OMG, this is terrific! I am going to promote this as far and wide as I can. This is the article I wish I had time to write myself. You nailed it, Carol, right down to the recommended reading list. Thank you so much for doing this. You have performed a tremendous public service!
I don’t agree on all her points but it’s refreshing to know she took a serious look in the mirror so to speak and has admonished her progressive friends to do the same. Great job 🥂🐸
The same Soviet-class derision for all-important First Amendment freedoms has come from far more influential people than John Kerry—like Biden's Supreme Court appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson, who in the Murthy v. Missouri hearings described our First Amendment as her "greatest concern" because it "hamstrings the government" from censoring or punishing free speech and dissident opinions.
•_____• Never mind that "hamstring[ing] the government" in ••the sole and entire purpose•• of the First Amendment, and indeed of all 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
The "trans rights" movements are a pharma profits to "non-profit" employment agencies, refusing to admit that detransitioners exist, that trans widows have been abused and that the iatrogenic harms of "affirmative care" are now undeniable. Even minorities having a long history of oppression to overcome have been gaslit into believing "trans genders" are more oppressed than their ancestors. It is a cult because it walks like a cult, it waddles like a cult and it quacks like a cult.
Ute Heggen, author, In the Curated Woods, True Tales from a Grass Widow (iuniverse, 2022)
Thank you. You may have started your awakened journey on your Christian path and I am a Jewish (spiritual-not-religious) Metaphysical Astrologer, but we seem to have arrived at very similar conclusions about the state of our world. I call it the 2nd Dark Age that we're going through. The first saw women healers they called witches, burned at the stake in order for men to steal health care from women. I read that in some towns there wasn't a woman left alive. Now, again under the aegis of government allied with misogynist health care practitioners, are seeking to colonize, perhaps eventually erase women altogether. I've always assumed that the dems were the more progressive party - until I didn't. With the onset of covid which I believe is a hoax, I was "accused" of being a Trump supporter because I refused to wear a mask - I was 82 at the onset and felt if it was true, I'd die at 82,already old, and would escape the worst of the fascism I saw coming. If not, I'd be fine and here I am, I'll be 86 Friday, if I live till then, which I suspect I will as I avoid doctors and look and feel a lot younger than I am. I finally realized that our entry into both world wars was caused by a democrat. Woodrow Wilson, touted as one of our great democratic presidents, also showed "Birth of a Nation" at the White House, decl;aring it to be a great classic and also gained the presidency by his promise to sell out the American people by agreeing to give power to the Federal Reserve. It took me until Barack Obama to wake up to them though. I'm ashamed to say I voted for him once, saw him in action and vowed to never again vote for a democrat. We are in need of a people's government which we will never have while the USA stands. They seek global and I do believe the only real answer is local governance. I'm in disagreement about climate change though as I believe our climate is being deliberately tampered with in order to serve the interests of the oligarchs who, unelected, are jet setting around the world in their private planes deciding what OUR sacrifices need to be to avert this climate change. And what a coincidence! It's always what will harm us (and the planet) and enrich them. I also think TDS is a real thing - and democrats have turned into nazis who definitely don't support democracy. They want the candidate they don't choose to be killed and say so unashamedly. Try the opposite though, it wouldn't go over so well. But then I don't see Trump or Other supporters wishing for death for those who oppose them. I have family that censors me if I dare say anything impugning their dem ideology. Biden with dementia is infinitely better than "fascist" Trump and they've now given their full support to Kamala the Selected. Perhaps some people are hopelessly brainwashed and incapable of critical thinking.
Thank you for sharing your experiences. (And yes, TDS is a real thing and we're seeing it in some of the comments on this article!) Just a quick note to say that I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist.
If the Dems have TDS, so do conservatives like DubbyDove here -- Transgender Derangement Syndrome. Like lobotomies, transgender ideas will fall out of favor with progressives before long. Eventually, Democrats will see that they are losing votes because of it.
I'm perplexed about how you could possibly construe anything I said as either for transgender ideology or even conservative. To some people politics is "either-or". You have a choice - you can be "progressive" or you can be "conservative". The only two labels too many people can comprehend as possible.
"If elected, will Trump follow through on promises to work with Kennedy to tackle toxic pollution and chronic disease, including by dealing with regulatory capture by big corporations?...I won’t hold my breath."
Nor will I. But at least the Trump campaign is opening up public discourse on the topic.
This is the first I have heard/read of you. Robert Malone, MD recc that we read you.
I thank you for your thoughtfulness, time, and energy that you invested in this piece. I look forward to future reads. I appreciate your logistics of placing the censorship piece up front. I don't know how many people realize that we are on the precipice of a complete collapse of our democracy into a fascist takeover. They can consider the merits of this article in the Education section of the Gulag.
I'm with you 100% on the trans issue and Biden's betrayal of women on Title IX. However, you're not going to persuade me that Trump did not foment January 6th, that he didn't shirk his responsibility to calm it down after it started, or that it was in any way a "peaceful" demonstration. I saw what they did. I saw the crowds breaking into the Capitol, erecting a scaffold and chanting, "Hang Mike Pence!" I also saw how Trump planted the seeds that the election results were going to be untrustworthy long before they happened, but as soon as he started to believe he might lose. And unlike the Democrats who held an FBI investigation of Russiagate, Trump tried 1,000 different ways to overturn the election of Biden through threats, lawsuits, lies, false electors, etc. etc. Hillary Clinton conceded to Trump. She didn't launch lawsuits for months trying to overturn the election. She didn't encourage a group of Democrats to storm the Capitol and then step back and let it rage on when it happened. Did Russiagate turn out to be unfounded? Yes. And none of that should be censored. But it's a far cry from the election lies Trump has perpetrated and continues to perpetrate.
No. Clinton didn't encourage others to dispute Trump's election. All she did was start a propaganda campaign claiming he was a Russian tool. And why exactly is Russia our enemy? It seems to elude me. She and Obama together destroyed Libya, the richest country in Africa. They murdered Gadaffi, the man who had brough them from the status of poorest African country to richest in less than 40 years. They bombed the water pipeline that Gadaffi had constructed through Africa to provide irrigation to other African nations. Gadaffi also enacted equal rights for women, still not the law (in fact now the opposite) in the U.S. The Libyan people also had free or low cost health care and education. But he committed the cardinal sin. He said that Libyan oi9l belonged to the Libyan people, not to western predatory corporations. So they illegally invaded, destroyed the country and murdered Gadaffi, their chosen leader, while Clinton laughed her demented laugh. Now it's a failed state with open air slave markets - more to the democrats liking. The only thing I see Clinton eligible for is a long prison sentence as a war criminal, certainly not as president.
I'll take disorganized unarmed randos breaking stuff in the halls of power over conniving organized corporatists quietly breaking the Constitution in those same halls any day of the week. One is totally ineffective and anyways has the right target. The other is terrifyingly effective such that now you have the "progressive" party fighting against our God given right to speech and being praised for it by their lapdog media.
You're a nihilist. I'll take neither, thank you. And if you think those people who invaded the Capitol were courageous patriots instead of deluded Trump cultists, you're a fool. All you people on the right live and breathe conspiracy theories. They are air to you.
No, I'm an anti-statist. There's a difference. I love humans, and hate the state, because historically it has more often than not been a boot stomping the face of humanity, to borrow a metaphor from Orwell. To people who can't imagine a world where humans flourish without the blessing and permission of the all-hallowed state, that sounds like nihilism, because it sounds like a celebration of chaos. But statism is not the only kind of order and far more human kinds of order have preceded it, and will succeed it in the future when the tree of liberty is again watered by the blood of tyrants, as the founders of this nation remind us it must be from time to time.
You hate governments. Perhaps you should go to Somalia or Afghanistan or Haiti -- those are three places without governments. Countries without governments end up being ruled by gangs. Good luck finding liberty in any of those places. You obviously don't realize this, but it is the U.S. government that is ensuring your liberty and your freedom of speech.
Corporatocratic war mongering anti-democratic authoritarians certainly do not. And as I said, one of these two groups holds far more power than the other, and is more effective at wielding it and convincing us it's for our own good. We must all take care not to be useful idiots for the machinations of tyrants, no matter how flowery their rhetoric.
This entire article is a stew of right-wing talking points that has come from conservative media. Carol Dansereau is one of those people who likes to think that she has the inside track on the "truth", but her idea of the truth is whatever nonsense is being spread by Fox or the Heritage Foundation. I'm so sorry, Carol, that you are slipping into dementia at an early age.
The worst thing that Democrats are doing right now is giving lip-service to transgender ideas, but eventually they will come to their senses. That is not a good reason to jump ship to the Republican party, which has become nothing more than a cult with Donald Trump as its leader. Nothing has changed since 2016: It is still a measure of stupidity and corrupt values to support the Lying Pig. It is also a measure of ignorance, since the Pig's supporters never bother to find out what he is actually doing.
Now, if I got the notice for this article because I am subscribed to your Substack, I'll have to remedy that immediately. What you are saying here is mostly paranoid trash. Even when you get your facts right, you draw the wrong conclusions. You should get yourself to a doctor to see if you can't slow down that early dementia you have.
And by the way, probably only 10% of Democrats agree with trans ideas. Only the most "woke" among us do. Democratic politicians will eventually figure that out.
Perry, in this and other comments you've called me a dementia-entering person, a brainwashed rat, a tribalist/Cult member, a person devoid of integrity, etc. You might want to read more carefully what I wrote. Your responses to my article are not rational and do not flow from what I said. Just for the record: I'm not a Republican; have never supported Democrats except for a brief stint decades ago, and have faced all sorts of grief for dissent and NOT being a Cult/tribe follower. I am not endorsing Trump nor do I like him. As I said: read the piece more carefully, especially paragraphs about how neither Ds nor Rs are tolerable, and we must work together to get beyond these unacceptable choices.
You're right. I just skimmed through it. Later today I'll take a stiff drink and read every word. However, your commenters are all Republicans, and some of them are Democrats-cum-Republicans, and everything I said was appropriate for them.
The title of your article and your opening lines do not support the bipartisan spirit of what you just said to me.
"This is a letter to my progressive friends. Your political parties and agendas are tanking in the theater of public opinion. And this makes no sense to you. You view with horror the substantial support Donald Trump enjoys, realizing he could well be elected President again, which shocks you."
Those are tribalist words. You can't have it both ways. You can't be a tribalist and an independent thinker too.
New edit: You know, the more I think about it, the more I feel that you aren't being honest. You claim to be independent and bipartisan, and yet your article is condescendingly addressed to progressives as if we were stupid people with bad ideas. You are being provocative. And if a "progressive" like me decides to call you a few names, then I think you've earned them.
I don't know who you are talking to, but it is conservatives and Republicans who are fascist in our society. The worst things that Dems do is to bend too far to give minorities their rights, and to provide perhaps too many benefits to poor people. Historically, fascists are always conservatives.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Fascism was invented by Mussolini who was a socialist. It is a left-wing, nationalist form of socialism that advocates for the total reorganization of society— for which Mussolini coined the term "totalitarian" as a description—in service to the state, which is not at ALL conservative. It isn't at all a coincidence that the full name of the Nazi Party was National SOCIALISM, not National Conservatism. Only someone who has no understanding of what conservative means could believe that fascists are conservative. There is, in fact, nothing conservative about fascism, which is why it is impossible to be conservative and also a fascist. Some European conservatives did ally with fascists in the '20s and '30s because they saw Soviet Communism, with its advocacy for international revolution, as a greater threat. But that was a tactical alliance, not an expression of any commonality between fascism and actual conservative politics.
Labels, however, can be very confusing. Kind of like the 5 blind men researching an elephant. People also use words to deceive. I think Hitler and the Nazi Party used the word "socialism" to fool the people into believing that it was an actual people's party. It took me 80 years to get here, but I've come to the conclusion that the whole idea of government at all is a lie. It's really about which gang of criminals are most effective at lying (and murdering) their way into power which is the only goal of government - power and wealth, for itself and those they represent who are never the working people. We're truly effed because there are way too many people whose sole interest is in their own self-enhancement. I do believe there are also a lot of people who do care and do act in the interest of the community, but they are never (or rarely) the ones to get elected nor do too many like that even seek or want power. It's always the Bill Gates types - - born rich and entitled with limited intelligence but overwhelming brilliance in screwing others who seek and gain power. We need to evolutionize in order to revolutionize out of this insanely corrupt system. We need to get to the point where the average person understands that those like Gates as well as those they hrie to play the role of politicians should be held in contempt, neither admired nor respected. Then perhaps we can evolve into a cooperative form of local (not global) governance.
Obviously, I need to do some reading up on fascism (if what you say is true). I have a dim recollection that the Socialist party in Germany was not aligned with Hitler, but I'm not sure. However, in THIS race (the only one that matters now), Harris is a progressive Democrat and Trump is a fascist. Regardless of how Trump got there, he is behaving like a dictator-wanna-be. He continues to tell outrageous lies every day, and that is something that fascist dictators do. His technique is "if you lie often enough, people will believe it".
