Identity Politics

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal ironically headlined We Liberals Need Self-Criticism, Ioannis Gatsiounis, a writer who reports on race and politics, called for an end to Progressive-Democrats’ (whom he thinks are “liberal”) practice of identity:

[S]top obsessing over identity.

But in the very next sentence, he went right back to identity politics:

We can and should support policies that benefit disadvantaged groups, from criminal-justice reform to a higher minimum wage and affordable health care.

Pick one: either liberals Progressive-Democrats should stop obsessing over identity—stop singling out some groups of Americans for special treatment—or they should continue singling out some groups of Americans for special treatment—continue their identity politics.

Unfortunately, the 21st century segregation of identity politics is at the core of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s ideology.

Debates and Getting Things Done

Some Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates aren’t making the cut for Party’s September debate gala in Houston. So far, only 10, or so, have met debate criteria for get there, out of a field of some 20 candidates. The ones missing out are upset with the long-announced rules, and other now ex- candidates are dropping out of the race altogether.

If they’re serious about their complaints and not just whining like spoiled toddlers, those candidates who don’t make the “official” September debate would get together and hold their own debate at the same time and across the street from the DNC’s debate.

While they’re there, they could address an item Montana Governor Steve Bullock (D) raised:

As we’re losing governors from this race, maybe we ought to think about also, like, are these DNC rules for the debates disadvantaging folks that actually have to get things done?

Bullock and his confreres could debate why those governors are unable to “get done” their appearance on the big boys’ stage. Organizing their own debate would go a short way toward redeeming Bullock’s claim.

A Hypocrisy in Texas

The Texas State government has passed a law making it illegal for government entities in the state of Texas to enter into a transaction with an abortion provider or an abortion provider’s affiliates.

Austin, the State’s capital, thinks it knows better and is working to get 150 stacks folded into its 2020 city budget to fund abortion services.  Here’s Austin city council member Greg Casar, making plain the hypocrisy:

In Austin, we believe and announce that everyone has a right to healthcare. We believe and announce that abortion is healthcare, and we refuse to back down on protecting our continuance basic rights.

Everyone but babies have a right to healthcare, that is.  The city is working hard to turn its collective back on a baby’s basic right to life.

Keep Austin Weird is the city’s unofficial motto.  With folks like Casar, and his supporters Mayor Pro Tempore Delia Garza and fellow council members Leslie Pool and Paige Ellis in the city’s government, the motto is closer to Keep Austin Bloody.

Because Politics, not Policy

Even the more moderate Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate, Joe Biden (more moderate? He says he’s the most Progressive of them all, but never mind that, just now), says Party should appoint him because—he can beat Trump.  His wife says so.

Speaking at a bookstore in Manchester, NH, Dr Jill Biden urged voters on Monday to consider the “electability” of her husband, former Vice President Joe Biden, ahead of the 2020 Democratic primaries….

She went on:

I know that not all of you are committed to my husband, and I respect that, but I want you to think about your candidate, his or her electability, and who’s going to win this race[.]

I respect that.  That’s awfully decent of you, Ma’am.

But leave that bit of self-absorption aside.  It’s certainly true that winning an election is highly useful for implementing policy (so is willingness to compromise with other participants in government).

But the most effective way to win the election is by having and communicating better policies than the other party or parties.

Maybe this is why the Progressive-Democrats and pseudo-Progressive Democrats like Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and Tom Steyer are pushing “beat Trump” or “impeach Trump” instead of actual, concrete policies.

Maybe this is why all the leading and middle-tier Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates are touting, secondarily to their “I can beat Trump” mantra, carefully amorphic offerings like free stuff for everybody (except privileged white males and Evil Rich).

None of them have serious policy offerings, so all they can do is run on “electability.”

Pawns

Charles Hurt was unimpressed—as have been many of us—with Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s (D, MI) political posturing at the expense of her grandmother.

Who uses their aging grandmother as a pawn to make a political point in what is really kind of a stupid political kerfuffle to begin with?
There’s something really wrong with someone that does that….

This is what Progressive-Democrats do, though. They see real, live people merely as tools to be used for Party or their own benefit.  These aren’t human beings in Progressive-Democrat eyes..

Progressive-Democrats only offer Blacks empty promises of benefits to come, with no interest or action in delivering exits from those welfare cages.  Blacks are nothing more than crops of votes to be harvested.

Progressive-Democrats only offer Hispanics empty rhetoric regarding immigration and routes to citizenship.  Here, too, they take no action other than to obstruct others’ efforts regarding immigration and asylum laws and legal immigration.  Hispanics are nothing more than crops of votes to be harvested.

Here, now, is Grandma, also reduced to a mechanical tool, this one to be used to carve a tablet holding a personal political agenda aimed at personal gain.  That her sity appears to be a willing participant in a shameful charade in no way lessens the depth of Tlaib’s depravity.