New video from Social Democrats USA

On August 12, SDUSA held a public program in conjunction with our convention.
The program was broken into 3 topics: Social Democracy in Eastern Europe, the
status of Labor Unions in America, and Social Democracy in America (a
conversation with Lane Kenworthy). The videos have been posted at this link:
http://socialistcurrents.org/?page_id=1873
Posted in Uncategorized by David Hacker. No Comments

Socialists See an Opening for Change

By JASON SIBERT

Social Democrats USA passed key resolutions and discussed a strategy to move the country forward in their Biennial National Convention in Carnegie, Pa. on Aug. 11-12.

Social Democrats USA is a faction of the old Eugene Debs/Norman Thomas Socialist Party. The Socialist Party of America merged with the Social Democratic Federation, once a part of the Socialist Party, in 1956 to form Socialist Party/Social Democratic Federation. Socialist Party/Social Democratic Federation changed its name to Social Democrats USA in 1972.

Internal differences led to a three-way party split. One faction formed a political party, Socialist Party USA, which still exists to this day, and another faction formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee. The DSOC later merged with the New American Movement to form the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization that still exists today. The Democratic Socialists of America has experienced a membership surge in the aftermath of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders presidential campaign. SDUSA is a smaller organization.

“We trace our beginnings right back to the old Socialist Party of Eugene Debs,” SDUSA secretary-treasurer Rick D’Loss said. “There’s no other group around today that can say that. Debs originally belonged to a party called Social Democratic Party of America.”

SDUSA’s national office, once located in New York City, folded in 2005. This left the organization with a local affiliate in Johnstown, Pa. The people from the local spearheaded a revival in 2007. D’Loss believes in the potential for average people to work for change.

“Your average person that isn’t political or even particularly progressive believes in making things better,” he said. “The Democratic Socialists of America are pretty much radical leftists and not everyone is going to join a group like that. The guy on the street doesn’t see himself as a radical leftist and Social Democrats USA is a place where an average guy can fit in and say ‘we just want to make things better than they are now. We think people should be able to go to the doctor or make a better wage.’ They’re not radical people, they just want to make things better.”

At the SDUSA Board meeting on Aug. 11, the board passed a resolution supporting the decriminalization of marijuana. The resolution said decriminalization would mean less contact between police forces and those they police. Less contact would mean a more positive environment between police forces and the civilian community. In addition, the resolution also supported drug treatment programs.

The SDUSA Board also passed a resolution supporting the liberating force of religion as well as the separation of church and state. The resolution also committed the organization to a pro-choice position on abortion. It also supported expanded access to adoption services and sex education. The Board also committed Social Democrats to the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s People’s Budget which includes bold planks like universal healthcare and education, taxing Wall Street and transformation of our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy.

The Board also discussed a resolution supporting arms control and a foreign policy where diplomacy is front and center. The newly introduced resolution will be discussed at a later date. The resolution might be considered a break from the past. Some past members of SDUSA became what is termed “neoconservatives.” In the 1970’s Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee head Michael Harrington criticized the organization for its “obsessive anti-communism.” Harrington supported German Chancellor Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik, a policy of dealing with the Soviet Union in a diplomatic manner.

Carl Gershman, who was Executive Director of SDUSA from 1975-1980, served in the Reagan Administration as the US Representative to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights. Joshua Muravchick also belonged to SDUSA at one time. Muravchick, an advocate of the 2003 Iraq War, served on the State Department’s Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion from 2002 to 2009.

Shortly after passing the resolution, SDUSA National Chair Patty Friend conducted a meeting on organizing SDUSA locals. Friend presented a simple philosophy on organizing.

“The biggest part of organizing is showing up,” she said. “Organizing is everything. It’s wonderful to have a broad base of people that think like you, but it’s not enough to have a base of people thinking the right thoughts. You need to be able to take action. The power of a group will always be bigger and more long-lasting than the power of one.”

Friend said the organization wanted for members to be active in local progressive causes and to charter locals. The national convention included a forum on Aug. 12 at Off the Wall Productions in Carnegie. Stressing the democratic ideology of the group, there was a banner that said “pro-democracy, pro-labor,” displayed in front of all live speakers. Friend, D’Loss and Michael Mottern moderated a discussion with European social democratic leaders via Skype. Veselin Tonev and Emil Knyazhin of the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party, Zsolt Csiszár of the Hungarian Social Democratic Party and Christian Hörbelt, a graduate Student at the Europa-Universität Viadrina, discussed the rise of European right-wing populism, the past of social democracy in Europe and the steps it has to take to regain a foothold on the continent.

The second session featured Union Edge talk radio host Charles Showalter speaking on the accomplishments of the labor movement. Union Edge is the only labor-oriented talk radio program in the Pittsburgh region. Carnegie is an inner-ring suburb of Pittsburgh. Showalter talked of the struggles of organizing unions amongst a hostile political environment and also the positive economic side of the union movement. He said that higher union wages lead to more money being spent in local communities.

The third section included University of California at San Diego Sociologist Lane Kenworthy. Kenworthy penned a book “Social Democratic America.” The sociologist reiterated the point stressed in his book and that’s that the United States will become more social democratic in the next 50 years. He talked about the need for wage-loss insurance, a higher minimum wage, increased educational opportunity, expanded early childhood education and more generous unemployment insurance and social security.

Jason Sibert worked for the Suburban Journals in the St. Louis area for over a decade and is currently executive director of the Peace Economy Project in St. Louis, Mo. Email jasonsibert@hotmail.com.

From The Progressive Populist, September 15, 2017


Posted in Uncategorized by David Hacker. 4 Comments

A Social Democratic/Democratic Zionist Case Critically Endorsing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement

The following Resolution was not voted on at the Convention as it came up near the end of the Plenary Session on Resolutions. It was referred to next month’s meeting of the National Executive Committee. It was approved at the NEC by a close vote.

After Fifty Years of Occupation, A Social Democratic/Democratic Zionist Case Critically Endorsing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement:

A Resolution Essay (Submitted by Sheldon Ranz & David Hacker)

Historical Preamble to the Resolution

Social Democrats USA has been unique on the Left in explicitly defending the existence and security of the State of Israel. In fact, under the former leadership, and in front groups such as the Youth Committee for Peace in the Middle East, the emphasis was on attacking the anti-Israel positions of other Left organizations. What criticisms were made of the Israeli government, even under the pro-West Bank settlement positions of various Likud governments were minor, along with a general distrust that a Palestinian leadership would arise that would seek a real peace with Israel. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was viewed as an explicitly anti-Israel terrorist organization. In essence, SDUSA was aligned with the right-wing of the Israeli Labor Party. Only in September 1993, after the Israeli Labor government of Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo Agreement with the PLO, did the SD change its position on the PLO. However, the National Office began its slow disintegration after 1994; thus any evolution in the old leadership’s position after Oslo broke down in 2000 and criticisms of subsequent Israeli governments are unknown.