Every time Harris does something in this campaign, he dreams up his own version of events, versions which make the Democrats look bad. He's also doing that to Biden. He is claiming that both Harris and Biden have essentially ignored the crisis in North Carolina, which is not true. He is claiming that FEMA will try to steal your home if you leave it. He is claiming that $750 is the MOST that FEMA will give you if your home is destroyed, when in fact that is the INITIAL amount they give people during a natural disaster, money which is meant to cover their immediate needs. More money comes later.
I am not a nerd where history is concerned, so I don't know all the facts. But it seems pretty clear to me that dictators can arise from any kind of political stance. In this race, if you care about democracy, you would be smart to vote for Harris because, believe me, TRUMP DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. TRUMP IS A PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSIST WHO CARES ONLY ABOUT HIMSELF. If I keep yelling in these comments, it is only because you people are so dumb to be sympathetic to Trump, which many of you are.
Even if you do know more about history than me, it's pretty clear that you have drawn the wrong conclusions from what you know.
This is getting pretty tiresome. Trump is indefensible, and is so much of the Republican agenda. When are you people going to realize that?
I just looked up the definition of fascism: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." Here is one of the definitions for fascist: "a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views." It seems that fascism is more associated with conservatives than liberals. Socialism is associated with liberals, but there really is nothing in it that is liberal that I can see. Liberals, in fact, believe in freedom more than conservatives do, who are only interested in economic freedom. The bottom line is that dictatorship in general is associated more with conservatism than liberalism. Clearly, it doesn't really matter what the roots of these political words are. Trump is a conservative, and he clearly wants dictatorial powers.
Democrats aren't just giving "lip service" to gender ideology. They've passed all sorts of laws and policies to proselytize, incentivize and enforce it. For example, here in Washington State (and elsewhere):
-schools have been mandated by the legislature to adopt "gender-inclusive schools" policies to allow boys into girls spaces and sports and keep secrets from parents
-insurance companies mandated to cover "gender-affirming" drugs and surgeries
-prisons allow men into women's prisons; taxpayers paying for "gender-affirming care" for trans-identifying inmates
-SB 5599 equates parental disagreement regarding gender identity and medicalization with abuse and facilitates receipt of gender-affirming care while keeping kids separated from parents; $1.8 million taxpayer funded grants recently awarded to support this.
-recently passed laws will make it harder for local school boards to remove controversial books and more likely gender ideology will appear in curriculum
And all of this has been done with only "10 percent" of Democrats supporting it? Quite a democracy we have.
Regarding the first section of Carol's post: what is one specific thing (or more, if you like) that she and her right wing sources got wrong?
Yes, I know all that, and the reasons for it are complex. Trans activists have done a very good job of selling transgenderism as the newest minority interest that must be included in diversity. I myself haven't figure out why their ideas have brainwashed so many liberals. But to my knowledge (this article not withstanding) that is the only serious weak spot that Democrats have.
I'm sure you've heard the adage, "You can fool some of the people all of time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Well, Donald Trump is a con-man who has fooled some of the people all of time; and when coupled with the electoral college, that's enough to get him elected. Because he is a liar and a thief* and a corrupt person in general, we just can't have him in power again. It is too dangerous for the country. It doesn't matter that the Democrats are wrong on this one issue, the Republicans as a group have become a functioning cult. If you care for our democracy, you will not vote for Trump. * He stole money from most of his business associates.
The Dems are wrong on 20% of the issues, and the Republicans are wrong on 80% of the issues. If you disagree with that, then your values are screwed up. If you don't disagree with that, then you need to vote for Harris no matter what she says about the trans issue.
That is a nice list you have there. How many hours should I spend examining every issue in my response? I have a life to live. However, I'll say a few things.
What is the issue over "housing first"? Probably very few Democrats support drug decriminalization or defunding the police or open borders and several other things on the list. Vaccine mandates save lives because they give human beings "herd" immunity, but I support them only for children, and only the most necessary vaccines should be required. What does "restorative justice" mean? All forms of fossil fuels must eventually be banned because they damage the planet. If it doesn't happen now, it will happen later. WHAT pro-choice extremism? I only support late-term abortions if there is an excellent reason (like the baby will be born dead or the mother could die), and I think most Dems agree with me on that. Who wants to reduce academic rigor??? And there's nothing radical about teaching ethnic culture in schools since the country is full of ethnic people.
Throwing out a vague list does no good in a comment section like this. But you have shown me one thing: You are a tribalist too, like the others commenting here. If you thought for yourself, you would not be choosing the Republican position on EVERY TOPIC. You would agree with some Republican positions and disagree with others. It's called "integrity", which you seem to be lacking.
I'll provide a proper response in a little while, but the fact that you seem unaware of any of the problems with the democratic positions and policies on these issues perhaps betrays your own tribalism.
Housing First diverts resources and focus away from secure treatment facilities, sober housing, long term mental health services and triaging via overnight congregate shelters. Four walls and a door doesn't inherently improve the situation for someone with untreated mental illness and addiction and is creating unsafe environments. It also sets an impossibly high standard/expectation of no-strings attached free individual housing units. This approach is often paired with "harm reduction" drug use supplies (foil, pipe, needles, booty bump kits, etc) moreso than a focus on treatment. It's all about "meeting people where they are", not getting them the help and accountability they really need.
New local documentary on Housing First failures, from the perspective of staff, residents and first responders:
Restorative justice: removing police from schools; reduced discipline likely leading to more disruptions, violence in schools. "Restorative justice involves facilitated conversations between the victim, the offender, and the community to address the needs of everyone involved. These conversations can take place at various stages of the criminal justice system." Obama really kick-started this trend in 2014, threatening schools if their discipline policies resulted in racially disparate outcomes. Current DNC platform supports this focus on equity in school discipline policies even though disruptive, unsafe classrooms are inequitable to other minority students.
There have been attempts to integrate "restorative justice" approaches (shifting the focus too far away from consequences & accountability) to the criminal justice system, especially youth. J-25 law in Washington has overwhelmed juvenile detention facilities with higher numbers of older and more violent offenders. King County's recently (sort-of) aborted Zero Youth Detention movement undermined the stability and proper functioning of Seattle's detention facility, disrupting staffing and educational services.
"Four years of talking about the unrealistic aspiration of closing secure detention has taken a toll, according to a King County Auditor’s Office report in April: “Staff explained that the uncertainty around closure dampens morale and results in staff exploring employment opportunities with more long-term security.”
With fewer staff members, overtime costs have spiraled and services for youth in detention have diminished — especially since youth charged as adults have been housed in the CCFJC since 2017.
“When a shift is understaffed, youth may be confined to their cells, and DAJD (Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention) may shorten school periods and cancel enrichment programs. This can lead to increased stress among youth and violent incidents,” stated the auditor."
Vaccine mandates: I'm referring specifically to the COVID vaccine mandates, leading to the loss in Washington State of many "essential" employees. Especially hard hit was the Dept of Transportation and WA Ferries. But also it was a very authoritarian move, especially considering the novelty of this particular vaccine. Weird move from the party of choice and bodily autonomy.
Green energy policies: Government is trying to move too far too fast. They're not just putting their finger on the scale, but slamming their fist. Limiting energy leads to higher energy costs and increases the cost of many other products (increasing production and transportation expenses). Reducing energy options and affordability will likely result in more illnesses and death from extreme heat and cold. It will certainly add to an already high cost of living and more reliance on government handouts which will increase the tax burden.
Aggressive EV mandates in particular is putting the cart before the horse and, like vaccine mandates, too heavy handed in dictating what businesses and individuals can do. Is spending millions of dollars in subsidies and infrastructure really the best use of money right now when current technology may become obsolete, safer and more environmentally with new advances?
There are also severe environmental downsides to wind, solar and lithium battery storage facilities. A lot of money taxed on this issue will be an unaccountable slush fund for "climate justice". Best thing we can do long term is support civilizational flourishing and better technological breakthroughs.
"Probably very few Democrats support drug decriminalization or defunding the police or open borders and several other things on the list." But such policies have been implemented, most impactfully the Biden-Harris open borders of the past four years. It's interesting that open borders until recently was not favored by the Left because of its impacts on working class wage suppression (a few Bernie Sanders videos floating around of him forcefully speaking out against open borders as a right wing, Koch brothers policy). This indicates the Democrats shifts towards corporate elites.
Liberated Ethnic Studies: It's not about cultural enrichment. In states like Washington, California and Minnesota, the frameworks have been crafted by activist organizations like WA Ethnic Studies Now to include analysis of power and oppression, personal and collective "transformation"and striving to dismantle "systems of oppression".
From WA K-12 Ethnic Studies framework:
"Embracing the purpose of Ethnic Studies, which is to eliminate racism by critiquing, resisting,
and transforming systems of oppression on institutional, interpersonal, and internal levels."
"Students are supported in developing their critical consciousness using historical context to understand and analyze current events, beliefs, and concepts. These actions affirm the humanity of students, educators, and communities by deeply understanding how we are connected historically and how whiteness works to divide us all."
"Self-reflecting on teacher identity and making explicit how identity impacts power relations
in the classroom and in the community."
"Ethnic Studies is not a curriculum. Ethnic Studies is an epistemology, or a paradigm. It requires
educators to transform their beliefs about the purpose of education, the cultural and community wealth of their students, and their role in supporting students to achieve success—as defined by their students and families. For these reasons, transformative professional development is vital before any attempts at transformation in the classroom. Professional development must focus on racial identity development of educators and
culturally responsive pedagogy"
"Understanding racial power dynamics while centering resistance and joy. Ethnic Studies
critiques racial power dynamics in the U.S. and the world that have centered narratives of whiteness. Using counter-narratives, Ethnic Studies shifts the center of teaching and learning to the stories of people and communities of color and their intersectional experiences."
Article regarding MN ethnic studies appointee's radicalism, including saying that America is irredeemably racist and should be overthown:
Pro-choice extremism: The fact that "my body, my choice" is increasingly interpreted literally to exclude the life of the infant as of compelling interest to state involvement/protection. I also suspect pro-choice extremism impacts the debate about "gender-affirming care". If you believe in "my body, my choice" when it comes to ending the life of a baby, how can you take issue with teenagers taking puberty blockers and cross sex hormones and having their breasts removed?
Tim Walz: "My record is so pro-choice, Nancy Pelosi asked me if I should tone it down. I stand with Planned Parenthood, and WE WON'T."
"The Harris-Walz ticket is the most pro-abortion in U.S. history, openly advocating for zero regulations on abortion and even denying healthcare to babies who survive abortions.
In Minnesota, Walz removed a requirement for doctors to report cases where babies survived abortions, an act so extreme that even former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) advised him to tone it down — advice he publicly rejected...
Kamala Harris is betting everything on abortion, but this isn’t the same debate as in the past. Today’s discussion centers on extreme positions, such as abortion at 40 weeks, deregulating abortion pills, removing doctors from the process, taxpayer-funded abortions, and denial of healthcare to babies who survive abortions. Most well-intentioned abortion supporters don’t back these extreme stances."
Minnesota passed a law getting rid of most abortion restrictions and protections through all stages of pregnancy.
"Democratic majorities rejected dozens of amendments that Republican lawmakers proposed as guardrails, including prohibitions on third-trimester abortions except to save the patient’s life."
I notice you keep contrasting your own views, which seem relatively moderate and which you say represent the majority of Democrats, with these more extreme views that you also acknowledge some Democrats have adopted. If it's true though that you represent the majority, then why do Democrat strongholds like San Fran, NYC, and Chicago continuously exemplify these more extreme views? (Specifically think about drug policy, sanctuary city policy, policing for example). I want to believe you're right, and sometimes I see a poll that leans that way showing more moderation than I expect, but then sometimes I see a poll that says for example a majority of D's supported criminal penalties for people who criticized pandemic policy, or they believe 1000s of unarmed black men are killed by police annually when really it's just 10s, a belief that fueled the hysteria of the defund movement. I'm told Tim Walz is a rural moderate but he's also the guy who set up a snitch line for people to rat out their neighbors for having visitors during the pandemic, and signed legislation to make MN a sanctuary state for youth gender medicine. What gives?
My theory is that the people pulling the strings in the DNC are master manipulators of public opinion, and they have their own nefarious ideas that they know are at odds with a lot of their base, which like you are more sensible. They pull the heartstrings of the base which end up being useful idiots for their policies that have very different underlying motives. Open borders for instance. Selling point: "let's help the poor downtrodden immigrants". Reality: "our corporate donors want cheaper labor and we want votes to stay in power".
You don’t realize this, but you’ve done the same thing Chris did, and that is you’ve thrown out a vague list for me to respond to.
I don’t live in San Francisco, NYC or Chicago. If I did, I would be more “up” on whatever extreme things they are doing. You give “drug policy, sanctuary city policy, policing” as examples, but what do those things mean? Do you mean treating drug addiction medically instead of throwing addicts I jail? I’m in favor of that, although I still believe drug PUSHERS should be prosecuted. Is a “sanctuary city” a place where the local police are instructed not to arrest people who can’t prove their citizenship? I’m in favor of that too. Why? Because the police would start profiling everyone according to their accents, and that’s wrong. I also see it as the task of the U.S. government to enforce immigration laws and not the states. Furthermore, there are lots of illegal immigrants making worthwhile contributions to the country.
