...from a conservative standpoint, no less.
- But here's the thing: Every single accusation is trivial. Petty. Penny-ante. Yes, even the business about Clinton's private email server. And especially the septic tank full of hyped-up, conspiracy-laden nonsense that goes by the name of "Benghazi." (If well-meaning members of the conservative movement want to explore how the Republican electorate ended up hoodwinked by a transparent charlatan-demagogue like Donald Trump, they could do worse than reflecting on their own complicity in publicizing, or at least failing to defuse, this endless, cockamamie "scandal.")
In an ideal political world, all administrations would be as clean as Obama's. But as the events of this election cycle have demonstrated quite vividly, this is most emphatically not an ideal political world — and in the deeply troubling world we do inhabit, the prospect of a president dogged by minor scandals shouldn't distract us from the far higher stakes involved in the upcoming election.
I've read it argued that Clinton et. al. are the new Republicans. I've made the point for ten years that the Democrats of now are the Republicans of the '60s. But the statement made in the article linked: I mean, shit. With the whole god/guns/gays bullshit sidelined to the fringe the Democrats might as well become the Republicans so that the Republicans can go ahead and rebrand as the Taliban and be done with it.However, with the Culture War essentially won by the left (though there are still plenty of battles to fight) issues of economic and political inequality are coming to define our modern era. In fact, we are seeing a realignment. These issues will serve as the new lens through which we understand our political spectrum.
Caitlyn Jenner will appear on a summer cover of Sports Illustrated wearing “nothing but an American flag and her Olympic medal,” a source reveals in the latest issue of Us Weekly.
I really like the Clintons as Republicans. NAFTA, carpetbombing Sarajevo, White House sex scandals, repealing Glass-Steagall... those are prime, principled Republican positions. The anger this election, I think, comes from the fact that we have a Republican campaigning as a Democrat and an autocratic oligarch campaigning as a Republican. If the Berners had any sense they'd throw all their efforts into repealing the Electoral College so that a third party candidate has a hope in hell. I don't really mind the Clintons the way I didn't really mind Bob Dole but I sure wouldn't mind voting for someone who might actually do good instead of voting for someone who will fuck up less.
A dude I've been following on YouTube (so don't take this too seriously, but I don't have much knowledge of USA politics as a Canadian) has been saying the whole Bernie thing is exactly that. To collect a (data)base of progressive Americans, and prepare for the next election, when more people are voting age and boomers are dead. Something something Elizabeth Warren 2020
It's not an uncommon sentiment. The Sanders campaign has some great databases and MoveOn.org started out as a petition to get Congress to drop the Lewinsky scandal. The cynicals among us have zero belief that Bernie Sanders ran for president with the intention of winning the nomination. It would be entirely in character for him to have run with the express purpose of hectoring Clinton into moving left, which she's been forced to do.
That's not even cynical, it's giving him credit for not being completely naive after so long in politics. There's no way he could win, and he surely knew there was no way he could win, and it's much more useful to mobilize an actual left in mainstream politics than to be a socialist President when the current state of American politics places the left at "Reagan", moderate at "the John Birch Society" and right at "herp derp build a wall to keep the brown people out."
I think you are wrong. I don't think all of America is ready to embrace trans rights the way it is ready to embrace gay rights. It's too much too fast. There is going to be much more back lash then there was against gay rights. The people that read SI might not cancel their subscriptions (because at this point if you have a print mag subscription you are probably just too lazy to cancel) but I don't think its going to start the right conversation. It will probably just help confirm the opinion that the media is left of their positions and empower the trump movement. With gay rights many people were able to say that they know a gay person and that that person is much like them. I don't think many people know a trans person outside an awkward interaction they had once or twice. Trans rights does not poll as favorably as gay rights did. As gets rammed through expect a serious wedge/identity issue backlash.With the whole god/guns/gays bullshit sidelined to the fringe the Democrats might as well become the Republicans so that the Republicans can go ahead and rebrand as the Taliban and be done with it.
'Member back when Murphy Brown had a kid out of wedlock? And the cultural discussion was varying shades of "what a dumb thing for Dan Quayle to go to the mattresses over" and "but the value of the family should not be diminished?" The conversation was mostly about "well obviously there are single parents in the world but do we want our culture to acknowledge that." Then Ellen DeGeneres kissed a girl on TV and mostly, the conversation was "it's about damn time" while the conservative movement basically toed the line at "marriage is between a man and a woman" and "love the sinner hate the sin." Then we had Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and pretty much every secondary bitchy gay character on every reality TV show ever and slowly but surely, being gay wasn't weird, it just meant you couldn't get married. But that ship has sailed. We've got two entire shows - RuPaul's Drag Race and TransParent - dedicated to transgender people. I got a checker at my local grocery store who wears a skirt and makeup sometimes - just often enough to keep you guessing and make you sort of uncomfortable with whether they're "he" or "she" today. But I think we're to the point where most people will publicly acknowledge that the person wearing/not wearing the skirt is bridging a void of discomfort far deeper than the people observing. The conversation we're having now is "does walking around in women's clothing make you a criminal." Except we can't even have that conversation because by making it about the bathrooms, it's become "do we want to shame perverts by making them use bathrooms in such a way to make everyone uncomfortable." Which for most of us becomes "this is a really awkward and uncomfortable conversation - why are we even having it?" Someone has to not just be against "transgender rights" - they have to be vocally against transgender rights in such a way that it's difficult to not look like a knuckle-dragging throwback. Because really, "where do they tinkle" is the only place this battle can happen - they can already vote, they can already marry, they can already serve in the military, they can already enjoy full citizenship in every way shape or form, the only legislative question left is "where to pee." Sure, there's a whole bunch of cultural warfare left but from a "rights" standpoint, the bathroom is all there is. It's gonna be a rare conservative that chooses to die on that particular hill.
In some ways its true but some interesting questions come up when you legislate gender and race into law and then accept that race and gender are fluid. If a company/government/university has a quota for men or women then can one change their gender to qualify. There are grants and carve-outs for woman owned businesses for example. Can I self identify as a black woman can claim them? This wouldn't be a problem if we just didn't put gender and race into law but since we do, it is. Its the same argument I had against gay marriage expansion, its not that gays shouldn't marry its that they government should have no say in what is/isn't marriage. Marriage licenses and marriage as a legal state recognized concept should not exists. One should not get any benefits or have to pay extra taxes just because they got married.- they can already vote, they can already marry, they can already serve in the military, they can already enjoy full citizenship in every way shape or form, the only legislative question left is "where to pee."
This is the crux of the issue: are we concerned about people taking advantage of transgender norms in order to further their cisgender motives? Or are we only pretending to be? I worked for a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise that did all sorts of contracting. We still had to get the work. We often didn't. We had more opportunities than we might have had with a male president, but not enough to care about. Certainly not enough to bother going Tootsie on it. And that was government work anyway. You get zero legs up as a DBE in the private sector. I agree with you on the "ban all marriages" front and have said as much for years. But that's not going to happen and we all know it.