After the National Office closed (without informing the membership of the SD) and the subsequent reorganization of the SD by the remaining active members and one surviving Local, we still felt that it was necessary in our new Statement of Principles to have a plank stating unequivocally “WE DEFEND THE RIGHT OF ISRAEL TO EXIST.” In some versions, the title read, “WE DEFEND THE EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE.” The more detailed version of this specific Principle that appears in the so-called “SD Manifesto” explained why we believe that we had to write such a plank and the historic background behind it:

The fact that we even have to make such a declaration, in our statement of principles, about an independent nation that is a member of the United Nations, is a result of the shameful view in a large percentage of the Left, worldwide that Israel is a product of ‘racism’ or ‘imperialism,’ and therefore illegitimate. We fervently disagree. It is a democratic society, though imperfect, especially in its treatment of Sephardic Jews from Arab countries and the native Arab or Palestinian citizens of Israel. Nevertheless, it should also be pointed out that Arabic is one of the two official languages of Israel and that Israeli Arabs, share the same democratic voting rights of all Israelis and also have representatives in the Israeli Knesset. Similar examples of democratic rights are denied to the citizens of most Arab countries in the Middle East. Israel’s (Labour) movement, the Histadrut, is led by Social Democrats, with the Red Flag of the international Socialist Movement proudly flying above its headquarters. During the first decades of its existence, Israel was founded and governed by a Social Democratic Labor Party. Then, what is the source of the hostility of much of the Left to Israel, in the last several decades, which goes so far as to question its very existence as a sovereign state, rather than focus its criticisms on the action of its government, as it does in the case of every other country in the world?

“A little historical background is necessary here. Up to the 1967 war, the Left was generally seen as pro-Israel and Israel, under the political domination of a socialist party, Mapai, in alignment with an even more Leftist Zionist party with Marxist-Leninist roots, Mapam, plus the Histadrut Labor Federation and the Kibbutz movement, was viewed as being on the Left and building a true democratic socialist society. The radical, independent pro-Soviet weekly newspaper, The National Guardian, was sympathetic to Israel from its first issue in 1948 till 1967. The CP-sponsored Anniversary Tours would advertise tours to the USSR, Eastern Europe and Israel. In 1948, the most pro-Israel candidate for President was Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party, which called for full de jure recognition of the State of Israel and an end to the arms embargo that the U.S. placed upon it, in its platform. In fact, the champion of Israel and the Zionist cause in the UN from 1947 to 1949 was the USSR and its Eastern European allies. A pre-state book that illustrates how anti-Cold War progressives in the immediate post war years were devoted to the cause of Jewish statehood and self-determination in Palestine was Behind The Silken Curtain: A Personal Account of Anglo-American Diplomacy in Palestine and The Middle East by Bartley C. Crum. Crum later became the attorney of the Hollywood 10. Even when publications like the National Guardian were critical of Israeli actions, such as in the 1956 Suez War, the critiques were written with sympathy for Israel’s dilemma of being surrounded by hostile Arab nations devoted to its destruction, and without any denouncing of Zionism, much less questioning the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

“Suddenly, groups like SNCC and the Youth Against War & Fascism attacked Israel, after the 1967 Six Day War, in almost identical language as the racist right-wing National States Rights Party. They, and the Socialist Workers Party, the Guardian (which purged the original founders of the newspaper and drop the word “National” from its name), and most of the radical or socialist Left, did not merely criticize Israel’s action in the war, but went on to deny its legitimacy as a sovereign state. Zionism became a new epithet on the Left. The exceptions to this anti-Israel position on the left were the Socialist Party and the two Jewish publications that came out of the CPUSA, Jewish Currents and the Morgan Freiheit. Similar reaction occurred in Leftist groups and journals around the world that were outside the social democratic movement

“Did the breaking of relations with Israel of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies, with the exception of Romania, help spark this anti-Israel sentiment on the Left? Certainly, from that time, to the Gorbachev period, the Soviet Union conducted a crude anti-Zionist propaganda campaign, that was actually pure anti-Semitism, in the state-run media. Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank after the 1967 has been cited, by its critics on the Left, for the hostility toward it. The international dimensions of this campaign became so strong that the United Nations General Assembly, on November 9, 1975, passed a resolution which was called ‘Zionism, a Form of Racism.’

“Thus, forgotten was the fact that from 1949 to June 1967, Jews were barred from the Old City of Jerusalem, including the holiest site in Judaism, the Western Wall. Now imagine how Catholics would feel if they were to forbidden to visit Vatican City and Moslems were banned from their sacred cities of Mecca and Medina? Also forgotten were the100,000 Jews living in the Arab world, many for 1,000 years, who were forced to flee after the establishment of Israel in 1948. When Egypt occupied Gaza from 1949 -1967 and Jordan, East Jerusalem and the West Bank, during the same period, there were no calls from anywhere for a Palestinian state to be created in that area. Where were the criticisms of those occupations? In fact, from the late 1950s to the 1967 Six Day War, the call in the Arab world was Pan Arabism, the unification of all the Arab states into one central country. That is why Egypt under Gamal Abdal Nasser was called the United Arab Republic. His plan was for Egypt to be the center of a united Arabia. It was only after 1967 that Palestinian nationalism arose and replaced the cause of Pan-Arabism.

“Accordingly, we are unconditional advocates of Israel’s right to exist, and that our support does not depend on its being “nice” in order to deserve our defense. But that doesn’t mean that we are never uncritical of its governmental policies. We oppose the settlements policy of the right-wing Likud government. We support Israeli democratic ideals and those who work for them. Whenever those ideals are compromised, we will vigorously protest because we are pro-Israel. Sometimes, being pro-Israel means being critical of the policies of its government. Rather our slogan is Israel is here to stay and also Israel must be saved. But at times, we could add, Israel must be saved from itself, if we believe that some governmental policy or action that it is engaged in would be detrimental to establishing a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.”