So you’ve seen a poll that says a majority of Democrats support criminal penalties for people who criticize pandemic policy? Really? You don’t think Democrats believe in free speech??? Where did you hear about that poll – Fox News, or at a Trump rally from the lips of our former Liar-in-Chief? How gullible are you???
I’ve explained elsewhere in a comment here why Democratic politicians are more liberal than the their constituents. In addition to that, large cities are more likely to have a liberal citizenry.
“Manipulators ... with nefarious ideas” – you see, you are a conspiracy theorist just like most of the other people here. I’m not going to go into the psychology of conspiracy theorists, but it isn’t pretty. You need to examine your beliefs.
“They pull the heartstrings of the base which end up being useful idiots for their policies that have very different underlying motives.” What do you think that Donald Trump is doing? Trump is a demagogue, a master manipulator. He knows nothing about how to lead a country, but he knows how to stir people’s feelings up. He is the Pied Piper leading the ignorant.
Both Biden and Harris were willing to sign that extremely conservative immigration bill that the House passed a few months back, and which Trump nixed because then he wouldn’t be able to campaign on the issue. Given that, you have no right to criticize them on immigration. We haven’t had a good immigration bill for decades, but that’s mainly because of the Republicans.
But let me say that getting cheap labor into the country isn’t such a bad idea. If we were dependent on Americans to work the fields, we would all starve.
I’ve got other things to do than talk to you all night. You don’t have a balanced viewpoint.
What a perfect example you are of exactly what Ms. Dandereau has written. An inability to hear and respect the viewpoint of others hardly makes you a paragon of democracy. And of course you start with the obvious - as a woman, she must be influenced by others since she would hardly possess the intelligence to actually form an opinion just out of her own pretty little "right-wing" head. She clearly states that, neithr side is representative of the best interests of eitherthe people or the planet and yet you persist in the usual dimdumbdemocrat rant about Trump. I, like her, awakened from a long sleep in which I actually thought the dems were the "good guys". I have been disabused by such as yourself, who while calling yourself a democrat, hardly support the values of a democracy. When you are able to consider the possibility that you could be wrong, you will have made some progress. We all have been massively brainwashed to serve the interests of the few over, finally, the very life of our species, at aminimum.
Well said. Disaffected Democrats, i.e., progressives like you and I and Dansereau, still cherish the values that the Democrats once championed, foremost among them, freedom of speech, press, and affiliation. The degradation of these values that we've seen since the election of Donald Trump occurred not because of Trump but because the Democrats were terrified of losing and, when they lost, they were sore losers.
During the campaign, the liberal media took sides. Donald Trump was given lots of sensationalized attention because it increased their audience, while Bernie Sanders, who had a large base and was competing with Trump for the same voting pool, was ignored. I was a compulsive listener to NPR at the time, and I observed the lopsided coverage of the candidates, even though I intended to vote for Clinton, which I did. She was so secure in her victory that it didn't occur to her that half the country might not appreciate being called deplorable.
(Note to Hillary: "I will call you bigoted fools now, and you will vote for me later" is not a good strategy for winning elections.)
When Trump won, the plot was hatched to ensure that such a monstrous thing never occurred again. The liberal media adopted a non-stop strategy of "All Trump All The Time,” featuring the excesses that Dansereau describes in her article; e.g., "Russiagate," a term that the Democrats don't use and don't even know what it means.
The incessant fear mongering about Trump, exacerbated by the hysteria surrounding covid, acted as a fear pathogen more potent than anything cooked up in a lab in China. It wormed its way into the brains of Democrats, who now suffer from advanced cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome. They know all they need to know, and Carol Dansereau, bless her heart, is senile.
I'm a lifelong Democrat. I’m 72, so that's a pretty longtime. As a Jew, I supported the right of nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois in 1977, not because I love nazis, but because I love the First Amendment and the principles upon which this country was founded. That was also the ACLU's position back then. Despite the fact that most of their attorneys were Jews, they defended the nazis in court, and won. Today, the ACLU supports the banning of books, like Abigail Shrier’s “Irreversible Damage," and defends the “right” of biologically intact male rapists and murderers to be housed in women’s prisons. Today, some of our Supreme Court justices and politicians call free speech dangerous and are working to legislate it out of existence. This is how far we've fallen.
I don't try to convince my Democrat friends of anything. They live in a bubble of paralyzing fear and hatred. Conversation is impossible because they are right about everything and I'm a bigot who has lost my marbles.
Dansereau's well-written essay may influence some folks who are on the fence but I doubt that entrenched Democrats will read past the first paragraph, never mind take it seriously. But that doesn't mean she shouldn't have written it, because it's better than staying silent and because you never know.
The recent rally in D.C. organized by Matt Taibbi, a lifelong liberal and a courageous defender of objective journalism and free speech, is a sign of the times.
Thank you for this. If you're 72 then you remember when the most popular quote of the 20th century was "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It seems for the 21st century it's changed Ito "I wish you job loss, cancellation, death and dismemberment for disagreeing with me because I am right and you are evil". May we be saved from the zealots, those so convinced that whatever it is that they believe is all that they can hear.
First, that quote is much older than you think it is. Second, above you gave as an example of liberal excess the ACLU defending the rights of Nazis to march, and now you seem to be saying the opposite. If you believe in that quote, then you had best believe that the Nazis had a right to march. (Wasn't it the Ku Klux Klan that marched?)
Also, I do not support the ACLU any more because they have been infected by transgender ideology. You see, I am a liberal who is not liberal on every issue. Why can't you parse your views like that? SHOW SOME INTEGRITY AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND ON EVERY ISSUE. DON'T JUST ADOPT ALL OF THE REPUBLICAN BELIEFS.
You misinterpreted what I wrote regarding the ACLU. Here again, is what I wrote:
"As a Jew, I supported the right of nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois in 1977, not because I love nazis, but because I love the First Amendment and the principles upon which this country was founded. That was also the ACLU's position back then. Despite the fact that most of their attorneys were Jews, they defended the nazis in court, and won."
At no point did I state or even imply that the ACLU's defense of the Nazis was an "example of liberal excess." It was not. It was consistent with the ACLU's values in support of free speech, which I supported at the time, and still do.
The problem with the ACLU is that it has changed its mission. It now supports the banning of gender critical books because pro-trans ideology has infected its thinking. The ACLU also actively defends the so-called rights of trans-identified men to be housed in women's prisons. Women's bodily autonomy and safety have become irrelevant to the ACLU. Their mission is corrupted, and therefore, I no longer support them.
No, the Ku Klux Klan did not march with the Nazis in Skokie. The Nazi group in question was an offshoot run by a man named Frank Collin. If you have any interest in the details, I recommend this superb article, "The Skokie Case: How I Came to Represent the Free Speech Rights of Nazis," written by ACLU attorney, David Goldberger.
I offer this reply as a service to other readers of this Substack who might want some clarification. I won't be responding to you again.
I am in agreemernt with you. ACLU used to be an organization with integrity. It has now been captured by the moneyed class as have much ofour government and the UN. They have created such a climate of corruption, but not without the help of the Supreme (extreme) Court.
You have the same problem that Dansereau and DubbyDove have: You are tribe-driven. You can't just select individual issues on which you disagree with the Democrats. Rather, you have to make a full conversion from your old tribe (Dems) to your new tribe (Trump cult). You are like a prostitute who becomes a born-again Christian. If the prostitute had poor values, why should I trust the new values of the obnoxious proselytizer? It's called "integrity", of which you seem to have none. If you had integrity, you would have your disagreements with the Democrats, but you would still agree with them overall. Why? Because Donald Trump is a fool, a liar, a criminal, a thief, a pretender. He is the Pied Piper leading the rats. Enjoy your new status as a brain-washed rat.
No, Dandereau's foolishness is all her own. If I were a misogynist, I wouldn't have supported Hillary Clinton and wouldn't now support Kamala Harris. To the extent that a man can be a feminist, I've been one all my life.
What I'm seeing in disaffected Democrats is not a reasonable disagreement on individual issues (as I disagree with them on gender), but people changing "tribes". I am not tribe-driven. I can disagree on some issues and still recognize that the Dems are more rational over all.
I don't think I'm tribe-driven. When Hillary Clinton was my senator when I lived in New York, I stopped voting for her because she was too much into earmarks, which waste a lot of money. (However, I eventually realized that reasonable earmarks help to grease the wheels of government. It is a way of winning over senators and representatives to positions they would not otherwise support.) And as you know, I'm against transgender ideology and drag queens. There are some other Democratic positions I would change if I had the power. I support the social safety net, although, again, I would make changes to it.
My rage is against the evil of Donald Trump, and against the stupidity of his supporters (many of whom are posting here). Even before Trump came on the scene, Republicans were getting ever more conservative, starting with their support for Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. I am also against the influence of conservative Christians on Republicans. The problem with conservatism in general is that it promotes selfishness. My landlord, who is a Trump supporter, told me proudly once that he has no sympathy for ANYONE. A world without sympathy? No thanks.
Too many people in our society don't have a historical perspective. Throughout history, kings, queens, emperors and pharaohs had little concern for their people; they existed primarily to enrich themselves and to build their own power. We need governments in the world which support the people. But the recent efforts of Republicans (making it harder to vote is one example) are so undemocratic that I just can't support their policies -- not to mention the racism and misogyny of Republicans, and their adoration for the rich.
That’s pretty tribal to me, Penny. Being 95% in agreement with one party while comparing the other to the worst of historical tyrants is not exactly independent thinking. But its your vote and I’ve no wish to argue
Penny? I would say the proportions are more like 80%-20%. You just don't know me. Besides, the Democrats don't have a kook running for president, a kook that Republicans are lining up behind. It is your support for a criminal/thief/racist/misogynist/narcissist/wannabe dictator that makes you all tribalists.
PJ: "And by the way, probably only 10% of Democrats agree with trans ideas. Only the most 'woke' among us do. Democratic politicians will eventually figure that out."
Don't see that happening anytime soon. When Harris boots "Rachel" Levine out on "her" ear is when, if I were able to vote in US elections, I might think Harris and the Democrats were the "lesser of two weevils" and not Trump.
Carol seems to have done a decent job of naming the usual suspects and itemizing a fairly extensive and quit damning bill of particulars on the transgender issue. But if you need more then see Joanna Williams' article on "The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology" and my post on "Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology" which provides a link to Williams' article:
Unless Rachel Levine is doing her job poorly, I see no reason why she should lose it. So what are you saying, that you don't want trans people to get any jobs at all?
The "usual suspects" are mostly Republican talking points that have little truth to them, or which are mostly irrelevant or explainable, or exaggerated.
Levine is something of a "point man" for the absolute worst of transgender ideology, for the rather demented idea that some dick-swinging dude can simply click his heels together and say he's changed into a female and should be treated as such. Harris is no better if not worse, as Carol indicated above, in gushing over Dylan Mulvaney.
> "... mostly irrelevant or explainable, or exaggerated ..."
I apologize for not being up on what Rachel Levine is doing. If she has in fact done the things you say, then I don't support her either. My point is that trans people have a right to WORK. However, I won't vote for trans politicians because they push gender ideology. (I'm gay, by the way, so I'm part of that LGBT alphabet soup.) And for the same reason I won't vote for Muslim politicians (because Islam is a bad religion), but I also won't vote for devout Christians who are not liberal.
You see: I'm setting a good example for you: I am liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I'm sensible. I think for myself.
No problemo -- complex issue, and not easy to keep abreast of all the important details.
But I still don't think you, and far too many others, fully appreciate the rot that transgenderism has wrought -- so to speak, much if not all of it due to the aiding and abetting by Democrats in general. Whatever crimes and misdemeanors you can lay at the feet of Republicans, at least they're not butchering autistic and dysphoric children, and turning them into sexless eunuchs -- conversion therapy writ large. Something that, one would think, you in particular should be concerned about.
As further grist for the mill in your thinking, you might try reading that post of mine on Statistics Departments corrupted by gender ideology, as well as my repost of, and elaborations on, one by Carol:
"The Anti-Science Disaster of Gender Ideology in the Schools":
If I don't fully appreciate the rot that transgenderism has wrought, why do I have my own Substack about it? Transgender ideology is the worst idea that has come down the pike in the last hundred years. It has to be defeated. It is an existential threat to humanity because it makes all kinds of other bad ideas plausible.
"Whatever crimes and misdemeanors you can lay at the feet of the Republicans ..." For God's sake, the Republican party has become the TRUMP CULT -- and Trump is a whole lot worse than you want to acknowledge. He is a NARCISSIST who cares only about himself. He is a liar, a thief, a criminal, a demagogue, a RACIST. He is completely incompetent. He did very little in his first term except to send out Tweets. Anyone who would vote for him again is STUPID.
