Okay, so what does make politicians take the 20 side on 20-80 social issues? You can't completely rule out conscience in all cases, but in most it's not a very good explanation.
This article by Lisa Selin Davis addresses some things I was curious about. Notably, Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey recently defeated challenger Seth Moulton by taking a maximal position on trans rights, and especially by supporting trans athletes in student sports. Now is this a majority position among Bay State residents? I actually wasn't able to find the raw numbers. I suspect that the majority are more moderate, but when you're talking about primary voters it's a different story. Talk about blue state Democratic doners and it's a very different story.
Davis highlights Ohio gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton as a counterexample. Acton has vocally opposed boys in girls' sports, and still won the nomination. Ohio being more of a conservative state has probably changed the math on that, as Davis clarifies at the end.
This may be the pattern in elections to come. Red-state Democrats will find it easier to articulate a majority position; blue-state Democrats will still have to appease primary voters at the ideological extremes. Expect more Markey-style lean-ins in liberal states, and lean-out moderates where conservatives hold sway.
Again, the politics of the issue are pretty conservative nationwide. But in a state like Massachusetts, Democratic candidates get the benefit of the doubt even from a lot of voters who disagree with them on specific issues. That opens the door for activists who want to push them to the extremes. This doesn't happen as much in states where they have to fight for a chance.
2 comments:
Ed Markey's been a successful Democratic politician for a number of years - in Congress from 1976 to 2013 and after 2013 appointed to the Senate to complete John Kerry's term. He's held that office ever since. At the age of 80 I really doubt he cares about trans people one way or another and the fact he came down on the trans side is an obvious political ploy. Why Seth Moulton even bothered to take the guy on is a mystery to me.
I know you know all this but there are aspects of the trans thing that are more political than just some nice ordinary people who happen to be trans. There are several issues that have gained headline status among a generally conservative population. I'm not sure which to say came first but each topic has raised controversy. The question of biological males participating in female sports is a big one for the obvious reason of comparative strength. The next is whether biological males can serve their jail time in female prisons just by saying they're girls when they're not. Then there are the purely theatrical elements like 'drag queen story time' and 'take your child to a transvestite show'. I'm sure nobody would care about whether a guy wants to dress like a tart if idiots weren't taking their young children to watch. Would they take their kids to a strip show?
Anyway, sorry about all that. I know it's not a reaction you'd intended to elicit by your post about Red/Blue politics but the whole thing just looks like a made up conflict. As usual, much has been iitiated by 'allies' rather than actual transgender people. And a number of transgender people are just attention seeking imposters who enjoy freaking out the grown-ups.
I agree with you that the politically extreme rhetoric in primary contests will continue to entertain us through at least another election cycle or two. But it's boring with so many more important subjects worth the time spent. Leaning in is a good phrase.
Markey had shown political ability in getting elected to the House at a quite young age (29-30) and managed to get reelected for decades after that. Take that and his resemblance in some ways to Kerry into account and you can see the logic of the Democrats choosing him for the Senate seat. Of course once he was in he never wanted to leave. That's a problem with the political system in general, but with Democratic officeholders especially. Moulton, I guess, hoped that even if he lost he'd make enough of an impression to be considered the next time there's a real opening. Time will tell.
There's a distinction between someone choosing to live as a member of the opposite sex on the one hand and demanding that everyone treat him or her as such on the other. Progressivism has vaulted past protecting the former and gone to enabling the latter. It's a remarkably self-destructive move. The right to be left alone is a basic and understandable principle. The right to special treatment is not. And most people rightly get protective when children enter the picture. The thought of parents losing custody for not affirming a child's gender identity--a likely passing feeling--is grotesque.
The post wasn't just about Red/Blue politics. It's also a matter of the ideas that motivate them. Both politicians and activists have a tendency to go with the prevailing sentiment, which in a lot of cases only prevails among the limited company they keep. Activists can also fall into the trap of believing that the thing they just thought of is some revolutionary truth the squares just can't handle.
Overheated rhetoric is a huge part of politics. Once you learn to recognize it it gets less scary and more dull. I haven't even gotten into the experts who insist the problem with AI is super-intelligent robots who want to kill us, rather than middling-intelligent CEOs who want to rob us.
Post a Comment