Since that statement was written in 2008, the political situation, and the fate of democracy itself, has greatly deteriorated after 50 years of occupation of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza. Rather the slogan, Israel must be saved from itself, is becoming more and more the relevant cry for those of us on the Left who care for the survival and security of Israel. Palestinian citizens of Israel have had their rights to vote threatened and their Knesset members threatened with expulsion. There have also been calls in Israel’s parliament to drop Arabic as being one of the official languages of the nation. Freedom of the press and the right to dissent has been attacked by the Israeli government. Representatives of American Zionist organizations such as the New Israel Fund, who oppose the occupation, have had travel restrictions placed on them coming to Israel, as have Jews who merely support a limited boycott of goods that are produced in Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

The collapse of the Oslo Agreement in 2000 has led to more restrictions on the Palestinians who live under occupation, along with continued expansion of Jewish settlements, making it almost impossible to envision a viable Palestinian state, next to Israel, needed to achieve the goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More and more, it is become clear the present right-wing Israeli government’s true aim is a Jewish-dominated one-state solution, without any national rights for the Palestinians.

Rather than fill up this Historic Preamble with pages giving the ugly details of the current situation, we are reprinting, as an appendix to the Resolution, an essay by Dr. Alon Ben-Meir entitled “Fifty Years of Immoral Occupation.” Dr. Ben-Meir is a professor and Senior Fellow in the Center for Global Affairs at NYU and Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute. Dr. Ben-Meir is an expert on Middle East affairs specializing in international negotiations and conflict resolution, and was actively involved in the past two decades in various negotiations between Israel and its neighboring countries and Turkey. In addition, Dr. Ben-Meir has written two open letters, one to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the other to Palestinian Authority President Abbas, that give a balanced critique of each side’s activities and positions, the general gist of which should inform how Social Democrats USA views the conflict. The letters can be found at http://alonben-meir.com/writing/unfinished-six-day-war-open-letter-prime-minister-netanyahu/ and http://alonben-meir.com/writing/fifty-years-occupation-whats-next-open-letter-president-mahmoud-abbas/. His latest article is at http://alonben-meir.com/writing/gaza-disaster-making/

Dr. Ben-Meir doesn’t discuss in these essays what should be the policy of the United States or political organizations in light of the real facts on the ground. U.S. governmental calls for the Israeli government to stop building settlements in the West Bank has fallen mainly on deaf ears. And how serious could the Israeli government take these calls when there are no threats of cutting off economic and/or military aid to Israel? Rather, Israel defies the U.S. and the U.S. responds by raising military aid to Israel to record levels.

This has led Middle East analyst, such as Nathan Thrall in his new book The Only Language They Understand: Forcing Compromise in Israel and Palestine, to conclude that “the United States has consistently sheltered Israel from accountability for its policies in the West Bank by putting up a facade of opposition to settlements that in practice is a bulwark against more significant pressure to dismantle them.” Therefore only coercion by the United States, such as cutting economic and military aid to Israel and UN sanctions can pressure the Israeli government to change its intransigent position, or the citizens of Israel to elect a new government which would negotiate, in good faith with the Palestinians a successful and just two-state solution of the crisis.

This directly leads this organization that has always been a friend of Israel, though often times critical, equipped with a sharp sense of knowing which critiques of Israel and Zionism are constructive and which are merely code words for the expression of anti-Semitism, to consider the current Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. We have been skeptical and suspicious of the motives behind the organizers of BDS. We remember the Arab State’s economic boycott against Israel after the Jewish State’s creation in 1948. Is BDS actually a boycott against Jews, in general, when academic bodies vote to exclude at their conferences Israeli scholars, even if they have been openly critical of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank? Thus, we have been wary of engaging, much less, endorsing the BDS movement and have turned to other less coercive methods of pressuring Israel, including boycotting products that were made on Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Nevertheless, all similar efforts short of BDS have failed thus far, and the crisis in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is only getting worse, with no peaceful solution in sight. Therefore, we, as members of Social Democrats USA, as lifelong Democratic Zionists, sons of Holocaust resistors and survivors, urge Social Democrats USA to formally vote at this National Convention to critically support BDS from a Democratic Zionist, Social Democratic / Democratic Socialist standpoint. There is simply no alternative. In other words, we ask our fellow members & friends who would disagree with the SD giving critical support to BDS, what are the alternatives that other Comrades would support, in place of BDS, since nothing else has worked thus far to move the Israel government to agree to a just resolution to the crisis between Israel and Palestine?

—————————————————————————————————————————-

RESOLUTION

While the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement started in 2005 with little media attention, it has now burst on the public scene to such an extent that attempts in Congress to criminalize advocacy of BDS now make front-page news. Over 170 Palestinian non-governmental groups formed the BDS National Committee to promote the boycott of Israel, divestment from Israel and international sanctions against Israel. Inspired by a similar campaign against apartheid South Africa, the now-global BDS movement calls for Israel to meet its obligations under international law by complying with these three demands: ending the occupation of surrounding Arab lands that began with the Six Day War of 1967; recognizing the fundamental rights of Israel’s Palestinian Arab citizens to full equality, and instituting and promoting a Palestinian Right of Return that allows Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and property in Israel in accordance with UN resolutions.

Increasing numbers of US student bodies have endorsed it; so have the Connecticut branch of the AFL-CIO and the United Electrical Workers Union. Two of Bernie Sanders’ delegates to the Democratic Party platform committee, John Abourezk and Cornel West, are outspoken advocates of BDS. Depending on how authorities choose to enforce anti-BDS laws, supporters of BDS would be subject to fines, jail time, or both. This is such a clear threat to civil liberties that one initial co-sponsor, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), withdrew her support after protests erupted.

The BDS movement, which is non-violent and recognizes Israel, has had slow but steady success in getting international corporations to divest from Israel, especially from the Occupied West Bank, where egregious violations of the human rights of the Palestinians occur daily. By contrast, a smaller, less organized tendency among those whose views fall within the dovish part of the Israeli spectrum to boycott only products made in West Bank settlements has not produced a single known success.

So, can Zionists & Social Democrats support BDS? That question needs to be answered first with another question – what kind of Zionists? From an institutional framework, there are two kinds of Zionism: State Zionism and Democratic Zionism. Democratic Zionism posits that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people and the state of all its citizens, period. State Zionism is the doctrine that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people and the state of all of its Jewish citizens who are to enjoy a wide range of privileges over its Gentile citizens. No State Zionist, by definition, would endorse the demands of BDS.