The fact that Levine claims to believe himself to be a woman does not speak positively for his mental health. So what qualifies him to take yet another job from an actual woman? Women are still massively discriminated against in higher paid jobs. As an example, although 51% of the population. only 20% of our congressional representatives are women. Giving yet another job to a man claiming to be a woman does exactly zero for women's rights and your inability to understand this also denies your claim of being a feminist.
Harris is so not fit for the job, if she is elected it will likely make misogyny worse because some will blame her failure (and she will fail) on her sex... which is unfortunate, since mediocrity is an equal opportunity affliction.
You know, statements like this are laughably absurd. They make me question the sanity of the person saying them.
And you think that Trump is better? Okay, so let's say that you aren't a Trump cultist and you are not suggesting a comparison. Of course, Harris vs. Trump IS the choice we are facing, so it seems to me that you should be willing to look at Harris kindly. But you aren't because of the gender thing. But in every other respect, Harris is an obviously accomplished politician. She was a prosecutor and a senator, she united Democrats behind her after Biden pulled out with a level of skill I have never seen before, she made Trump look like a fool in their debate, and she has made NO ERRORS in her campaign. If she turns out to be as skillful a president as she is a campaigner, she may be one of the best presidents in history.
Listen, I am anti-trans too, but at least I understand where the woke liberals are coming from. They see trans people as being the most pitiful minority group in history (and they are right about that), so they want society to be accommodating as much as possible. They are wrong about that too, of course -- and they don't recognize the existential harm that trans people are doing -- but at least their hearts are in the right place. None of us who are anti-trans have been able to figure out why trans ideology is so appealing to the do-gooders in our society. I certainly can't, but as I said, the liberals are at least trying to have a kind response to them. For you to reject Democrats at every level become SOME Democrats are over-compensating towards trans people is just foolish, ESPECIALLY SINCE DONALD THE PUSSY-GRABBER IS OUR ONLY ALERNATIVE. Do you hear what I'm saying? THE LIE-A-MINUTE NARCISSIST AND DEMAGOGUE IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE. You need to come to your senses. Stop being a one-issue voter -- that is so dumb.
"I'm so sorry, Carol, that you are slipping into dementia at an early age." Perry, that's just nasty and uncalled for. Can we try to keep our arguing civil? This is no way to make an argument or try to change someone's mind.
You're right, I shouldn't have said that. However, I have nothing but contempt for what she is doing. Because of some conservative streak in her personality, she isn't just questioning SOME Democratic positions, she is questioning ALL of them (or so it seems). That's what I mean by "tribalism". What I see in her article and in these comments is former Democrats deciding to switch ALL of their views to the other "side". But people with integrity do not decide what they believe according to what their adopted "tribe" believes. If you have INTEGRITY, then you make up your mind on each individual issue. Dansereau isn't doing that. She is making a wholesale switch from the Democrats to the Republicans. I can't respect that.
Every state that is Dem-run is pro-trans. CA, MN, OR, WA go further - they are trans-refuge states, where people can go to get mutilated. I believe that children can declare that they are emancipated (legally adults) in these states, get mutilated on state medical funds. This is why your contention of 10 % is a fucking lie.
Yup, I’m a liar, just like Donald Trump is. I did just what he does: I took my own estimate of 10% and I threw it out there as a fact. The difference between me and Trump is that I do that once a week, while he does that 50 TIMES A DAY. Do you understand what I’m saying? DONALD TRUMP IS A LIAR – DON’T VOTE FOR HIM.
Regarding what I said, the situation is complicated. Your average Democrat probably doesn’t know what “transgender ideology” is. All they know is that transgender people are the most pitiful people on earth, and so we have to be nice to them and give them what they want, which includes calling trans women “she” even when they are 6'2" tall and have male faces and baritone voices. However, the agenda of Democratic politicians is entirely different, and I’ll get to that in a moment.
So what is the central idea of transgender ideology? It is this idea (using a man as an example): “I am a man who feels like a woman, which means I have the ‘gender identity’ of a woman. Having the gender identity of a woman makes me a REAL woman; and being a REAL woman, I have the right to enter into ALL of women’s single-sex spaces, including sports, rest rooms, locker rooms, shelters and prisons.” Now, when explained like this, I suspect that 90% of Republicans will call it nonsense, and perhaps 80% of Democrats will call it nonsense – so yes, my 10% was too low. The point is, Democrats have the same common sense that Republicans do (actually, much more so given Trump’s popularity), and MOST of them will reject the idea.
Democratic politicians are a different matter. Just as Republican politicians are trying to please their right-most flank, Democratic politicians don’t want to alienate the “woke” ultra-liberals. Besides which, it does, at some level, seem to be a good idea to give trans people what they want, especially since they’ll demonstrate in front of your house if you don’t, and they’ll call you a “transphobe” forever after. Democratic politicians can also point to the fact that 90% of medical organizations now subscribe to transgender ideology, and if the politicians disagree, they’ll look like bigots. So Democratic politicians are making a calculated political move (just as Republican politicians do), and they are accepting the most liberal position, figuring that most Democratic voters don’t even understand it, so why not? But believe me, most Democrats don't believe this nonsense.
Little by little Democratic women are leaving the party. It may not be enough to sway this election but after four more years of Kamala, few women will be able to stomach her woke agenda anymore. The UnDemocratic Party is digging their own grave.
"In other words, they hold positions which were at one time a mainstay of progressivism and the left."
Progressives supported every single totalitarian regime of the 20th century, including Hitler and Nazism until Germany's break with the Soviet Union.
They supported every single 20th century War of National Liberation, which was invariably revealed to have been a War for National Enslavement whenever such a war succeeded and the socialists came to power. And despite the resulting oppression, political murders and gulags, progressives nevertheless supported those Socialist regimes. Cuba under Castro and Nicaragua under the Ortegas are prominent examples.
These historical facts reveal visible progressive causes to not reflect progressive values. "The issue is not the issue," as Mark Rudd (SDS) famously said. The issue is power. Progressive causes are opportunistic vehicles for accession to power. Once in power, the iron hand of socialist ideological totalitarianism is unsheathed.
Progressives are just socialists without police power. Socialism is slavery. And necessarily so. An ideological collectivism imposes obedience -- slavery -- as a feature. Once attaining police power. progressives reveal their totalitarian intentions. They have no interest in democracy or principled freedom. They have no interest in free speech, minority rights, or any sort of rights. They are interested in communal enslavement, and in causing sufficient turmoil to allow a take-over.
In pursuit of this end, progressives will deploy whatever cause is in opposition to the social order, in order to foster turmoil.
And the rank-and-file who believe in freedom and minority rights are the useful idiots who will be the second in line to be eliminated, once the progressive elite attain power.
Excellent summary of the topsy turvy world we've been living in. I'm glad you included the trans nonsense, which is incredibly anti-women's rights, yet finds broad support among the "progressive" community. You've brought together all the arguments I've been making to my "liberal" friends and relatives which fall invariably on deaf ears. They have been so brainwashed they can't imagine they are backing traditionally detested conservative positions. Now the "conservatives" have taken up the previously "liberal" positions, proving that conservatives and liberals never were all that far apart, in many respects. Jonathan Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind explains this beautifully. We all need to come together before we are torn even farther apart. Your article helps immensely. Thank you!
A few additional thoughts:
Economic liberalism refers to an economy which is characterized by high taxes, strong government involvement in the economy, specifically by dispensing benefits to the sick, poor, and disadvantaged, and that the economy is best managed by tight regulation of business, so that no business or part of the economy has an unfair advantage. Economic liberalism has been criticized for causing “big government” and excessive bureaucracy. It has been lauded for looking out for those who the capitalist system leaves with too small a slice of the pie, and limiting the size of the piece of pie that the wealthy and powerful take for themselves.
Economic conservatism refers to an economy characterized by low taxes, low levels of government regulation, and a minimal social safety net. It values the free market as a way of advancing the well being of society. It has been criticized for not doing more to rein in the excesses of the wealthy and powerful corporations by its “laissez faire” economics. It has been lauded for bringing innovation and wealth to countries which employ it more or less successfully.
Social liberalism promotes tolerance of divergent views, cultures, and lifestyles, support of the weak, and those unable to take care of themselves. It has been criticized for creating a “nanny state” where people are not simply helped to get back on their feet, but are rendered dependent on government hand-outs, so afraid are they of losing their “benefits” and for discouraging self-reliance. It has been lauded for defending minorities, disenfranchised groups, and those who have been discriminated against.
Social conservatism promotes religion, values, self-reliance and family. It has been criticized for not being welcoming enough of groups whose values diverge from conservative values and life-styles. It has been lauded for providing a solid framework for children to develop healthy spiritual and moral lives.
Political liberalism, which was born in the Enlightenment, originally meant standing up for the rights of individuals (those previously thought of as “common people”) in distinction to an aristocracy or monarchic authority. It meant freedom to vote (representative democracy) and defense of human rights from those who would tyrannically rob the common people of them. It respected individuals as autonomous humans who have the ability to participate in their government and whose perspectives are deserving of being honored, not just those of the rich and powerful. It tends to be anti-establishment in its orientation. It has been criticized for overvaluing the interests of the individual, at the expense of the group. It has been lauded for protecting the rights of the people against tyrannical powers.
Political conservatism, first enunciated in the writings of Edmund Burke, tends to respect authority, protect the status quo, value obedience, patriotism, and to some extent, patriarchy.
It has been criticized for protecting the rich and powerful, and being resistant to necessary change. It has been lauded for preventing the excesses exhibited in the French Revolution during the terror, and also during the Russian Revolution and other political movements where sober judgment, propriety and civilized behavior have been thrown to the wind in the unbridled zeal for change.
Excellent article. I've been looking for something like this for a while but didn't know where to start since my left leaning friends are so completely absorbed in an entirely different reality than me, probably due to media habits.
On COVID, let me also suggest Vinay Prasad, Jay Bhattacharya, and Alex Berenson. They're very good about citing primary sources, and the first two are very competent in their respective academic fields. And as far as reaching progressives goes, Vinay and Berenson were both lifelong Democrat voters as far as I know (Berenson even worked at NYT).
"Can we count on Republican leaders to stand up for democracy? No. But it’s absurd to present putting Democrats in office as a way to protect democracy."
Trust me, we conservatives are just as critical of most of the Republicans now in office, and we also recognize that we cannot count on them to stand up for "democracy," as you say, or - more to the point - our inherent human rights that are supposed to be protected by the Constitution.
Dear Lord do you believe any woke indoctrinated Democrat would permit this radioactive collection of political facts to cross their in-box? I envy your optimism.
Thank you for what you wrote about protecting free speech on both the right and left, especially the left, and our not being hypocrites about it.
However, I've got to say, I'm angry at the length of this Substack article. This isn't a post. It's a book. It took most of my weekend to skim it and I skipped over half of it. I only kept coming back to it so I wouldn't lose my place or the tab
Next time, if you're going to post more than a page or two, divide it into separate posts, labeled Part 1: topic. Part 2: topic, etc.
I just subscribed, and now am unsubcribing because of the inconsiderate length.
OMG, this is terrific! I am going to promote this as far and wide as I can. This is the article I wish I had time to write myself. You nailed it, Carol, right down to the recommended reading list. Thank you so much for doing this. You have performed a tremendous public service!
I don’t agree on all her points but it’s refreshing to know she took a serious look in the mirror so to speak and has admonished her progressive friends to do the same. Great job 🥂🐸
The same Soviet-class derision for all-important First Amendment freedoms has come from far more influential people than John Kerry—like Biden's Supreme Court appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson, who in the Murthy v. Missouri hearings described our First Amendment as her "greatest concern" because it "hamstrings the government" from censoring or punishing free speech and dissident opinions.
•_____• Never mind that "hamstring[ing] the government" in ••the sole and entire purpose•• of the First Amendment, and indeed of all 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
The same Ketanji Brown who can't define what a woman is because she is not a biologist?
That's the one.
Wow! And she is the one who couldn’t say who a woman is! Dreadful!
Thanks for this, Carol.
I appreciate your willingness to speak out.
I have always voted Democrat--not this time.
Not voting for Harris or Trump.
When you lose a child to the trans cult, who is there to support you?
(Not the Progressives, not the Democrats.)
The "trans rights" movements are a pharma profits to "non-profit" employment agencies, refusing to admit that detransitioners exist, that trans widows have been abused and that the iatrogenic harms of "affirmative care" are now undeniable. Even minorities having a long history of oppression to overcome have been gaslit into believing "trans genders" are more oppressed than their ancestors. It is a cult because it walks like a cult, it waddles like a cult and it quacks like a cult.
