Instead of Ignoring Trans Rights at DNC, Dems Should’ve Vowed to Protect Them
Democrats seem to think that the issue — which carries life-or-death stakes — is too divisive to address.
That would be a morally correct political faux pas, that would result in Republicans scoring easy points just by saying "See! We told you so!"
It's the kind of suggestion someone in a leftwing political bubble would make, forgetting that to actually be effective, you have to win votes from both sides.
There's no room for tactical errors this election, even if they would make you feel morally superior. It's not a game of moral signaling, it's a game of politics. The point is not to be right, it's to win the election.
you have to win votes from both sides.
I don't know what you mean by this. Progressives just need people to vote. The higher the voting turnout percentage, the better progressive candidates do. Conservative voters are the last people to stop voting due to disenfranchisement, they are practically immune to it. There are not a lot of swing voters.
It’s the morally correct position. And running away from it will lose democrats votes they need.
They’re not gonna win republicans by going to the right. The democrats are going to lose if they try that shit. If they want to win they need to promise to bring back abortion rights, protect LGBTQ rights, and stop arming Israel. That would guarantee them a win. Especially if Kamala keeps up her economic promises she already made.
I hope Tim Walz can talk some sense into her.
Biden administration restores protections for gay and transgender Americans seeking health care
Abortion rights will take longer, because they need the Supreme Court for that.
Israel will not happen, they will likely continue to support traditional geopolitical allies who are clients of the military industrial complex.
...you would likely need to alter neoliberalism it's self to do that one.
Any other vulnerable minorities you want to throw under the bus while you're at it?
If you answered yes to both, then maybe don't suggest importing wedge issues into something that's about the popular vote?
Do you want to give Trump more voters? Because that's what you're angling for. That's what the headline is suggesting to do.
You're mistaking wanting the most minority supporting side of politics to win the election for not supporting minorities? How the fuck doesn't that even make sense.
Kamala's job is currently defensive, dodge dodge dodge, stay clean, watch Trump get dirty and sink. It's simple.
As soon as she's won, then it's time to be very very very noisy (and violent) on progressive and socialist issues again. But right now that's only going to act as a kind of sabotage.
Which is fine if you're an accelerationist who sees value to strengthening American Fascism. But I just want to try to end the Republican party.
This eager dismissal of trans rights as just a tactical decision is entirely why people shit on liberals. Everything that isn't the rock solid universally approved "normal" is just an anxiety attack away from being bargained away under the faulty assumption it's an essential sacrifice in the name of protecting the status quo. Never mind that trans rights aren't a major issue for anyone other than the hard right or trans people and their allies, and that dodging the issue in no way protects Democrats from being assigned a role in the culture war.
You could have just said "that sucks". You could have pointed to efforts that could work the system elsewhere to protect them. You could have pointed to the myriad of trans rights issues that have majority of support that we could redirect the conversation to. You could have said literally nothing at all. But instead you wanted to broadcast how unimportant the rights of your nominal allies are.
Because to you, politics is just a game.
You fail at playing the game.
Election issues aren't representative of what candidates do in office, issues which don't have election promises attached end up having the most leeway for action later on.
But in some sense it's all a sham because we're still going to end up in neoliberalism Capitalism.
The real issues are: how much direct government support can we get to survive under Capitalism (meaningful nationalisation of government aid in the forms of government welfare support, healthcare, housing, education, and public transport programs)... And how much citizens can cooperate in order to force these changes and or create parallel community based support structures that are immune and legally protected from market interventions and effects.
Right now we're just talking about a fairly thin part of 1). Don't mistake a desire to win an election as an abdication of support for trans healthcare, it's not. The desire is to get the less harmful neoliberal classist option into power.
The real challenge of maintaining pressure and momentum on Kamala and the left establishment Democrats comes after that, and will have to come from community organization directly.
Because Capitalists, left or right, won't hand you their help, you have to demand it, make it, and take it from them by the force of your demands and the power of organized community mass action.
The ruling class (left or right) understand nothing less than that.
Bruh
I’m debating whether or not to even engage with you here given that you just gaslit a stranger because you’re upset about what the ruling class isn’t doing for you (presumably) - are you assuming maliciousness where ignorance might’ve sufficed?
You tell me. If you knew that you had all these great ideas and support for people but knew if you didn’t complete this first step, someone else’d be elected and do the opposite of those things, would you willingly lose and put those people you support at risk??