Looking at the three demands of BDS from a Democratic Zionist perspective results in the following:

  • Demand #1 calls for an end to the 1967 occupation, a long-standing goal of Israel’s Peace Now movement and Left Zionist opposition.

  • Demand #2 calls for Israel to live up to the words of its own Declaration of Independence:

“…THE STATE OF ISRAEL…will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants…it will ensure complete equality (emphasis mine) of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex…WE APPEAL…to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions…”

However, immediately after the State of Israel was born, its Arab inhabitants were subjected to military rule; their movements restricted; they were deemed a security risk. After Israel imposed this military rule, it rolled out other laws discriminating against its Arab, indeed, against all of its Gentile inhabitants. Today, there are around fifty such laws; one of the most odious is the law, enshrined by the Jewish National Fund, barring Gentiles from owning land. Looking at these laws as one package led the Black Lives Matter movement to characterize not just the occupied West Bank but Israel as a whole as an apartheid state. While this label is controversial, these laws clearly undermine democracy and promote bigotry.

  • Demand #3 appears on first glance to play into fears that it would force Israel to accept a flood of Palestinian refugees that would turn Israel’s Jewish majority into a minority. Not only is this highly unlikely, since Jews have never flooded Israel under the Jewish Law of Return, but the demand’s wording only deals with the principle of the Right of Return and does not concern itself with its actual implementation. More importantly, Israel owes recompense to its loyal Arab citizens who were victimized by false promises of equality, and this should include repatriation of some of their displaced relatives from the Palestinian Diaspora.

In summary, all three demands actually promote the spirit and substance of Democratic Zionism.

Why is BDS especially important right now? The current direction of Israel paints a bleak picture. In 2014, its government launched an unprovoked attack on the Gaza Strip. This resulted in the deaths of over 1800 Palestinian civilians, including 500 children. This was the first time in Israel’s history that it directly committed mass murder. Israel is now led by the most right-wing government in its history, featuring a Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked, who has called for the extermination of the entire Palestinian people, and a Prime Minster, Benjamin Netanyahu, whose followers cheered the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the Labor Party chief who helped negotiate the Oslo Agreements.

Although Netanyahu is the Prime Minister, Shaked is the true face of Israel. She will be so in the future if the BDS movement does not succeed. We believe that the most effective way to help this movement is to do so as Democratic Zionists. It is not necessary to be Jewish to support Democratic Zionism. American taxpayers should be appalled that billions of our tax dollars are being sent every year to Israel, whose government is saying and doing all these terrible things.

If the BDS movement fails, then this most right-wing government in Israeli history, joined with this most right-wing government in American history, will plunge the entire Middle East into a regional apocalypse. BDS is the last best hope for a genuine lasting peace with justice between Israel and Palestine.

Therefore, we resolve that Social Democrats USA not only oppose any restrictions on the right to advocate BDS, but join in its advocacy. We support pressuring our government to, in turn, pressure Israel, our largest foreign aid recipient, to adhere to its own founding documents by complying with the three demands of the BDS movement.

However, as defenders of the right of Israel to exist and militant opponents of any kind of anti-Semitism, either subtle or overt, Social Democrats USA reserves the right to engage critically with the BDS movement and disengage from supporting it, if we discover that the movement has been hijacked by extremists.

It is in that sense that we believe DSA’s resolution endorsing BDS at their recent national convention will alienate not only dovish Jewish organizations such as Americans for Peace Now, Partners for a Progressive Israel or J Street but also the majority of American Jews who feel an emotional attachment to Israel and who, historically, have comprised a critical constituency for any social justice movement. DSA’s resolution, mean-spirited and prosecutorial in tone, reads like a list of demands on Israel, and Jews in general, without addressing the understandable fears of American Jews. There is only a pro forma reference to anti-Semitism in the document. Similarly, it does not try to reach out to Gentiles on the democratic Left who both care about the survival and security of Israel and are strong critics of Israeli governmental policies. The resolution is ahistorical, oblivious to the fact that the merger agreement that created DSA explicitly committed the organization to support American military aid to Israel.

What the DSA resolution also lacks is the acknowledgment that just as there were bad actors and extremists in the anti-Vietnam War movement and the anti-South Africa apartheid movements, so there are among those who advocate BDS against Israel. The Chicago Dyke March Coalition expelled three Jewish lesbians from its event after they were seen marching with a Jewish Pride flag and interrogated by other marchers as to their views on Zionism. Members of the Coalition hurled anti-Semitic epithets, including the term ‘Zio’ coined by Klansman David Duke, at a transgender Jewish reporter for writing honestly about the March. Then, two noted Jewish anti-occupation groups, Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now, piled on, endorsing the expulsions, as did Alicia Garza, one of the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement. SDUSA condemns the Chicago Dyke March for its actions and expresses great disappointment with the other aforementioned groups, who contradicted their own stated goals to oppose all forms of bigotry.

We firmly believe that it is our critical backing of the BDS movement, without ideological blinders, that can move it to be accepted by the mainstream American Jewish community, Democratic Zionists, and the democratic Left, in general.

Therefore, SDUSA view that the final resolution toward a two-state solution of Israel living in peace and harmony with a united sovereign state of Palestine that incorporates the Occupied Territories, while situating their respective capitals in Jerusalem, will only occur when they both have a commitment to a secular, democratic and social democratic future in their respective states.

It is in this spirit that we resolve that Social Democrats USA will assist in whatever way it can to promote BDS in a principled, anti-racist manner.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

APPENDIX

Fifty Years Of Immoral Occupation

By Dr. Alon Ben-Meir

Today, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank has reached the milestone of 50 years that will be recalled in shame.

Fifty years that have dehumanized both the occupier and the occupied; years of failing to muster the courage to right the wrong.

Fifty years that bred nothing but hatred and contempt for the other; years of illusions trying to deny the other the right to a home of their own.

Fifty years of yearning for peace only to be crushed time and again; years of submission to hopelessness and despair.

Fifty years of pessimism, paralysis, and abdication of responsibility; years of fearing to grasp the only solution but choosing instead to hold onto self-delusion.

Fifty years of disingenuous engagement with one another for the worthiest cause of peace; years of mutual victimization and finding comfort in self-pity and stolen dreams.

Fifty years of occupation that transcends the pale of human decency, subjecting the Palestinians to dejection and despair; years of colonization, home demolitions, terrifying night raids, uprooting of olive trees; years of usurping Palestinian land, robbing them of their dream to be independent and free.