Ute Heggen, author, In the Curated Woods, True Tales from a Grass Widow (iuniverse, 2022)
Thank you. You may have started your awakened journey on your Christian path and I am a Jewish (spiritual-not-religious) Metaphysical Astrologer, but we seem to have arrived at very similar conclusions about the state of our world. I call it the 2nd Dark Age that we're going through. The first saw women healers they called witches, burned at the stake in order for men to steal health care from women. I read that in some towns there wasn't a woman left alive. Now, again under the aegis of government allied with misogynist health care practitioners, are seeking to colonize, perhaps eventually erase women altogether. I've always assumed that the dems were the more progressive party - until I didn't. With the onset of covid which I believe is a hoax, I was "accused" of being a Trump supporter because I refused to wear a mask - I was 82 at the onset and felt if it was true, I'd die at 82,already old, and would escape the worst of the fascism I saw coming. If not, I'd be fine and here I am, I'll be 86 Friday, if I live till then, which I suspect I will as I avoid doctors and look and feel a lot younger than I am. I finally realized that our entry into both world wars was caused by a democrat. Woodrow Wilson, touted as one of our great democratic presidents, also showed "Birth of a Nation" at the White House, decl;aring it to be a great classic and also gained the presidency by his promise to sell out the American people by agreeing to give power to the Federal Reserve. It took me until Barack Obama to wake up to them though. I'm ashamed to say I voted for him once, saw him in action and vowed to never again vote for a democrat. We are in need of a people's government which we will never have while the USA stands. They seek global and I do believe the only real answer is local governance. I'm in disagreement about climate change though as I believe our climate is being deliberately tampered with in order to serve the interests of the oligarchs who, unelected, are jet setting around the world in their private planes deciding what OUR sacrifices need to be to avert this climate change. And what a coincidence! It's always what will harm us (and the planet) and enrich them. I also think TDS is a real thing - and democrats have turned into nazis who definitely don't support democracy. They want the candidate they don't choose to be killed and say so unashamedly. Try the opposite though, it wouldn't go over so well. But then I don't see Trump or Other supporters wishing for death for those who oppose them. I have family that censors me if I dare say anything impugning their dem ideology. Biden with dementia is infinitely better than "fascist" Trump and they've now given their full support to Kamala the Selected. Perhaps some people are hopelessly brainwashed and incapable of critical thinking.
Thank you for sharing your experiences. (And yes, TDS is a real thing and we're seeing it in some of the comments on this article!) Just a quick note to say that I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist.
If the Dems have TDS, so do conservatives like DubbyDove here -- Transgender Derangement Syndrome. Like lobotomies, transgender ideas will fall out of favor with progressives before long. Eventually, Democrats will see that they are losing votes because of it.
I'm perplexed about how you could possibly construe anything I said as either for transgender ideology or even conservative. To some people politics is "either-or". You have a choice - you can be "progressive" or you can be "conservative". The only two labels too many people can comprehend as possible.
They don’t care about votes just like they don’t care about free speech or any of your other rights.
You nailed it🥂🐸
Happy birthday! Your comments here suggest both your cognitive abilities and empathy to be an asset to the human race.
"If elected, will Trump follow through on promises to work with Kennedy to tackle toxic pollution and chronic disease, including by dealing with regulatory capture by big corporations?...I won’t hold my breath."
Nor will I. But at least the Trump campaign is opening up public discourse on the topic.
Good afternoon Carol,
This is the first I have heard/read of you. Robert Malone, MD recc that we read you.
I thank you for your thoughtfulness, time, and energy that you invested in this piece. I look forward to future reads. I appreciate your logistics of placing the censorship piece up front. I don't know how many people realize that we are on the precipice of a complete collapse of our democracy into a fascist takeover. They can consider the merits of this article in the Education section of the Gulag.
I'm with you 100% on the trans issue and Biden's betrayal of women on Title IX. However, you're not going to persuade me that Trump did not foment January 6th, that he didn't shirk his responsibility to calm it down after it started, or that it was in any way a "peaceful" demonstration. I saw what they did. I saw the crowds breaking into the Capitol, erecting a scaffold and chanting, "Hang Mike Pence!" I also saw how Trump planted the seeds that the election results were going to be untrustworthy long before they happened, but as soon as he started to believe he might lose. And unlike the Democrats who held an FBI investigation of Russiagate, Trump tried 1,000 different ways to overturn the election of Biden through threats, lawsuits, lies, false electors, etc. etc. Hillary Clinton conceded to Trump. She didn't launch lawsuits for months trying to overturn the election. She didn't encourage a group of Democrats to storm the Capitol and then step back and let it rage on when it happened. Did Russiagate turn out to be unfounded? Yes. And none of that should be censored. But it's a far cry from the election lies Trump has perpetrated and continues to perpetrate.
No. Clinton didn't encourage others to dispute Trump's election. All she did was start a propaganda campaign claiming he was a Russian tool. And why exactly is Russia our enemy? It seems to elude me. She and Obama together destroyed Libya, the richest country in Africa. They murdered Gadaffi, the man who had brough them from the status of poorest African country to richest in less than 40 years. They bombed the water pipeline that Gadaffi had constructed through Africa to provide irrigation to other African nations. Gadaffi also enacted equal rights for women, still not the law (in fact now the opposite) in the U.S. The Libyan people also had free or low cost health care and education. But he committed the cardinal sin. He said that Libyan oi9l belonged to the Libyan people, not to western predatory corporations. So they illegally invaded, destroyed the country and murdered Gadaffi, their chosen leader, while Clinton laughed her demented laugh. Now it's a failed state with open air slave markets - more to the democrats liking. The only thing I see Clinton eligible for is a long prison sentence as a war criminal, certainly not as president.
You saw carefully curated propaganda about January 6.
The footage wasn’t fully released until this year, and it shows people quietly walking around the building, exactly like tourists.
So, some people mulled around outside -- so what? There were plenty of people who broke into the building and destroyed things.
I'll take disorganized unarmed randos breaking stuff in the halls of power over conniving organized corporatists quietly breaking the Constitution in those same halls any day of the week. One is totally ineffective and anyways has the right target. The other is terrifyingly effective such that now you have the "progressive" party fighting against our God given right to speech and being praised for it by their lapdog media.
You're a nihilist. I'll take neither, thank you. And if you think those people who invaded the Capitol were courageous patriots instead of deluded Trump cultists, you're a fool. All you people on the right live and breathe conspiracy theories. They are air to you.
No, I'm an anti-statist. There's a difference. I love humans, and hate the state, because historically it has more often than not been a boot stomping the face of humanity, to borrow a metaphor from Orwell. To people who can't imagine a world where humans flourish without the blessing and permission of the all-hallowed state, that sounds like nihilism, because it sounds like a celebration of chaos. But statism is not the only kind of order and far more human kinds of order have preceded it, and will succeed it in the future when the tree of liberty is again watered by the blood of tyrants, as the founders of this nation remind us it must be from time to time.
You hate governments. Perhaps you should go to Somalia or Afghanistan or Haiti -- those are three places without governments. Countries without governments end up being ruled by gangs. Good luck finding liberty in any of those places. You obviously don't realize this, but it is the U.S. government that is ensuring your liberty and your freedom of speech.
Case in point. The government does not love you or care about you, never has.
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1843336953762328802
I do not follow links in comment sections.
May God grant me the courage to join them should the tree of liberty ever need watering again.
"Liberty". I can't believe you had the nerve to throw that word out there. Hooligans invading the Capitol don't give a damn about liberty.
Corporatocratic war mongering anti-democratic authoritarians certainly do not. And as I said, one of these two groups holds far more power than the other, and is more effective at wielding it and convincing us it's for our own good. We must all take care not to be useful idiots for the machinations of tyrants, no matter how flowery their rhetoric.
This entire article is a stew of right-wing talking points that has come from conservative media. Carol Dansereau is one of those people who likes to think that she has the inside track on the "truth", but her idea of the truth is whatever nonsense is being spread by Fox or the Heritage Foundation. I'm so sorry, Carol, that you are slipping into dementia at an early age.
The worst thing that Democrats are doing right now is giving lip-service to transgender ideas, but eventually they will come to their senses. That is not a good reason to jump ship to the Republican party, which has become nothing more than a cult with Donald Trump as its leader. Nothing has changed since 2016: It is still a measure of stupidity and corrupt values to support the Lying Pig. It is also a measure of ignorance, since the Pig's supporters never bother to find out what he is actually doing.
Now, if I got the notice for this article because I am subscribed to your Substack, I'll have to remedy that immediately. What you are saying here is mostly paranoid trash. Even when you get your facts right, you draw the wrong conclusions. You should get yourself to a doctor to see if you can't slow down that early dementia you have.
And by the way, probably only 10% of Democrats agree with trans ideas. Only the most "woke" among us do. Democratic politicians will eventually figure that out.
Perry, in this and other comments you've called me a dementia-entering person, a brainwashed rat, a tribalist/Cult member, a person devoid of integrity, etc. You might want to read more carefully what I wrote. Your responses to my article are not rational and do not flow from what I said. Just for the record: I'm not a Republican; have never supported Democrats except for a brief stint decades ago, and have faced all sorts of grief for dissent and NOT being a Cult/tribe follower. I am not endorsing Trump nor do I like him. As I said: read the piece more carefully, especially paragraphs about how neither Ds nor Rs are tolerable, and we must work together to get beyond these unacceptable choices.
You're right. I just skimmed through it. Later today I'll take a stiff drink and read every word. However, your commenters are all Republicans, and some of them are Democrats-cum-Republicans, and everything I said was appropriate for them.
The title of your article and your opening lines do not support the bipartisan spirit of what you just said to me.
"This is a letter to my progressive friends. Your political parties and agendas are tanking in the theater of public opinion. And this makes no sense to you. You view with horror the substantial support Donald Trump enjoys, realizing he could well be elected President again, which shocks you."
Those are tribalist words. You can't have it both ways. You can't be a tribalist and an independent thinker too.
New edit: You know, the more I think about it, the more I feel that you aren't being honest. You claim to be independent and bipartisan, and yet your article is condescendingly addressed to progressives as if we were stupid people with bad ideas. You are being provocative. And if a "progressive" like me decides to call you a few names, then I think you've earned them.
You love the ad hominim (are all Republicans, etc). So fucking what? Discuss the arguments.
Perhaps you are stupid people with bad ideas.
You certainly have done nothing to persuade anyone otherwise.
Stop calling people names you fascist.
I don't know who you are talking to, but it is conservatives and Republicans who are fascist in our society. The worst things that Dems do is to bend too far to give minorities their rights, and to provide perhaps too many benefits to poor people. Historically, fascists are always conservatives.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Fascism was invented by Mussolini who was a socialist. It is a left-wing, nationalist form of socialism that advocates for the total reorganization of society— for which Mussolini coined the term "totalitarian" as a description—in service to the state, which is not at ALL conservative. It isn't at all a coincidence that the full name of the Nazi Party was National SOCIALISM, not National Conservatism. Only someone who has no understanding of what conservative means could believe that fascists are conservative. There is, in fact, nothing conservative about fascism, which is why it is impossible to be conservative and also a fascist. Some European conservatives did ally with fascists in the '20s and '30s because they saw Soviet Communism, with its advocacy for international revolution, as a greater threat. But that was a tactical alliance, not an expression of any commonality between fascism and actual conservative politics.
Labels, however, can be very confusing. Kind of like the 5 blind men researching an elephant. People also use words to deceive. I think Hitler and the Nazi Party used the word "socialism" to fool the people into believing that it was an actual people's party. It took me 80 years to get here, but I've come to the conclusion that the whole idea of government at all is a lie. It's really about which gang of criminals are most effective at lying (and murdering) their way into power which is the only goal of government - power and wealth, for itself and those they represent who are never the working people. We're truly effed because there are way too many people whose sole interest is in their own self-enhancement. I do believe there are also a lot of people who do care and do act in the interest of the community, but they are never (or rarely) the ones to get elected nor do too many like that even seek or want power. It's always the Bill Gates types - - born rich and entitled with limited intelligence but overwhelming brilliance in screwing others who seek and gain power. We need to evolutionize in order to revolutionize out of this insanely corrupt system. We need to get to the point where the average person understands that those like Gates as well as those they hrie to play the role of politicians should be held in contempt, neither admired nor respected. Then perhaps we can evolve into a cooperative form of local (not global) governance.
Obviously, I need to do some reading up on fascism (if what you say is true). I have a dim recollection that the Socialist party in Germany was not aligned with Hitler, but I'm not sure. However, in THIS race (the only one that matters now), Harris is a progressive Democrat and Trump is a fascist. Regardless of how Trump got there, he is behaving like a dictator-wanna-be. He continues to tell outrageous lies every day, and that is something that fascist dictators do. His technique is "if you lie often enough, people will believe it".
Every time Harris does something in this campaign, he dreams up his own version of events, versions which make the Democrats look bad. He's also doing that to Biden. He is claiming that both Harris and Biden have essentially ignored the crisis in North Carolina, which is not true. He is claiming that FEMA will try to steal your home if you leave it. He is claiming that $750 is the MOST that FEMA will give you if your home is destroyed, when in fact that is the INITIAL amount they give people during a natural disaster, money which is meant to cover their immediate needs. More money comes later.
I am not a nerd where history is concerned, so I don't know all the facts. But it seems pretty clear to me that dictators can arise from any kind of political stance. In this race, if you care about democracy, you would be smart to vote for Harris because, believe me, TRUMP DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. TRUMP IS A PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSIST WHO CARES ONLY ABOUT HIMSELF. If I keep yelling in these comments, it is only because you people are so dumb to be sympathetic to Trump, which many of you are.