Do you really and truly think that progressives/liberals don’t care about trans rights? After all the bickering these rich assholes do on every damn channel on TV?
Give me a break.
You are valid in being frustrated You are allowed to have feelings and emotions about your treatment/mistreatment
But none of that makes it okay for you to take it out on your neighbors during a discussion which was trying to emphasize that politics are about strategy, not only morals.
This country operates via a leader person who’s voted for by majority count. In other words, that’s one person who needs to cater to 345 MILLION people.
Sometimes that means keeping your mouth shut on a particular issue temporarily to secure the win. When you’ve won, then you can start acting on those things you held off on emphasizing.
The alternative is that the other rich asshole not only comes in and withholds support, but also comes in and takes active measures to make it worse for these groups.
If it’s between regression and stagnation, I’m not happy with either. I will still take stagnation however because walking something back after it’s been walked back will only be harder.
When I go to pride festivals/parades I’m there to show my support. That’s active support.
Just because I don’t bring up LGBTQ+ rights and arguments at work doesn’t mean I don’t support them. Sometimes, by giving new dem voters some time to acclimate to the waters, you can give them the food later and they’ll be more likely to eat then, rather than when they’re first getting in the pool.
As much as some would like it to be true, you can’t just cram “new” morals down people’s throats and expect miraculous results. You can’t just tell people they’re a POS for not believing in what you believe in and expect them to be like “yo! I am an ignorant, holier-than-thou asshole… you’re right!” There is grace (growing thinner by the election cycle) and strategy in politics. Not everything is as shallow or malicious as people want them to be.
ITT: we do the white moderate thing MLK talked about where we set a timetable for someone's rights. I'm sure one day it'll be politically convenient to support trans people, y'all just hang in there.
In the words of James Baldwin... https://youtu.be/UBFDdTIYZ6Q
ITT: a bunch of leftists destroying the most progressive party because it failed their purity test by not talking about something that anyone with a bit of logic would know would lose them votes even if it's known they're in favor of it.
'Destroying' the 'most progressive' party?
In what way is anyone destroying the democratic party, and in what way are the democrats making progress?
The 'most progressive party'?? By what measure? Because they aren't as openly fascist as the Republicans? Kamala has sworn to appoint at least one Republican, to be tough on crime, increase the strength of the military, be as or more anti-immigration than Trump, has shown no interest in healthcare reform, and refused to even consider ceasing the arming of genocidaires. What does it mean to be progressive to you?
It's more deontologists vs consequentialists.
There is absolutely no deontological duty to pander to identitarians and cry-bullies.
The mainstream talking point of Democrats turned to "we need to play it safe and win all the Republican votes".
They believe only centrist moderate voters can be scared away. And claim progressives are always guaranteed to vote Democrat. Everything hangs on that assumption.
It's just a numbers game. There are far more waffling centrists and drooling fence-sitters in this country that there are people who are trans, and the latter are already likely to vote D regardless. It will always be this way: a campaign is always going to spend more resources on the larger and less sure voting bloc.
So because of this you and other so called Dems will vote for a fascist?
Harris is sitting here telling you that she will not stop funding/supplying the genocide of Palestinians, that she will take a stricter border policy and continue building the wall, that under her the US military will be the most lethal fighting force. Not to mention her horrific track record up to this point. A vote for Harris is just as much a vote for fascism as a vote for Trump is. Not that voting out fascism in the USA was ever a realistic option to begin with.
The problem is so much bigger than who said what at what convention. The Democratic party needs to actually do something other than pay lip service to the trans population. Unfortunately trans people are less than 1% of voters. Even if all of their friends and family were allies, that's still not enough votes to matter.
The average cis democrat would be perfectly happy with Not-Trump. No one wants trans people to die (at least hopefully), but if it was supporting trans rights or beating Trump? His evangelical base is getting tired of his shit. But if the scary brown lady started talking about transgenders that might be enough to bring them back into the fold.
Meanwhile in most red states the trans population will be ground into a fine paste regardless of who lives in the white house. Unless dems and pull a hat trick and take the presidency, house, and senate (next to impossible this year) that won't change.
