all talk.” This makes it look like the Democrats are admitting that the Republicans were right all along, and that calling it “racist” was frivolous, and just done for political gain.
If the Democrats have transphobic candidates running in tight races, they will be inclined to dial back the rhetoric, which will validate the right’s transphobic narratives. It will look like the right was correct, just as they look “correct” on immigration. And people will say, “woke 2 was crazy” and it will have an effect on public opinion, just as there are far few people calling for open borders than there were 10 years ago, there will be fewer people voicing full-throated support for trans rights. And that’s the real kiss of death.
We have to hold our ground and say, no, we’re right, we were right all along, and the Republican obsession with trans people is purely a Republican thing and purely because they’re freaky weirdos and there was never any legitimate concern.