Even if you do know more about history than me, it's pretty clear that you have drawn the wrong conclusions from what you know.
This is getting pretty tiresome. Trump is indefensible, and is so much of the Republican agenda. When are you people going to realize that?
Simplistic people invariably need labels in order to help them define who they like, who they hate (anyone whose opinion differs from their own).
It just hit me that you might be calling ME simplistic. If you lob too many insults at me, I'll block you and that will be the end of our chats.
I just looked up the definition of fascism: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." Here is one of the definitions for fascist: "a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views." It seems that fascism is more associated with conservatives than liberals. Socialism is associated with liberals, but there really is nothing in it that is liberal that I can see. Liberals, in fact, believe in freedom more than conservatives do, who are only interested in economic freedom. The bottom line is that dictatorship in general is associated more with conservatism than liberalism. Clearly, it doesn't really matter what the roots of these political words are. Trump is a conservative, and he clearly wants dictatorial powers.
Democrats aren't just giving "lip service" to gender ideology. They've passed all sorts of laws and policies to proselytize, incentivize and enforce it. For example, here in Washington State (and elsewhere):
-schools have been mandated by the legislature to adopt "gender-inclusive schools" policies to allow boys into girls spaces and sports and keep secrets from parents
-insurance companies mandated to cover "gender-affirming" drugs and surgeries
-prisons allow men into women's prisons; taxpayers paying for "gender-affirming care" for trans-identifying inmates
-SB 5599 equates parental disagreement regarding gender identity and medicalization with abuse and facilitates receipt of gender-affirming care while keeping kids separated from parents; $1.8 million taxpayer funded grants recently awarded to support this.
-recently passed laws will make it harder for local school boards to remove controversial books and more likely gender ideology will appear in curriculum
And all of this has been done with only "10 percent" of Democrats supporting it? Quite a democracy we have.
Regarding the first section of Carol's post: what is one specific thing (or more, if you like) that she and her right wing sources got wrong?
Yes, I know all that, and the reasons for it are complex. Trans activists have done a very good job of selling transgenderism as the newest minority interest that must be included in diversity. I myself haven't figure out why their ideas have brainwashed so many liberals. But to my knowledge (this article not withstanding) that is the only serious weak spot that Democrats have.
I'm sure you've heard the adage, "You can fool some of the people all of time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Well, Donald Trump is a con-man who has fooled some of the people all of time; and when coupled with the electoral college, that's enough to get him elected. Because he is a liar and a thief* and a corrupt person in general, we just can't have him in power again. It is too dangerous for the country. It doesn't matter that the Democrats are wrong on this one issue, the Republicans as a group have become a functioning cult. If you care for our democracy, you will not vote for Trump. * He stole money from most of his business associates.
The Dems are wrong on 20% of the issues, and the Republicans are wrong on 80% of the issues. If you disagree with that, then your values are screwed up. If you don't disagree with that, then you need to vote for Harris no matter what she says about the trans issue.
I'm going to bed now.
Democrats have also been wrong about:
Housing First
drug decriminalization
defund the police
open borders and related forms of human trafficking
sanctuary city/state policies
vaccine mandates
green energy grifts and taxation
EV mandates
phasing out natural gas
restorative justice
race essentialism
equity at all costs
pro-choice extremism
reducing academic rigor and school choice options
radical "liberated" ethnic studies curriculum
That is a nice list you have there. How many hours should I spend examining every issue in my response? I have a life to live. However, I'll say a few things.
What is the issue over "housing first"? Probably very few Democrats support drug decriminalization or defunding the police or open borders and several other things on the list. Vaccine mandates save lives because they give human beings "herd" immunity, but I support them only for children, and only the most necessary vaccines should be required. What does "restorative justice" mean? All forms of fossil fuels must eventually be banned because they damage the planet. If it doesn't happen now, it will happen later. WHAT pro-choice extremism? I only support late-term abortions if there is an excellent reason (like the baby will be born dead or the mother could die), and I think most Dems agree with me on that. Who wants to reduce academic rigor??? And there's nothing radical about teaching ethnic culture in schools since the country is full of ethnic people.
Throwing out a vague list does no good in a comment section like this. But you have shown me one thing: You are a tribalist too, like the others commenting here. If you thought for yourself, you would not be choosing the Republican position on EVERY TOPIC. You would agree with some Republican positions and disagree with others. It's called "integrity", which you seem to be lacking.
I'll provide a proper response in a little while, but the fact that you seem unaware of any of the problems with the democratic positions and policies on these issues perhaps betrays your own tribalism.
Housing First diverts resources and focus away from secure treatment facilities, sober housing, long term mental health services and triaging via overnight congregate shelters. Four walls and a door doesn't inherently improve the situation for someone with untreated mental illness and addiction and is creating unsafe environments. It also sets an impossibly high standard/expectation of no-strings attached free individual housing units. This approach is often paired with "harm reduction" drug use supplies (foil, pipe, needles, booty bump kits, etc) moreso than a focus on treatment. It's all about "meeting people where they are", not getting them the help and accountability they really need.
New local documentary on Housing First failures, from the perspective of staff, residents and first responders:
https://youtu.be/LeP_UUZ4wTU?si=0yTdDq-hW4_uwa8T
Restorative justice: removing police from schools; reduced discipline likely leading to more disruptions, violence in schools. "Restorative justice involves facilitated conversations between the victim, the offender, and the community to address the needs of everyone involved. These conversations can take place at various stages of the criminal justice system." Obama really kick-started this trend in 2014, threatening schools if their discipline policies resulted in racially disparate outcomes. Current DNC platform supports this focus on equity in school discipline policies even though disruptive, unsafe classrooms are inequitable to other minority students.
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/conservative-leaders-to-devos-repeal-illegal-harmful-obama-era-dear-colleague-letter
There have been attempts to integrate "restorative justice" approaches (shifting the focus too far away from consequences & accountability) to the criminal justice system, especially youth. J-25 law in Washington has overwhelmed juvenile detention facilities with higher numbers of older and more violent offenders. King County's recently (sort-of) aborted Zero Youth Detention movement undermined the stability and proper functioning of Seattle's detention facility, disrupting staffing and educational services.
"Four years of talking about the unrealistic aspiration of closing secure detention has taken a toll, according to a King County Auditor’s Office report in April: “Staff explained that the uncertainty around closure dampens morale and results in staff exploring employment opportunities with more long-term security.”
With fewer staff members, overtime costs have spiraled and services for youth in detention have diminished — especially since youth charged as adults have been housed in the CCFJC since 2017.
“When a shift is understaffed, youth may be confined to their cells, and DAJD (Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention) may shorten school periods and cancel enrichment programs. This can lead to increased stress among youth and violent incidents,” stated the auditor."
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/king-county-voters-want-secure-youth-detention-council-should-listen/
https://mynorthwest.com/3985108/rantz-green-hill-school-juvenile-detention-crime-adults-democrats/
Vaccine mandates: I'm referring specifically to the COVID vaccine mandates, leading to the loss in Washington State of many "essential" employees. Especially hard hit was the Dept of Transportation and WA Ferries. But also it was a very authoritarian move, especially considering the novelty of this particular vaccine. Weird move from the party of choice and bodily autonomy.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_c3d9faa4-24a5-11ed-a054-37b622da5f48.html
Green energy policies: Government is trying to move too far too fast. They're not just putting their finger on the scale, but slamming their fist. Limiting energy leads to higher energy costs and increases the cost of many other products (increasing production and transportation expenses). Reducing energy options and affordability will likely result in more illnesses and death from extreme heat and cold. It will certainly add to an already high cost of living and more reliance on government handouts which will increase the tax burden.
Aggressive EV mandates in particular is putting the cart before the horse and, like vaccine mandates, too heavy handed in dictating what businesses and individuals can do. Is spending millions of dollars in subsidies and infrastructure really the best use of money right now when current technology may become obsolete, safer and more environmentally with new advances?
There are also severe environmental downsides to wind, solar and lithium battery storage facilities. A lot of money taxed on this issue will be an unaccountable slush fund for "climate justice". Best thing we can do long term is support civilizational flourishing and better technological breakthroughs.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/surge-in-electricity-demand-spells-trouble-for-pnw-forecasts-show/
"Probably very few Democrats support drug decriminalization or defunding the police or open borders and several other things on the list." But such policies have been implemented, most impactfully the Biden-Harris open borders of the past four years. It's interesting that open borders until recently was not favored by the Left because of its impacts on working class wage suppression (a few Bernie Sanders videos floating around of him forcefully speaking out against open borders as a right wing, Koch brothers policy). This indicates the Democrats shifts towards corporate elites.
Liberated Ethnic Studies: It's not about cultural enrichment. In states like Washington, California and Minnesota, the frameworks have been crafted by activist organizations like WA Ethnic Studies Now to include analysis of power and oppression, personal and collective "transformation"and striving to dismantle "systems of oppression".
From WA K-12 Ethnic Studies framework:
"Embracing the purpose of Ethnic Studies, which is to eliminate racism by critiquing, resisting,
and transforming systems of oppression on institutional, interpersonal, and internal levels."
"Students are supported in developing their critical consciousness using historical context to understand and analyze current events, beliefs, and concepts. These actions affirm the humanity of students, educators, and communities by deeply understanding how we are connected historically and how whiteness works to divide us all."
"Self-reflecting on teacher identity and making explicit how identity impacts power relations
in the classroom and in the community."
"Ethnic Studies is not a curriculum. Ethnic Studies is an epistemology, or a paradigm. It requires
educators to transform their beliefs about the purpose of education, the cultural and community wealth of their students, and their role in supporting students to achieve success—as defined by their students and families. For these reasons, transformative professional development is vital before any attempts at transformation in the classroom. Professional development must focus on racial identity development of educators and
culturally responsive pedagogy"
"Understanding racial power dynamics while centering resistance and joy. Ethnic Studies
critiques racial power dynamics in the U.S. and the world that have centered narratives of whiteness. Using counter-narratives, Ethnic Studies shifts the center of teaching and learning to the stories of people and communities of color and their intersectional experiences."
Article regarding MN ethnic studies appointee's radicalism, including saying that America is irredeemably racist and should be overthown:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/walz-education-appointee-calls-for-the-overthrow-of-the-u-s/
https://x.com/AlphaNewsMN/status/1838977367584235557
Pro-choice extremism: The fact that "my body, my choice" is increasingly interpreted literally to exclude the life of the infant as of compelling interest to state involvement/protection. I also suspect pro-choice extremism impacts the debate about "gender-affirming care". If you believe in "my body, my choice" when it comes to ending the life of a baby, how can you take issue with teenagers taking puberty blockers and cross sex hormones and having their breasts removed?
Tim Walz: "My record is so pro-choice, Nancy Pelosi asked me if I should tone it down. I stand with Planned Parenthood, and WE WON'T."
https://x.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/1820919364398301446
"The Harris-Walz ticket is the most pro-abortion in U.S. history, openly advocating for zero regulations on abortion and even denying healthcare to babies who survive abortions.
In Minnesota, Walz removed a requirement for doctors to report cases where babies survived abortions, an act so extreme that even former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) advised him to tone it down — advice he publicly rejected...
Kamala Harris is betting everything on abortion, but this isn’t the same debate as in the past. Today’s discussion centers on extreme positions, such as abortion at 40 weeks, deregulating abortion pills, removing doctors from the process, taxpayer-funded abortions, and denial of healthcare to babies who survive abortions. Most well-intentioned abortion supporters don’t back these extreme stances."
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4837181-harris-walz-abortion-issue/
Minnesota passed a law getting rid of most abortion restrictions and protections through all stages of pregnancy.
"Democratic majorities rejected dozens of amendments that Republican lawmakers proposed as guardrails, including prohibitions on third-trimester abortions except to save the patient’s life."
https://thefederalist.com/2023/01/19/minnesota-poised-to-legalize-infanticide-nuke-protections-for-women-and-babies-in-radical-abortion-bill/
https://www.ag.state.mn.us/AbortionRights/#:~:text=Section%20145.409%20of%20the%20Minnesota,control%20their%20own%20reproductive%20health.
Don't bother. I have other things to do than to argue every Republican talking point with you.
I notice you keep contrasting your own views, which seem relatively moderate and which you say represent the majority of Democrats, with these more extreme views that you also acknowledge some Democrats have adopted. If it's true though that you represent the majority, then why do Democrat strongholds like San Fran, NYC, and Chicago continuously exemplify these more extreme views? (Specifically think about drug policy, sanctuary city policy, policing for example). I want to believe you're right, and sometimes I see a poll that leans that way showing more moderation than I expect, but then sometimes I see a poll that says for example a majority of D's supported criminal penalties for people who criticized pandemic policy, or they believe 1000s of unarmed black men are killed by police annually when really it's just 10s, a belief that fueled the hysteria of the defund movement. I'm told Tim Walz is a rural moderate but he's also the guy who set up a snitch line for people to rat out their neighbors for having visitors during the pandemic, and signed legislation to make MN a sanctuary state for youth gender medicine. What gives?