It kills me to write, but not talking about trans rights makes sense. That is not a problem within the power of POTUS to solve. A federal law or constitutional amendment is going to be the only way to protect trans rights, abortion access, and gay or interracial marriage. Plus, more cynically, she's got the trans vote regardless, so best case she just says some words. Worst case she loses the paper thin margin because the jesus freaks who were going to stay home have a reason to vote.
"Should Have" in what sense? Like as a moral matter or to get elected? They're very different things.
Too bad there's no article you could read to check. It might even say something like:
But in a stunning abdication of moral responsibility, Democrats made little mention of trans rights during this year’s Democratic National Convention (DNC). Trans people were mentioned in just two speeches, and neither speaker received prime-time speaking slots. For the first time since 2012, the DNC did not feature any trans speakers.
With all the time they allocated for Republicans, Israel, and cops there wasn't much left for actual marginalized people. At least they're finally being open and who they represent.
Like as a moral matter or to get elected? They’re very different things.
Are they?
If a politician has certain morals but they set them aside to get elected, do they still hold those morals?
If a politician makes up morals they don't have to get elected, did they ever truly hold those morals?
The answer to both is a resounding NO.
If you abandon/adopt morals to get elected, you have no morals, you have self interests.
Whatever distinction you're trying to make, or why, is a you issue, there is no way to twist this in to it being ok.
Is not mentioning trans rights during an election speech the same thing as being against trans rights?
Nope. They are very different things. I'm all for trans rights, but I don't bring it up in every conversation I have about politics. That's not setting aside my morals or abandoning them.
Hypothetically, what if talking about trans rights turned off more voters than it brought in? What if that led to trump getting elected? Would it have been better to not mention it in the first place, or was the morality of mentioning it more important than trying to get elected during an election speech?
I'm sorry, but when there is so much at stake we have to lie. politicians have always lied. left and right. it's in their nature. they can't help it. if it's politically expedient to lie, even by omission, so the enemy doesn't use it against you and chips away at that majority, then I'm totally comfortable with that. of course, I'd much prefer that it was illegal for politicians to lie, like they are trialing in Wales, then we'd have a very different calibre of politics. I'm all for that. bring on enforced honesty in politics. but until that's established and the enemy, and let me make this very clear, the US Nazis are very much the enemy, we have to temper our political persona a bit. once we win then we show how inclusive and caring we are. but if saying something what could be used in an attack against our valiant cause, it's ok to hide it. for now. look at Walz, he's an ally to the cause and we're not hiding him. he's in full view, heart on his sleeve, and from what I can tell, he's a really good man. those are the qualities we need to show off. we're not hiding those morals, we're just not shouting loudly about some of the more progressive values we hold, so they can't be twisted and used against us. we need to win this election. fairly and absolutely convincingly. and I'm talking as a Kiwi, a citizen of Earth, watching on in horror what could be coming and the pivot in geopolitical power that would inevitably occur. your election has way more reach than just your shores. the good guys need to win and kick the US Nazis so hard in the nuts they remember loosing forever. anyway. thanks for listening
The trans community and it's supporters know they're being attacked by the right and needs to vote Dem, so they've got that locked in. What political advantage is there in making it a campaign issue for the Dems when the GOP has done all the work already?
Because Dems in power in the US have a track record of using trans rights as political bargaining chips. They have done it many times. The reality is that some democrats care about the human and civil rights of trans people, and some don't. I don't trust them with trans rights at all.
That said, for the convention dems probably saw the polling that shows that people are sick of hearing about trans issues, and decided to avoid it.
Yeah, that’s a lie.
Oh my god. This account finds something to nitpick at the Dems and posts every five minutes. Notice how they barely - if ever - post anything critical of Republicans?
Every. Five. Minutes.
You want a seat ta the table? Learn how politics works. Otherwise, I don't know, go back to purity testing the Dems every five minutes. See where that gets you.
The only people ever afforded a seat at the table are the moneyed class. And Democrats do need to be put under a microscope because they're the ones that pretend to be allies to the marginalized, While they Co opt our languages to use against us when we decide to not vote for them because they stabbed us in the back. Republicans wear their racism and their bigotry on their shoulders for all to see. For Democrats, it's covert.
"they need to be put under a microscope"
You know what they say, there's no one like someone on the left to make sure the most progressive party lose votes.