Fifty years of inflicting pain and anguish that spared but a few; years of constant fear of administrative detention and incarceration, with thousands of political prisoners languishing in jails; years of being deprived of their basic rights, not knowing what tomorrow will bring; years of outcry of Palestinian youth, born and reared under occupation with no hope and no prospect of being unshackled from the chains of dishonor and despair.

For fifty years, Israel denied the Palestinians self-determination, justifying it in the name of national security—but nothing threatens its security more than the continuation of the occupation. Breaching the moral law and flouting the Palestinians’ human rights only nurtures another generation who live to resent, live to hate, and live to harm, for there is nothing left for them to lose.

For many Israelis, fifty years of occupation seems to pass as if it were normal, conditions to which they have simply become accustomed—never mind that moral erosion has infected the Israelis’ social fabric, defying the moral principle on which the state was erected.

They have been led astray by corrupted leaders with no courage of conviction to change direction, exempting themselves of the moral obligation to be just and fair. They have become indifferent and complacent, blind to the light, with little concern about where Israel will be in ten or fifteen years if they do not end the inhumane occupation.

Israel has spent fifty years preparing its youth for the next violent battle, injecting the poison of hatred into their veins, and viewing the Palestinians as objects that can be dispossessed without any sense of moral culpability.

To end the occupation, the Palestinians must do their share. Years of misguidance, division, and violent extremism, while remaining bent on destroying Israel and inciting the people to violence, was nothing but self-defeating.

Plagued by factionalism and blind rivalry, the Palestinians missed one opportunity after another to reach out for peace, choosing instead to fight hopelessly unwinnable wars, leaving them shattered yet still holding onto the illusion they can prevail.

Palestinian leaders have spent fifty years squandering resources for personal gains, guarding their power while riding on the backs of the poor and despondent. They have victimized one generation after another, robbing them of a promising future, alienating and leaving them languishing in the darkness of their despair, rather than defying the Israelis by building a free, independent, and flourishing country in which they can take pride.

When will this all end? How many more children must die for an elusive goal that defies reality and common sense? Those Israelis and Palestinians who believe in a shared destiny must never agree to cooperate with the corrupt leaders who are oblivious of how ominous the future will be if there is no change.

Israeli leaders must end the occupation and stop reveling in the lies of their own creation. It is time to recognize that the occupation is an albatross choking every Israeli ever so slowly, sapping their spirit, corrupting their soul, and stripping Israel and the Jews the world over of the values of what is right, what is just, and what is caring—the pillars of their very survival.

I call on every man and woman of conscience to bring the madness of this debilitating conflict to an end. No Israeli or Palestinian child should die in another violent conflict between the two sides that will change nothing but bring more suffering, despondency, bloodshed, and sorrow.

As the late President Kennedy said in the 1960s, “[the] people expect more from us than cries of indignation and attack. The times are too grave, the challenge too urgent, and the stakes too high…”

It is time for both sides to rise and demand that their leaders compromise and come to terms with a reality that neither can change, and seek a just and fair solution that must bring an end to the occupation.

If the Israelis and Palestinians continue to hate, resent, and kill each other, they will be consumed by the land they are fighting for. But if they learn to live in harmony and peace, together they will make the land exude milk and honey, ushering in a renaissance the likes of which has never been seen before.

Posted in Uncategorized by David Hacker. 32 Comments

SDUSA Endorses “The People’s Platform”

SDUSA ENDORSES ‘THE PEOPLE’S PLATFORM” AND JOINS IN THE COALITION OF ORGANIZATIONS CAMPAIGNING FOR IT TO BECOME THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA OF HOUSE DEMOCRATS

Resolution submitted by David Hacker

I propose that Social Democrats vote at this Convention endorse the “People’s Platform” and become a member of the organizations petitioning the Democratic National Committee to support the eight proposed Congressional Bills that make up the “People’s Platform.” While the target date for delivering the Petition to the DNC on July 25th has passed, the coalition supporting the platform is also working throughout this summer contacting House Democrats to support this platform. Social Democrats USA will join them in this important effort.

Below is the full text of the Summer for Progress Petition and the coalition members campaigning for it:

Summer for Progress Petition

Target: Democratic Members of Congress

The Summer for Progress: Let’s Move Our Country Forward

At the end of last year’s Democratic presidential primary, we created the most progressive platform in history. Together we scored huge gains by getting free college tuition, closing private prisons, and creating a $15 national minimum wage into the driving document of the Democratic Party.

Now, we’re asking you to join our campaign to get Democrats in Congress to sign on to our #People’sPlatform–eight bills currently in the House of Representatives that will address the concerns of everyday Americans. Each one of the bills below embodies an important part of the Democratic Party’s platform. From universal health care access to saving our environment from fossil fuels, we need your help to make these ideals a reality.

If Democrats want to win in 2018 and beyond, we need to start by supporting legislation that addresses the real issues facing everyday Americans. Sign our petition to show your support for a legislative agenda that puts people first. We will be delivering your petitions to the Democratic National Committee on July 25th. Join us as we organize for a #PeoplesPlatform!

During this summer’s congressional recess, Our Revolution, Democracy for America, Democratic Socialists of America, Progressive Democrats of America, #AllofUs, National Nurses United, and dozens of other organizations will be organizing to empower members like you to schedule a meeting, town hall, or direct action to demand Democratic members of Congress support the #PeoplesPlatform.

Democrats in Congress must lay out a bold vision for how we create a country that works for everyone–not the just the very wealthy.  In the wealthiest nation on earth, each and every American family should have the basic things they need to thrive. We’ll keep fighting until everyone has access to healthcare, free college tuition, a livable planet, and a job that pays a living wage.

Sign our petition:

Tell House Democrats– resistance isn’t enough, we must move our country forward with a bold, progressive agenda. Co-sponsor our #PeoplesPlatform when Congress returns to session in September.

Join us as we urge House Democrats to support:

  1. Medicare for All: H.R. 676 Medicare For All Act
  2. Free College Tuition: H.R. 1880 College for All Act of 2017
  3. Worker Rights: H.R.15 – Raise the Wage Act
  4. Women’s Rights: H.R.771 – Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2017
  5. Voting Rights: H.R. 2840 – Automatic Voter Registration Act
  6. Environmental Justice: Climate Change Bill – Renewable Energy (More details soon!)
  7. Criminal Justice and Immigrant Rights: H.R. 3227 – Justice is Not For Sale Act of 2017
  8. Taxing Wall Street: H.R. 1144 – Inclusive Prosperity Act

The status quo isn’t working. This summer, let’s work together to get House Democrats to back our #PeoplesPlatform.