My theory is that the people pulling the strings in the DNC are master manipulators of public opinion, and they have their own nefarious ideas that they know are at odds with a lot of their base, which like you are more sensible. They pull the heartstrings of the base which end up being useful idiots for their policies that have very different underlying motives. Open borders for instance. Selling point: "let's help the poor downtrodden immigrants". Reality: "our corporate donors want cheaper labor and we want votes to stay in power".
You don’t realize this, but you’ve done the same thing Chris did, and that is you’ve thrown out a vague list for me to respond to.
I don’t live in San Francisco, NYC or Chicago. If I did, I would be more “up” on whatever extreme things they are doing. You give “drug policy, sanctuary city policy, policing” as examples, but what do those things mean? Do you mean treating drug addiction medically instead of throwing addicts I jail? I’m in favor of that, although I still believe drug PUSHERS should be prosecuted. Is a “sanctuary city” a place where the local police are instructed not to arrest people who can’t prove their citizenship? I’m in favor of that too. Why? Because the police would start profiling everyone according to their accents, and that’s wrong. I also see it as the task of the U.S. government to enforce immigration laws and not the states. Furthermore, there are lots of illegal immigrants making worthwhile contributions to the country.
So you’ve seen a poll that says a majority of Democrats support criminal penalties for people who criticize pandemic policy? Really? You don’t think Democrats believe in free speech??? Where did you hear about that poll – Fox News, or at a Trump rally from the lips of our former Liar-in-Chief? How gullible are you???
I’ve explained elsewhere in a comment here why Democratic politicians are more liberal than the their constituents. In addition to that, large cities are more likely to have a liberal citizenry.
“Manipulators ... with nefarious ideas” – you see, you are a conspiracy theorist just like most of the other people here. I’m not going to go into the psychology of conspiracy theorists, but it isn’t pretty. You need to examine your beliefs.
“They pull the heartstrings of the base which end up being useful idiots for their policies that have very different underlying motives.” What do you think that Donald Trump is doing? Trump is a demagogue, a master manipulator. He knows nothing about how to lead a country, but he knows how to stir people’s feelings up. He is the Pied Piper leading the ignorant.
Both Biden and Harris were willing to sign that extremely conservative immigration bill that the House passed a few months back, and which Trump nixed because then he wouldn’t be able to campaign on the issue. Given that, you have no right to criticize them on immigration. We haven’t had a good immigration bill for decades, but that’s mainly because of the Republicans.
But let me say that getting cheap labor into the country isn’t such a bad idea. If we were dependent on Americans to work the fields, we would all starve.
I’ve got other things to do than talk to you all night. You don’t have a balanced viewpoint.
What a perfect example you are of exactly what Ms. Dandereau has written. An inability to hear and respect the viewpoint of others hardly makes you a paragon of democracy. And of course you start with the obvious - as a woman, she must be influenced by others since she would hardly possess the intelligence to actually form an opinion just out of her own pretty little "right-wing" head. She clearly states that, neithr side is representative of the best interests of eitherthe people or the planet and yet you persist in the usual dimdumbdemocrat rant about Trump. I, like her, awakened from a long sleep in which I actually thought the dems were the "good guys". I have been disabused by such as yourself, who while calling yourself a democrat, hardly support the values of a democracy. When you are able to consider the possibility that you could be wrong, you will have made some progress. We all have been massively brainwashed to serve the interests of the few over, finally, the very life of our species, at aminimum.
Well said. Disaffected Democrats, i.e., progressives like you and I and Dansereau, still cherish the values that the Democrats once championed, foremost among them, freedom of speech, press, and affiliation. The degradation of these values that we've seen since the election of Donald Trump occurred not because of Trump but because the Democrats were terrified of losing and, when they lost, they were sore losers.
During the campaign, the liberal media took sides. Donald Trump was given lots of sensationalized attention because it increased their audience, while Bernie Sanders, who had a large base and was competing with Trump for the same voting pool, was ignored. I was a compulsive listener to NPR at the time, and I observed the lopsided coverage of the candidates, even though I intended to vote for Clinton, which I did. She was so secure in her victory that it didn't occur to her that half the country might not appreciate being called deplorable.
(Note to Hillary: "I will call you bigoted fools now, and you will vote for me later" is not a good strategy for winning elections.)
When Trump won, the plot was hatched to ensure that such a monstrous thing never occurred again. The liberal media adopted a non-stop strategy of "All Trump All The Time,” featuring the excesses that Dansereau describes in her article; e.g., "Russiagate," a term that the Democrats don't use and don't even know what it means.
The incessant fear mongering about Trump, exacerbated by the hysteria surrounding covid, acted as a fear pathogen more potent than anything cooked up in a lab in China. It wormed its way into the brains of Democrats, who now suffer from advanced cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome. They know all they need to know, and Carol Dansereau, bless her heart, is senile.
I'm a lifelong Democrat. I’m 72, so that's a pretty longtime. As a Jew, I supported the right of nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois in 1977, not because I love nazis, but because I love the First Amendment and the principles upon which this country was founded. That was also the ACLU's position back then. Despite the fact that most of their attorneys were Jews, they defended the nazis in court, and won. Today, the ACLU supports the banning of books, like Abigail Shrier’s “Irreversible Damage," and defends the “right” of biologically intact male rapists and murderers to be housed in women’s prisons. Today, some of our Supreme Court justices and politicians call free speech dangerous and are working to legislate it out of existence. This is how far we've fallen.
I don't try to convince my Democrat friends of anything. They live in a bubble of paralyzing fear and hatred. Conversation is impossible because they are right about everything and I'm a bigot who has lost my marbles.
Dansereau's well-written essay may influence some folks who are on the fence but I doubt that entrenched Democrats will read past the first paragraph, never mind take it seriously. But that doesn't mean she shouldn't have written it, because it's better than staying silent and because you never know.
The recent rally in D.C. organized by Matt Taibbi, a lifelong liberal and a courageous defender of objective journalism and free speech, is a sign of the times.
Thank you for this. If you're 72 then you remember when the most popular quote of the 20th century was "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It seems for the 21st century it's changed Ito "I wish you job loss, cancellation, death and dismemberment for disagreeing with me because I am right and you are evil". May we be saved from the zealots, those so convinced that whatever it is that they believe is all that they can hear.
I do indeed remember that slogan, and it informs my thinking to this day. Thank you.
First, that quote is much older than you think it is. Second, above you gave as an example of liberal excess the ACLU defending the rights of Nazis to march, and now you seem to be saying the opposite. If you believe in that quote, then you had best believe that the Nazis had a right to march. (Wasn't it the Ku Klux Klan that marched?)
Also, I do not support the ACLU any more because they have been infected by transgender ideology. You see, I am a liberal who is not liberal on every issue. Why can't you parse your views like that? SHOW SOME INTEGRITY AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND ON EVERY ISSUE. DON'T JUST ADOPT ALL OF THE REPUBLICAN BELIEFS.
You misinterpreted what I wrote regarding the ACLU. Here again, is what I wrote:
"As a Jew, I supported the right of nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois in 1977, not because I love nazis, but because I love the First Amendment and the principles upon which this country was founded. That was also the ACLU's position back then. Despite the fact that most of their attorneys were Jews, they defended the nazis in court, and won."
At no point did I state or even imply that the ACLU's defense of the Nazis was an "example of liberal excess." It was not. It was consistent with the ACLU's values in support of free speech, which I supported at the time, and still do.
The problem with the ACLU is that it has changed its mission. It now supports the banning of gender critical books because pro-trans ideology has infected its thinking. The ACLU also actively defends the so-called rights of trans-identified men to be housed in women's prisons. Women's bodily autonomy and safety have become irrelevant to the ACLU. Their mission is corrupted, and therefore, I no longer support them.
No, the Ku Klux Klan did not march with the Nazis in Skokie. The Nazi group in question was an offshoot run by a man named Frank Collin. If you have any interest in the details, I recommend this superb article, "The Skokie Case: How I Came to Represent the Free Speech Rights of Nazis," written by ACLU attorney, David Goldberger.
I offer this reply as a service to other readers of this Substack who might want some clarification. I won't be responding to you again.
And oh yes, have a lovely day.
I am in agreemernt with you. ACLU used to be an organization with integrity. It has now been captured by the moneyed class as have much ofour government and the UN. They have created such a climate of corruption, but not without the help of the Supreme (extreme) Court.
You have the same problem that Dansereau and DubbyDove have: You are tribe-driven. You can't just select individual issues on which you disagree with the Democrats. Rather, you have to make a full conversion from your old tribe (Dems) to your new tribe (Trump cult). You are like a prostitute who becomes a born-again Christian. If the prostitute had poor values, why should I trust the new values of the obnoxious proselytizer? It's called "integrity", of which you seem to have none. If you had integrity, you would have your disagreements with the Democrats, but you would still agree with them overall. Why? Because Donald Trump is a fool, a liar, a criminal, a thief, a pretender. He is the Pied Piper leading the rats. Enjoy your new status as a brain-washed rat.
Thank you so much for your insightful and enlightened comment. Where would we without your wisdom, compassion and commitment to the Truth?
Have a lovely day.
And good luck being a cult follower. Have a lovely day.
Bruh
No, Dandereau's foolishness is all her own. If I were a misogynist, I wouldn't have supported Hillary Clinton and wouldn't now support Kamala Harris. To the extent that a man can be a feminist, I've been one all my life.
What I'm seeing in disaffected Democrats is not a reasonable disagreement on individual issues (as I disagree with them on gender), but people changing "tribes". I am not tribe-driven. I can disagree on some issues and still recognize that the Dems are more rational over all.
If supporting Lady MacBeth makes you a "feminist" sobeit. I will not argue wih you about your delusions.
You are totally tribe driven.
You've turned up the heat in this comment section, all by yourself, with your insults and rage.
I don't think I'm tribe-driven. When Hillary Clinton was my senator when I lived in New York, I stopped voting for her because she was too much into earmarks, which waste a lot of money. (However, I eventually realized that reasonable earmarks help to grease the wheels of government. It is a way of winning over senators and representatives to positions they would not otherwise support.) And as you know, I'm against transgender ideology and drag queens. There are some other Democratic positions I would change if I had the power. I support the social safety net, although, again, I would make changes to it.
My rage is against the evil of Donald Trump, and against the stupidity of his supporters (many of whom are posting here). Even before Trump came on the scene, Republicans were getting ever more conservative, starting with their support for Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. I am also against the influence of conservative Christians on Republicans. The problem with conservatism in general is that it promotes selfishness. My landlord, who is a Trump supporter, told me proudly once that he has no sympathy for ANYONE. A world without sympathy? No thanks.
Too many people in our society don't have a historical perspective. Throughout history, kings, queens, emperors and pharaohs had little concern for their people; they existed primarily to enrich themselves and to build their own power. We need governments in the world which support the people. But the recent efforts of Republicans (making it harder to vote is one example) are so undemocratic that I just can't support their policies -- not to mention the racism and misogyny of Republicans, and their adoration for the rich.
That’s pretty tribal to me, Penny. Being 95% in agreement with one party while comparing the other to the worst of historical tyrants is not exactly independent thinking. But its your vote and I’ve no wish to argue
Penny? I would say the proportions are more like 80%-20%. You just don't know me. Besides, the Democrats don't have a kook running for president, a kook that Republicans are lining up behind. It is your support for a criminal/thief/racist/misogynist/narcissist/wannabe dictator that makes you all tribalists.
PJ: "And by the way, probably only 10% of Democrats agree with trans ideas. Only the most 'woke' among us do. Democratic politicians will eventually figure that out."
Don't see that happening anytime soon. When Harris boots "Rachel" Levine out on "her" ear is when, if I were able to vote in US elections, I might think Harris and the Democrats were the "lesser of two weevils" and not Trump.
Carol seems to have done a decent job of naming the usual suspects and itemizing a fairly extensive and quit damning bill of particulars on the transgender issue. But if you need more then see Joanna Williams' article on "The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology" and my post on "Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology" which provides a link to Williams' article:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted
Unless Rachel Levine is doing her job poorly, I see no reason why she should lose it. So what are you saying, that you don't want trans people to get any jobs at all?
The "usual suspects" are mostly Republican talking points that have little truth to them, or which are mostly irrelevant or explainable, or exaggerated.
"poorly" is an understatement:
"Unsealed Court Documents Show That Admiral Rachel Levine Pressured WPATH To Remove Age Guidelines From The Latest Standards Of Care" https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/unsealed-court-documents-show-that?triedRedirect=true
Levine is something of a "point man" for the absolute worst of transgender ideology, for the rather demented idea that some dick-swinging dude can simply click his heels together and say he's changed into a female and should be treated as such. Harris is no better if not worse, as Carol indicated above, in gushing over Dylan Mulvaney.
> "... mostly irrelevant or explainable, or exaggerated ..."
None so blind and all that.
I apologize for not being up on what Rachel Levine is doing. If she has in fact done the things you say, then I don't support her either. My point is that trans people have a right to WORK. However, I won't vote for trans politicians because they push gender ideology. (I'm gay, by the way, so I'm part of that LGBT alphabet soup.) And for the same reason I won't vote for Muslim politicians (because Islam is a bad religion), but I also won't vote for devout Christians who are not liberal.