There's so much stuff politicians won't talk about on the campaign trail because they're wedge issues and because their records already show they're in favor/against those things, it's better to shut up than to alienate a lot of voters to please few voters. Spoiler alert, not all Democrats voters care about trans rights and more of them will jump ship if they believe Harris is woke than will jump in the ship if she starts talking about trans rights during the campaign because the majority of people who support trans rights already understand that the Democrats support their rights even if they don't make it a campaign issue.
Sure. Except the policies they pass represent their electorate and are diametrically opposed to Republicans.
Listen, I'm for all the same things everyone on this platform wants. The issue is our generation is terminally online but doesn't bother to vote. If you want to make changes disengaging from the political system altogether is not the answer. Building coalitions and doing the hard work is. But that takes work and is not exciting, so it's just easier for accounts like @return2ozma@lemmy.world to keep spamming non-stop about how "both parties are equal" and "corpo overlords". It's just more fun, isn't it?
Gurl... I don't oppose Democrats because I'm on the same side as Republicans. I oppose Democrats because they're on the same side as Republicans.
Na. They did the right thing. It’s implied. Why give the trump idiots more ammo.
Love how all the pro-trans rights people are being downvoted in this thread. You ok, Lemmy?
We're not allowed to point out issues apparently.
Mhm. Let's make the moral choice, have Republicans make more noise on the issue and turn away voters just like on Gaza, climate change, immigration, wealth inequality to ultimately help Republicans strip away protections on each.
To have Harris be the slippery target is strategic, because Republicans know how to pounce on an issue when they think they see one. They've already done it dozens of times on complete non-issues due to them having lack of real rebuttals against the Democratic party.
I'll put it bluntly: to have trans-inclusivity become the norm, we have to pitch the inclusivity part before we explain the trans part.
So you think the way to counter the Republicans using fascist tactics to demonize trans people is to not support trans people. Because if we support trans people, it will only make more people side with Republicans and attack trans people.
Fuck that. Fuck that every conceivable way.
Why do you assume that not mentioning trans rights in speeches = not supporting trans rights?
The point is that in order to win elections you campaign on things that your opponent can't use to alienate some of your base. I'm going to be blunt here but not all Democrats are progressive enough to see trans right as something important and some of them don't want a "woke" president (as the term "woke" was appropriated by the right as being a bad thing and supporting trans rights is woke) so mentioning them directly during the campaign would make more people not vote/switch back to voting for the Republicans than it will make trans people come out and vote because trans people already know they only have one party that supports their right to exist, even if it's not being campaigned on.
No, I am saying that the Dems' messaging is being kept broad in terms of inclusivity, because then it makes Republicans singling out transgender people or other minorities to hate on them look extra weird. It also brings the issue of transgenderism to voters for whom this is a foreign concept, in a way they can better understand.
Many of these voters hate trans people not because they understand the issue, but because conservative organizations have told them to constantly for years so it's made into a trigger word. The Harris campaign is showing these voters a way out from the cycle of hate, to put these divisions away, and accept trans people for the human beings they are, just like all of us, without needing to put them on a spotlight front and centre. Harris needs a large amount of these uninformed voters to support her too if she wants any hope of enacting a progressive, LGBTQ+ inclusive agenda during her term.
I swear these threads are here only to sow division and help Trump. We all know Harris and the Dems support trans rights why do we need them to yell it out loud at every event?
Nothing the Dems do is ever good enough for these people who actually, secretly want Trump to win
We already knew that their support was transactional, conditional. Spineless cowards.
Not mentioning it during the campaign doesn't mean not supporting it when adopting policies.
How many US Politicians adopted trans supportive policies vs how many of them actually campaigned on it?
Instead of Ignoring Trans Rights at DNC, Dems Should’ve
Vowed to Protect Themlied
FTFY
You know how they say "when people tell you who they are - listen"?
Whatever this is, it's the opposite of that.
The truth being hard to hear makes it all the more important to. Flat out ignoring it is bad enough, trying to put words and intentions where they don't exist, is dangerous.
Protection of democracy is paramount. Everything else - everything - is secondary. There are a hundred things that need to be fixed, and that has to happen after.
After.
Yes, even for that. Because secondary.
The fact that this needs to be said is a testament to the efficacy of Republican culture war bullshit. Instead of discussing the numerous unprecedented existential threats to human civilization, everything from pollution to the end of democracy, we’re focused on… trans rights.