Our Revolution
Democratic Socialists of America
Democracy for America
Progressive Democrats of America
#AllofUs
Common Defense
National Nurses United
Working Families Party
Millennials for Revolution
Women’s March
Labor for Our Revolution
People for Bernie
Good Jobs Nation
Young Progressives Demanding Action
Healthcare Now
Brand New Congress
Justice Democrats
Food & Water Action
Fight for 15

Sponsored by

Sfp-orange-logo

Summer for Progress

To: Democratic Members of Congress
From: [Your Name]

Resistance isn’t enough, we must move our country forward with a bold, progressive agenda. Co-sponsor our #PeoplesPlatform when Congress returns to session in September.

Join us as we urge House Democrats to support:

Medicare for All: H.R. 676 Medicare For All Act

Free College Tuition: H.R. 1880 College for All Act of 2017

Worker Rights: H.R.15 – Raise the Wage Act

Women’s Rights: H.R.771 – Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2017

Voting Rights: H.R. 2840 – Automatic Voter Registration Act

Environmental Justice: Climate Change Bill – Renewable Energy (More details soon!)

Criminal Justice and Immigrant Rights: H.R. 3227 – Justice is Not For Sale Act of 2017

Taxing Wall Street: H.R. 1144 – Inclusive Prosperity Act

The status quo isn’t working. This summer, let’s work together to get House Democrats to back our #PeoplesPlatform.

Posted in Uncategorized by David Hacker. No Comments

Religion and Reproductive Justice Resolution

WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE LIBERATORY POTENTIAL OF RELIGION, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ARE FULLY COMMITTED BOTH TO THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE & WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE

