- cross-posted to:
- brainworms@lemm.ee
You must log in or register to comment.
Hell yeah, I got to work on this campaign. It feels really great to have worked on a historic campaign like this one. We spent the last 8 months making calls and sending texts and knocking doors. To actually win something, to get good news in Ohio of all fucking places feels really great.
There's still a ton of work ahead, the Republicans don't give a shit about the law or the constitution, but its a win for the people and a blow against demoralization and defeatist realism and for now that feels pretty good!
This bit, below, is sure to get the attention of Christofascist and Christofascist-adjacent politicians in the US. They don't care at all about the welfare of the citizenry, but they do care about money and power and keeping the funnels of both wide open.
Outside money poured into the race. In the last few months alone, the effort to champion Issue 1 and abortion rights raised nearly $30m, out-raising anti-abortion forces by roughly $20m.
Gotta keep the tap of cheap labour flowing (by preventing sex education, contraceptives, and abortion)
As many have pointed out, the more we keep showing up and voting for these issues, the more they will have to change tact to keep their jobs, Republicans included. Imagine if conservatives were forced to be more progressive simply because they were afraid of losing their cushy government job...
This tends to require pushing the Democrats left first, which unconditionally voting for them will not accomplish because their donors are not unconditionally supportive and those donors are furthermore not urging them to move left.
I think the two would happen simultaneously. When the largest voting bloc consistently votes for LGBTQ rights, when they vote for abortion rights, Dems and Republicans alike will have to follow suit or die on those hills.
Keyword there is "consistently."
Here's the problem: What do you mean "voting for" those things? Very little policy is done by referendum. What do you do when both Rs and Ds are rightists with different wording?
You look at their voting record and public statements, and vote for the one that is most likely to support legislation and policies that align with your values. That's what I mean by "voting for."
I'm not saying this is something we'll have direct input into every time, like the Ohio abortion one that just happened, and I'm not saying it will happen even in this next year; we are going to have to vote for candidates who are least objectionable. It's going to take many cycles of voting locally and federally to correct this ship that is listing hard to the right.
ETA: Besides Manchin and Sinema, who are going independent anyway, which examples of Dems are Republicans with a D in front of their name?
You look at their voting record and public statements, and vote for the one that is most likely to support legislation and policies that align with your values. That's what I mean by "voting for."
So if it's essentially a certainty that they won't, what do you do in the general?
ETA: Besides Manchin and Sinema, who are going independent anyway, which examples of Dems are Republicans with a D in front of their name?
Are you forgetting about uncle Joe?
So if it's essentially a certainty that they won't, what do you do in the general?
You vote for the least objectionable. We don't always get everything we want. Welcome to life, brought to you by unrelenting determinism.
Are you forgetting about uncle Joe?
I already mentioned Joe Manchin, so do you mean Biden? Because he's been way more progressive than even many of his Congressional cohorts. Not that he's still not mostly center-right and a self-avowed Zionist, but I don't think it's fair to pretend he's a Republican in Democrat clothing.
Reality bites the GOP in the ass, as people do sometimes care about their material conditions more than the ability to cut off their own nose to spite their face.
This doesn't actually address material conditions though. It's just a law that says abortion is legal. It doesn't guarantee that a for-profit healthcare provider will offer abortions. It doesn't guarantee any of the people most affected by abortion bans access to abortions. It literally does nothing but tell the politicians of Ohio that 57% of voters want abortion to remain legal.
Meanwhile over 75% of voters want public health insurance, but I don't see any politicians giving a shit about that either.
It makes it legal for doctors to perform abortions. I would think free market will dictate who will offer abortions pretty quickly. Doctors gotta get that bag.
Hoping for the free market to resolve your problems is hazardous. Your logic works well enough for local clinics (liberal logic tends to do okay the more localized things are), but remember that doctors are at the mercy of hospital policy and furthermore patients are at the mercy of insurance policy. It is probably already an element of the plan for Republicans to use their levers in other states to pressure insurers not to cover abortions, and then suddenly that means abortions are either not viable or the problem of the danger of back alley abortions is replaced with the problem of medical debt.
What Ohio did was good, but it's not huge and some of the problems with it are foundational to the capitalist mode of production.
The "free market" already allows everyone who can afford an Abortion access to abortions. This does nothing.