You see: I'm setting a good example for you: I am liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I'm sensible. I think for myself.
No problemo -- complex issue, and not easy to keep abreast of all the important details.
But I still don't think you, and far too many others, fully appreciate the rot that transgenderism has wrought -- so to speak, much if not all of it due to the aiding and abetting by Democrats in general. Whatever crimes and misdemeanors you can lay at the feet of Republicans, at least they're not butchering autistic and dysphoric children, and turning them into sexless eunuchs -- conversion therapy writ large. Something that, one would think, you in particular should be concerned about.
As further grist for the mill in your thinking, you might try reading that post of mine on Statistics Departments corrupted by gender ideology, as well as my repost of, and elaborations on, one by Carol:
"The Anti-Science Disaster of Gender Ideology in the Schools":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/the-anti-science-disaster-of-gender
"Disaster" is something of an understatement.
If I don't fully appreciate the rot that transgenderism has wrought, why do I have my own Substack about it? Transgender ideology is the worst idea that has come down the pike in the last hundred years. It has to be defeated. It is an existential threat to humanity because it makes all kinds of other bad ideas plausible.
"Whatever crimes and misdemeanors you can lay at the feet of the Republicans ..." For God's sake, the Republican party has become the TRUMP CULT -- and Trump is a whole lot worse than you want to acknowledge. He is a NARCISSIST who cares only about himself. He is a liar, a thief, a criminal, a demagogue, a RACIST. He is completely incompetent. He did very little in his first term except to send out Tweets. Anyone who would vote for him again is STUPID.
The fact that Levine claims to believe himself to be a woman does not speak positively for his mental health. So what qualifies him to take yet another job from an actual woman? Women are still massively discriminated against in higher paid jobs. As an example, although 51% of the population. only 20% of our congressional representatives are women. Giving yet another job to a man claiming to be a woman does exactly zero for women's rights and your inability to understand this also denies your claim of being a feminist.
Excuse me, Dubby, but why do you think that Lavine's position would have been given to a real woman if Levine didn't get it?
I know all about misogyny. If you want to end misogyny in this country, then vote for Kamala Harris. Help her break the ultimate glass ceiling.
Harris is so not fit for the job, if she is elected it will likely make misogyny worse because some will blame her failure (and she will fail) on her sex... which is unfortunate, since mediocrity is an equal opportunity affliction.
You know, statements like this are laughably absurd. They make me question the sanity of the person saying them.
And you think that Trump is better? Okay, so let's say that you aren't a Trump cultist and you are not suggesting a comparison. Of course, Harris vs. Trump IS the choice we are facing, so it seems to me that you should be willing to look at Harris kindly. But you aren't because of the gender thing. But in every other respect, Harris is an obviously accomplished politician. She was a prosecutor and a senator, she united Democrats behind her after Biden pulled out with a level of skill I have never seen before, she made Trump look like a fool in their debate, and she has made NO ERRORS in her campaign. If she turns out to be as skillful a president as she is a campaigner, she may be one of the best presidents in history.
Listen, I am anti-trans too, but at least I understand where the woke liberals are coming from. They see trans people as being the most pitiful minority group in history (and they are right about that), so they want society to be accommodating as much as possible. They are wrong about that too, of course -- and they don't recognize the existential harm that trans people are doing -- but at least their hearts are in the right place. None of us who are anti-trans have been able to figure out why trans ideology is so appealing to the do-gooders in our society. I certainly can't, but as I said, the liberals are at least trying to have a kind response to them. For you to reject Democrats at every level become SOME Democrats are over-compensating towards trans people is just foolish, ESPECIALLY SINCE DONALD THE PUSSY-GRABBER IS OUR ONLY ALERNATIVE. Do you hear what I'm saying? THE LIE-A-MINUTE NARCISSIST AND DEMAGOGUE IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE. You need to come to your senses. Stop being a one-issue voter -- that is so dumb.
"I'm so sorry, Carol, that you are slipping into dementia at an early age." Perry, that's just nasty and uncalled for. Can we try to keep our arguing civil? This is no way to make an argument or try to change someone's mind.
You're right, I shouldn't have said that. However, I have nothing but contempt for what she is doing. Because of some conservative streak in her personality, she isn't just questioning SOME Democratic positions, she is questioning ALL of them (or so it seems). That's what I mean by "tribalism". What I see in her article and in these comments is former Democrats deciding to switch ALL of their views to the other "side". But people with integrity do not decide what they believe according to what their adopted "tribe" believes. If you have INTEGRITY, then you make up your mind on each individual issue. Dansereau isn't doing that. She is making a wholesale switch from the Democrats to the Republicans. I can't respect that.
Your inability to comprehend her arguments and thought process is not an argument. It is merely an indication of your own lack of imagination.
Every state that is Dem-run is pro-trans. CA, MN, OR, WA go further - they are trans-refuge states, where people can go to get mutilated. I believe that children can declare that they are emancipated (legally adults) in these states, get mutilated on state medical funds. This is why your contention of 10 % is a fucking lie.
Yup, I’m a liar, just like Donald Trump is. I did just what he does: I took my own estimate of 10% and I threw it out there as a fact. The difference between me and Trump is that I do that once a week, while he does that 50 TIMES A DAY. Do you understand what I’m saying? DONALD TRUMP IS A LIAR – DON’T VOTE FOR HIM.
Regarding what I said, the situation is complicated. Your average Democrat probably doesn’t know what “transgender ideology” is. All they know is that transgender people are the most pitiful people on earth, and so we have to be nice to them and give them what they want, which includes calling trans women “she” even when they are 6'2" tall and have male faces and baritone voices. However, the agenda of Democratic politicians is entirely different, and I’ll get to that in a moment.
So what is the central idea of transgender ideology? It is this idea (using a man as an example): “I am a man who feels like a woman, which means I have the ‘gender identity’ of a woman. Having the gender identity of a woman makes me a REAL woman; and being a REAL woman, I have the right to enter into ALL of women’s single-sex spaces, including sports, rest rooms, locker rooms, shelters and prisons.” Now, when explained like this, I suspect that 90% of Republicans will call it nonsense, and perhaps 80% of Democrats will call it nonsense – so yes, my 10% was too low. The point is, Democrats have the same common sense that Republicans do (actually, much more so given Trump’s popularity), and MOST of them will reject the idea.
Democratic politicians are a different matter. Just as Republican politicians are trying to please their right-most flank, Democratic politicians don’t want to alienate the “woke” ultra-liberals. Besides which, it does, at some level, seem to be a good idea to give trans people what they want, especially since they’ll demonstrate in front of your house if you don’t, and they’ll call you a “transphobe” forever after. Democratic politicians can also point to the fact that 90% of medical organizations now subscribe to transgender ideology, and if the politicians disagree, they’ll look like bigots. So Democratic politicians are making a calculated political move (just as Republican politicians do), and they are accepting the most liberal position, figuring that most Democratic voters don’t even understand it, so why not? But believe me, most Democrats don't believe this nonsense.
I just spent 15 minutes writing a reply, and then my browser crashed. I'll get an answer to you soon.
You are showing your dogma.
Little by little Democratic women are leaving the party. It may not be enough to sway this election but after four more years of Kamala, few women will be able to stomach her woke agenda anymore. The UnDemocratic Party is digging their own grave.
"In other words, they hold positions which were at one time a mainstay of progressivism and the left."
Progressives supported every single totalitarian regime of the 20th century, including Hitler and Nazism until Germany's break with the Soviet Union.
They supported every single 20th century War of National Liberation, which was invariably revealed to have been a War for National Enslavement whenever such a war succeeded and the socialists came to power. And despite the resulting oppression, political murders and gulags, progressives nevertheless supported those Socialist regimes. Cuba under Castro and Nicaragua under the Ortegas are prominent examples.
These historical facts reveal visible progressive causes to not reflect progressive values. "The issue is not the issue," as Mark Rudd (SDS) famously said. The issue is power. Progressive causes are opportunistic vehicles for accession to power. Once in power, the iron hand of socialist ideological totalitarianism is unsheathed.
Progressives are just socialists without police power. Socialism is slavery. And necessarily so. An ideological collectivism imposes obedience -- slavery -- as a feature. Once attaining police power. progressives reveal their totalitarian intentions. They have no interest in democracy or principled freedom. They have no interest in free speech, minority rights, or any sort of rights. They are interested in communal enslavement, and in causing sufficient turmoil to allow a take-over.
In pursuit of this end, progressives will deploy whatever cause is in opposition to the social order, in order to foster turmoil.
And the rank-and-file who believe in freedom and minority rights are the useful idiots who will be the second in line to be eliminated, once the progressive elite attain power.
Excellent summary of the topsy turvy world we've been living in. I'm glad you included the trans nonsense, which is incredibly anti-women's rights, yet finds broad support among the "progressive" community. You've brought together all the arguments I've been making to my "liberal" friends and relatives which fall invariably on deaf ears. They have been so brainwashed they can't imagine they are backing traditionally detested conservative positions. Now the "conservatives" have taken up the previously "liberal" positions, proving that conservatives and liberals never were all that far apart, in many respects. Jonathan Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind explains this beautifully. We all need to come together before we are torn even farther apart. Your article helps immensely. Thank you!
A few additional thoughts:
Economic liberalism refers to an economy which is characterized by high taxes, strong government involvement in the economy, specifically by dispensing benefits to the sick, poor, and disadvantaged, and that the economy is best managed by tight regulation of business, so that no business or part of the economy has an unfair advantage. Economic liberalism has been criticized for causing “big government” and excessive bureaucracy. It has been lauded for looking out for those who the capitalist system leaves with too small a slice of the pie, and limiting the size of the piece of pie that the wealthy and powerful take for themselves.
Economic conservatism refers to an economy characterized by low taxes, low levels of government regulation, and a minimal social safety net. It values the free market as a way of advancing the well being of society. It has been criticized for not doing more to rein in the excesses of the wealthy and powerful corporations by its “laissez faire” economics. It has been lauded for bringing innovation and wealth to countries which employ it more or less successfully.
Social liberalism promotes tolerance of divergent views, cultures, and lifestyles, support of the weak, and those unable to take care of themselves. It has been criticized for creating a “nanny state” where people are not simply helped to get back on their feet, but are rendered dependent on government hand-outs, so afraid are they of losing their “benefits” and for discouraging self-reliance. It has been lauded for defending minorities, disenfranchised groups, and those who have been discriminated against.
Social conservatism promotes religion, values, self-reliance and family. It has been criticized for not being welcoming enough of groups whose values diverge from conservative values and life-styles. It has been lauded for providing a solid framework for children to develop healthy spiritual and moral lives.
Political liberalism, which was born in the Enlightenment, originally meant standing up for the rights of individuals (those previously thought of as “common people”) in distinction to an aristocracy or monarchic authority. It meant freedom to vote (representative democracy) and defense of human rights from those who would tyrannically rob the common people of them. It respected individuals as autonomous humans who have the ability to participate in their government and whose perspectives are deserving of being honored, not just those of the rich and powerful. It tends to be anti-establishment in its orientation. It has been criticized for overvaluing the interests of the individual, at the expense of the group. It has been lauded for protecting the rights of the people against tyrannical powers.
Political conservatism, first enunciated in the writings of Edmund Burke, tends to respect authority, protect the status quo, value obedience, patriotism, and to some extent, patriarchy.
It has been criticized for protecting the rich and powerful, and being resistant to necessary change. It has been lauded for preventing the excesses exhibited in the French Revolution during the terror, and also during the Russian Revolution and other political movements where sober judgment, propriety and civilized behavior have been thrown to the wind in the unbridled zeal for change.
Excellent article. I've been looking for something like this for a while but didn't know where to start since my left leaning friends are so completely absorbed in an entirely different reality than me, probably due to media habits.
On COVID, let me also suggest Vinay Prasad, Jay Bhattacharya, and Alex Berenson. They're very good about citing primary sources, and the first two are very competent in their respective academic fields. And as far as reaching progressives goes, Vinay and Berenson were both lifelong Democrat voters as far as I know (Berenson even worked at NYT).
"Can we count on Republican leaders to stand up for democracy? No. But it’s absurd to present putting Democrats in office as a way to protect democracy."
Trust me, we conservatives are just as critical of most of the Republicans now in office, and we also recognize that we cannot count on them to stand up for "democracy," as you say, or - more to the point - our inherent human rights that are supposed to be protected by the Constitution.
Dear Lord do you believe any woke indoctrinated Democrat would permit this radioactive collection of political facts to cross their in-box? I envy your optimism.
Thank you for what you wrote about protecting free speech on both the right and left, especially the left, and our not being hypocrites about it.
However, I've got to say, I'm angry at the length of this Substack article. This isn't a post. It's a book. It took most of my weekend to skim it and I skipped over half of it. I only kept coming back to it so I wouldn't lose my place or the tab
Next time, if you're going to post more than a page or two, divide it into separate posts, labeled Part 1: topic. Part 2: topic, etc.
I just subscribed, and now am unsubcribing because of the inconsiderate length.