Resolution submitted by David A. Hacker
The world’s sacred texts provide some of the strongest support for the dignity of labor, the need for social fairness and the ability of humanity to achieve its highest aspiration. Nevertheless, religious people have felt alienated from the Left, as their values seem to be ridiculed and dismissed as ignorant, superstitious, and narrow-minded. This is especially true of evangelical Christians, devout Catholics and Orthodox Jews. Too often, as Rabbi Michael Lerner has pointed out,the Left viewsreligion as just as much a problem in American culture as guns and anti-immigration sentiments,” commenting on the remarks by then Senator Barak  Obama in his Democratic Party Primary Campaign in April, 2008 to a prosperous audience at a San Francisco fund raising event for his campaign. There he commented on the “bitterness” he saw among the White ethnic working class and lower middle class voters in Pennsylvania, which causes them to oppose immigration and cling to guns and religion. According to Rabbi Lerner, “seeing religion as a substitute gratification grabbed on to by people who are otherwise oppressed is an insight that has been part of liberal and progressive culture for at least 150 years. Unfortunately, Senator Obama, like many in the liberal and Marxist traditions of the past 150 years, got it wrong—because he identified the needs that are being systematically denied as purely material, thereby falling into theIt’s the economy, stupid’ mistake of the Left.” Rather, Rabbi Lerner continued, “in the research we did for ten years at the Institute for Labor and Mental Health we found that it was not only material, but spiritual deprivation that was at the heart of much of the pain that Americans experience today. That’s why even at the height of American prosperity in the Clinton years, a powerful resurgence of right-wing religious forms was providing an avenue of  expression for people whose needs were being ignored by the liberals in the Clinton administration, the Democratic Party, and even in parts of the liberal churches. Similarly, the revival of a religious Left has not gotten much traction to the extent that it adopts the liberal political and economic agenda and makes it “religious” by finding some useful Bible quotes to back up the peace and justice planks of the Democrats. Valuable as that may be, it too misses the deeper pain that has led people to embrace right-wing religions.
As a result these Americans have become prime recruiting targets of the conservative movement, which has resulted in the rise of the Christian Right, who often find allies in supporting various social issues among devout Catholic and Orthodox Jews, who then end up voting Republican in presidential election. The fact that they made up a large segment of the vote that elected Donald Trump president in states such as Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, despite his obvious vulgarity is a reality that cannot be ignored.
The later two groups are often called “Reagan Democrats,” as they were once a central part of the Democratic Party majority New Deal coalition, but switched over to the Republican Party, when they found their religious and social values to be more comparable with that being espoused by RonaldReagan in 1980 and 1984. However, many of these “Reagan Democrats” came home to the Democratic Party in 1992 and 1996 in electing and re-electing Bill Clinton president in reaction to the economic recession of the George H.W. Bush Administration and Barack Obama in 2008 while suffering under the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s that was blamed on the second Bush presidency. But in 2016, they turned around again and voted for Donald Trump.
Yet, it was these very groups that was central to the Socialist Party’s success in the
first decades of the 20th Century. It was evangelical Christians that form the basis of the Socialist Party mass membership and electoral support in Oklahoma during those years. The SP had its highest percentage of the total vote in that state before the First World War. It was Roman Catholics in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, that rallied behind the Socialist Party and helped elect two mayors and many city council members in that city. Finally, it was Eastern European Orthodox Jews, living on New York City’s Lower East Side, that elected and re-elected SP candidate, Meyer London to Congress.
Then, in the 1930s and 1940s, these groups were a major segment of FDR’s New Deal coalition, along with Blacks, and white progressives in the North. True, Southern evangelical Christians were the segregationist Dixiecrat portion of the FDR coalition. But White ethnic Catholics form the backbone of the CIO and were central to the New Deal Coalition. And of course, Jews of all denominations rallied behind FDR. The Southern aspect of the coalition broke away after 1948, but the rest of the majority New Deal coalition stayed firm, with the exception of the Eisenhower years, up to Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory in 1964. In fact, this formed the basis of the SP strategy, developed by Max Shachtman and Michael Harrington, known as realignment.
Realignment did occur in the US. The Southern Democrats-Dixiecrats did leave the DP and became Republicans. It was assume then that this would assure permanent majority status for the Democrats after the civil rights revolution gave back to African Americans in the South the right to vote. The vision of the Shachtmanites and the SP majority in the 1960s was a Democratic Party and democratic Left made up of the labor movement, including ethnic white workers of both sexes, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, I.E, the entire civil rights movement, middle-class liberal to progressive reformers, the feminist movement, etc. Most of all, White and Black workers would be united in supporting universal programs that would benefit every working class and middle class American. (We hope that you notice that we emphasize ethnic and often devout Catholic white workers of both
sexes as a basic part of this progressive coalition, because it has been the loss of ethnic white male voters to the Republicans, and many ethnic white women as well, that has severely weakened the Democratic Party and the desire for a democratic Left majority coalition that elected Trump.)
These “Reagan Democrats” left the DP, when as, stated above, social and cultural issues replaced economic and class issues as core aspects of the program of the DP and the Left, as a whole, after 1964. One of the main issues that have divided working class Catholics and evangelical Christians from the DP and the Left has been the controversial issue of abortion. The SDUSA, did not take a position on abortion until 1991, when the AFL- CIO passed a pro-choice resolution. Prior to that, the SD separated itself from other group on the Left by maintaining that the abortion issues was divisive and would alienate Catholic workers in the labor movement. The revived SDUSA decided to resume this position that was taken by our organization before 1991. We knew that it would alienate a majority of the Left. We specifically understood the objections of feminists, for whom this issue they consider to be central to women rights. We also consider ourselves to be a pro feminist’s organization which is devoted to supporting the reproductive health of all women. But we also recognize that many ethnic Catholic working class men, and specifically women, who would be attracted to the DP and the wide left and progressive movement, because of its economic positions, have turned away from us because of our position on abortion. As hard as it may be for the majority on the Left to accept, these working class men and women see their pro-life or opposition to abortion position as being central to both their political and religious values.
Accordingly, we want the SDUSA to be the one organization on the Left that welcomes members who refer to themselves as pro-life or pro-choice and doesn’t interfere with their personal beliefs, or compromise them by making them abide by a public position on the issue. Of course, in their other political activities, outside of the SD, members are free to be involved on all sides of the issue of abortion and reproductive rights.
Rather, we want to provide a supportive environment for both sides to finally meet and work on developing social democratic economic programs which would result in alleviating the social and economic conditions of women that cause a large percentage of abortions. We believe that the issue of women’s reproductive health goes beyond the controversial topic of abortion. We must move away from the polarization nature of this debate, which has existed since the 1970s, that has only benefited the political Right in this country, and concentrate on the vital issues of women’s health care that can united
moderate elements on both side of the abortion question. Therefore SDUSA endorses a program of Reproductive Justice for Women, specifically targeted to poor and working class women of all races and nationalities.
These issues that Social Democrats, USA affirms, are the following:
1, Public access to pre and post natal care and maternal health, through universal health care.
2, Comprehensive sex education.
3, Equal access to contraceptive devices for women of all classes.
Nevertheless, Social Democrats,USA also believes that it cannot ignore the assault on women rights that has been taken place in many GOP dominated state governments and the new Trump Administration in limiting the number of clinics that perform abortions and ending funding for Planned Parenthood, where abortion is only around 8 percent of the services provided at their clinics. As long as legal abortion is still the law in this country, it is vital that these institution. be allowed to operate, especially in poor and minority communities where their services are most needed. This is also an issue of Reproductive Justice.
Therefore, to achieve its highest aspirations, SDUSA embraces religious faith not as an interest group” within a larger movement, but as fundamental to the creation of a better world. It should be noted that our former Executive Director was a devout Catholic, while the our former National Co-Chair of the SD and current Honorary Chair is an Orthodox Rabbi. At the same time, we also welcome secular or non-religious members and share their conviction that that the United States should maintain its tradition of the separation of Church and State. Thus, while we embrace people of religious faith and the liberating message of the mainstream of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, as well as the Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism, etc, we oppose extremists or fanatics of all faiths, who seek to undermine the
church/state separation and repress the equal rights of women and the LGBT community.
______________________________________________________________________
                Special Note On The Resolution
There are two models for our position. The first is the “Come Let Us Reason Together” document adopted by a group of moderate Evangelicals and the Third Way, a Washington think tank for moderate or corporate Democrats, which is reprinted at the end of this resolution. While the SD rejects their pro-corporate positions, we can still find great merit in this 2008 document as a vehicle to bring together to the SD members who have different positions on various divisive social issues.
The second model is the concept of “reproductive justice” that is being endorsed by growing number of feminists of color in place of the term “pro-choice.”    One of the major supporters of the “reproductive justice position is Dorothy Roberts, a professor of law and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the book, Killing the Black Body.  She maintains that the term of “reproductive justice will “take the focus that has been on an individual woman’s right to choose and place it on the social conditions that are necessary for women to have true equality and freedom and well-being. And that requires more than protecting the legal right to choose. It requires social change.”  In essence, she adds, “justice, creating a society where all people have the resources and the social conditions they are entitled to. Healthcare, education, housing, food, freedom from state violence, all of these are required for women to have real reproductive freedom, but it requires justice. And so, we would then see reproductive justice as linked to  the movement for universal healthcare, to the movement for economic justice, environmental justice, Black Lives Matter. All of these movements are connected to reproductive freedom because they all are directed to creating a more just society.”
In addition, there are several comments reprinted from readers of The American Conservative, responding to an blog post by Rod Dreher, an Orthodox Christian, that was very critical of President Donald Trump, but saw the Democratic Party as wanting “to do as much damage as it possible can to social and religious conservatives.” They reflect the views of people who might back the progressive economic program espoused by Democrats, but are also socially conservative. Could a Resolution such as this document reach them? Most of us would probably be repelled by from some of their language. But should we just write them off?
.
The Come Let Us Reason Together Governing Agenda is a common ground agenda that
charts a new path forward by uniting key Evangelical and progressive leaders behind
specific policy recommendations on some of the most divisive culture issues of our times:
abortion, workplace rights for gay and lesbian people, torture, and immigration reform.
POLICY:
Reducing Abortions Through Common Ground Policies
Common ground on abortion means reducing abortions in America through
policies that address the circumstances that lead to abortion: preventing unintended
pregnancies and supporting pregnant women who wish to carry their pregnancies
to term, as well as increasing support for adoption. This approach involves the
following policy tracks:
1.
Preventing unintended pregnancies.
Prevention policies include grants for sex
education (age-appropriate, medically accurate and complete
contraceptive information with an abstinence emphasis) and support for teen
pregnancy prevention programs, including after school programs and
resources to help parents better communicate with teens, and increased
access to contraception for low-income women.
2.
Supporting pregnant women through to parenthood and support for
new families.
Support policies include expanding Medicaid coverage of
pregnant women and S-CHIP coverage of children, prohibiting pregnancy from
being classified as a pre-existing condition by insurance providers, and
providing support for pregnant and parenting students who are in school.
3.
Increasing support for adoption.
Adoption support policies include
expanding adoption tax credit assistance and supporting optional adoption
services at group homes for pregnant and parenting women.
.
And really, the Democrats could pick up voters like Ryan Booth and Rod Dreher for more than just a massive reaction against what a lunatic Trump is… with some really rather modest adjustments.
Of course they’re not going to put “Overturn Roe v. Wade” on their platform, and in my opinion they shouldn’t, for at least two reasons. (I don’t believe Supreme Court decisions are proper fodder for presidential votes anyway). BUT, at THIS point, recognition that the pro-life viewpoint is a legitimate moral stand that has a place in the public square, and some women would benefit from hearing it, would be enough. Not to satisfy the pro-life movement, but to win acceptance from a fair number of pro-life voters, who of course, have the right to continue advocating for a change in the law.
There is an opinion piece up on the TAC web site supporting single payer for good conservative reasons. As long as their is some “play in the joints” as the justices like to say, it could win overwhelming support.
And cool the jets on LGBTQWERTY. I think we just about all agree that a qualified gay engineer should not be fired for being gay, a gay couple should not be harassed while shopping for groceries at the local supermarket, and gay marriage has enough popular support that its here to stay. Now, just back off on keeping a diversity of viewpoints in education, and drop that loony stuff about integrating locker rooms, and we can all settle down.
I suspect though, that the Democratic leadership sees nothing but “The people are going to come back to us and see that we were right all along.” Socialism anyone, if we promise to stomp on social liberalism while we’re at it?
  • Matt says:
“I believe the Democratic Party today wants to do as much damage as it possibly can to social and religious conservatism.”
I don’t agree with this; it treats the Democrats as too monolithic. It also overlooks facts on the ground. The Dems’ new “Better Deal” policy proposals have zero to say about the culture war hot button issues. Where’s the damage to social and religious conservatism in that?
I’m an agnostic liberal who has concerns about the rapid politicization of transgender issues, the stifling (and potentially dangerous) political climate on college campuses, the difficulty of balancing personal rights with social cohesion and the durability of enduring institutions (including religious ones). I don’t want to damage conservatism, I want it to be a reasonable alternative to policies on the left. But now we don’t have that — we have cutting taxes as the solution to every problem, climate change denial, and a complete unwillingness to account for the fiascos of the last GOP administration, foreign (Iraq) and domestic (the Great Recession). The Democrats didn’t do this to conservatism — these are self-inflicted wounds.
If people of good faith on both sides of the political divide could actually talk about things instead of adhering to the left/right divide we would be much better off. Alas, our respective echo chambers (right wing media on the one hand, college campuses on the left) make this increasingly unlikely. What’s a classic political liberal who enjoys a personally conservative lifestyle (married 16 yrs, 2 kids, wife is a stay at home mom, etc.) to do?
So with that as background, all I can say is that I agree that HRC was a deeply flawed candidate, and I was not thrilled about voting for her. I was also concerned that she would kowtow too much to the far left/SJW wing of her coalition. But what DJT is doing to the GOP and the country is so damaging on so many levels that I can’t honestly entertain the argument that he was a legitimate alternative.
Alas, “Publius Decius Mus” was right about the Flight 93 Election. Only his piece wasn’t written from the cabin, it was written from the cockpit.
  • bacon says:
Mr. Dreher says he believes “the Democratic party wants to do as much damage as it possibly can to social and religious conservatism”. RD, I’m a lifelong Democrat as are many of my family. Other family members are social and religious conservatives. I have never wanted to do damage to them or to any other group of conservatives, nor have any of my relatives or acquaintances. Maybe in your part of the South it’s different, or maybe your incessant, obsessive focus on every little thing you see as not in accord with your idea of a proper god fearing society brings forth such a reaction from otherwise relaxed liberals. But there are plenty of us out here who have regular contact with our conservative friends and acquaintances and that contact will be more important in our ongoing relationships than your screeds.
[NFR: That’s you. You’re not running the party. I would vote enthusiastically for a pro-life, pro-religious liberty Democrat who rejected identity politics. Y’all have driven those people out of your party. It’s a shame. — RD]
Surly says:
As a Christian liberal (yes we exist) I welcome you and Ryan to the party and I hope you can help us find decent candidates who want to focus on infrastructure, antitrust and jobs programs and who will stop kowtowing to the sexual minority drama queens who make up 3% of the population but make approximately 97% of the noise. And for pete’s sake–why not trade Medicare for all for a strict prohibition on abortion after the first trimester-life of the mother or extreme fetal defect being the exceptions. We have already seen a dramatic drop in unplanned pregnancy rates and in abortion rates where there is free contraception. I say let’s make a deal with the pro lifers–shut up about contraception and we’ll accept legal limits on abortion.
  • Potato says:
Of course they’re not going to put “Overturn Roe v. Wade” on their platform, and in my opinion they shouldn’t, for at least two reasons. (I don’t believe Supreme Court decisions are proper fodder for presidential votes anyway). BUT, at THIS point, recognition that the pro-life viewpoint is a legitimate moral stand that has a place in the public square, and some women would benefit from hearing it, would be enough. Not to satisfy the pro-life movement, but to win acceptance from a fair number of pro-life voters, who of course, have the right to continue advocating for a change in the law.
There is an opinion piece up on the TAC web site supporting single payer for good conservative reasons. As long as their is some “play in the joints” as the justices like to say, it could win overwhelming support.
And cool the jets on LGBTQWERTY. I think we just about all agree that a qualified gay engineer should not be fired for being gay, a gay couple should not be harassed while shopping for groceries at the local supermarket, and gay marriage has enough popular support that its here to stay. Now, just back off on keeping a diversity of viewpoints in education, and drop that loony stuff about integrating locker rooms, and we can all settle down.
Oh no, the voice of reason! We could….we could… talk to each other!! Compromise even! Crazy talk, Siarlys.
This right here is the path forward out of the jungle we seem to have found ourselves in, into something sensible that we can all live with. Of course if you go onto this path you will find Siarlys Jenkins there, and me, and maybe five other people, period.
Meanwhile the pro-aborts are still back there insisting on a woman’s right to “abort” a perfectly healthy nine-month baby, the pro-life people are still opposing all contraception, the religious conservatives want to re-criminalize gay sex and the LGBTQWERTY peeps are tirelessly working to abolish the entire concept of gender.
Oh my people.

 

Posted in Uncategorized by David Hacker. No Comments