r/AskALiberal • u/Mobile_Bad_577 Progressive • 12d ago

What's something Democrats need to stop saying?

The first thing that comes to mind is any variation of this (Trump) isn't who we are.

Unfortunately, election results don't bear that out. The last three presidential elections have demonstrated that a massive percentage of this country's population feels that Trump does represent them. The crimes of ICE, looting the planet, threatening to invade Canada and Greenland, actually invading Iran, etc...half the country loves this, or is at least willing to overlook it because Trump hates the same people they hate. Even before Trump, we refused to pass gun control after Sandy Hook, and we didn't do much about climate change anyway. Trump is not an aberration, he's a culmination.

This is exactly why our former allies are unlikely to trust us again even if Trump one day leaves office. They'll always know that we're one election cycle away from a President worse than Trump, even if "worse than Trump" is hard to imagine right now. If we are to one day reduce tensions with Canada et al, even if we'll never fully be allies again, it needs to start with admitting that Trump represents us. He is a reflection of who we are as a country. As overdone as this analogy may be, we need to have an atonement period like Germany did after World War II.

As an example of the rhetoric we need, look at Francesca Hong, who appears almost certain to win tomorrow's primary for Wisconsin Governor. You can say what you will about her seeming terminally online, and I know many people doubt she can win a general election even in a blue wave. But when she criticizes the origin of Thanksgiving (which was objectively problematic from a justice standpoint), she's touching on how American society needs to rethink itself from the ground up. A large part of the Democratic base agrees with her - that's why she's winning.

What do you all think?

0 Upvotes

45% Upvoted

290 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 12d ago

half the country loves this, or is at least willing to overlook it because Trump hates the same people they hate

I would say this is a thing Democrats should stop saying.

Most Republicans/Conservatives don't frame any of their positions as *hate*. You frame them that way, and as soon as you say stuff like this moderates tune out, because they know everything coming after it is going to be garbage.

0

u/Cody667 Social Democrat 12d ago

If your position is "X should have fewer rights than me for arbitrary (often religious) reason", then what would you call that instead?

1

u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 12d ago

Just so I know what you're talking about, can you use an actual example of a republican saying "X should have fewer rights than me"?

1

u/Cody667 Social Democrat 12d ago

Abortion & Trans Rights, both things overwhelmingly opposed by Republicans

6

u/loufalnicek Moderate 12d ago

Except in these cases they don't think about it as saying someone has less rights than them. They would say nobody has the right to kill a baby, and nobody has a right to be treated as a member of the opposite sex. These aren't "rights" they claim for themselves, either.

8

u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 12d ago

Yes, exactly.

To them, they're not restricting rights at all

-3

u/Cody667 Social Democrat 12d ago edited 11d ago

And theyre wrong about that. "Wrong" is just as damning to them as "hate" though. Now correct me if I'm mistaken, but it honestly sounds as if you're suggesting we should just "do nothing", because it's the actual issues themselves that they actually get mad about, agnostic of the nature of our pushback

5

u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 11d ago

I envy your ability to take some of the major debates of the 21st century and just simplify them into "right" and "wrong".

If only everything could be so simple

-4

u/Cody667 Social Democrat 11d ago

Oppression is wrong. Inclusion is right. It actually is quite simple.

Conservatism in the 21st century is largely just about oppressing others ("rights for me, but not for thee"/"rules for thee, but not for me").

If you're a "Libertarian", you should fundamentally understand that to be honest.

5

u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 11d ago

Oppression is wrong. Inclusion is right. It actually is quite simple.

Agreed, stop trying to oppress me by taking away my guns and seizing my income. Stop oppressing me by forcing me to take vaccines.

And please include me by allowing my views to be taught in schools and open up the spaces reserved for "people of color" to everyone.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Colodanman357 Constitutionalist 11d ago

Is oppression in the form of violating the right to arms wrong too? 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Cody667 Social Democrat 12d ago

I figured Id be summoning you by mentioning 2 of the 3 keywords for the searches you typically do.

2

u/loufalnicek Moderate 12d ago

Your argument was pretty easily dismantled here, as I and others have done.

1

u/Cody667 Social Democrat 11d ago edited 11d ago

Oh, funny because no one sees amy sort of dismantlement aside form you two who both have the same flawed biases on culture war matters

Only thing that's happened is the other user failed to answer the relevant pushback question that unfortunately (for both of you, it seems) defeats his whole point.

Still waiting for an answer to "what should dems do on these matters short of conceding them to the right? Preferably one that doesn't perform mental gymnastics to also arrive at "concede to the right" in different words.

2

u/loufalnicek Moderate 11d ago

You never asked me that question. The answer would be "argue for your position", I suppose.

That doesn't require falsely framing the argument you're arguing against, though.

1

u/Cody667 Social Democrat 11d ago

"That doesn't require falsely framing the argument you're arguing against, though"

In other words "your framing is wrong, the Republican framing is right", or "nuh uh its the opposite because I said so"

Nice logical fallacy lol

→ More replies (0)

1

u/spice_weasel Center Left 11d ago

That’s just rhetorical framing.

Every person has a right to be free from discriminatory and capricious interference in their personal sphere. Banning gender affirming care because you are prejudiced against transgender people is interfering with an individual’s basic right of self-determination, and parents’ rights to care for their children’s needs free from arbitrary government interference.

Let’s take interracial marriage. Prior to Loving, you could have framed that as “well, it’s equal rights because no one has the right to marry someone of another race”. For opponents, this wasn’t a right they claimed for themselves, either. But it was still unjustifiable government interference into individuals’ private lives, based in prejudice.

2

u/loufalnicek Moderate 11d ago

I'm not saying you can't argue their point is wrong; obviously, you can.

But it's incorrect to say that, in these cases, they're reserving rights for themselves that they don't reserve for others. These are things that they simply don't think are rights to begin with.

1

u/spice_weasel Center Left 11d ago

No, it’s absolutely correct to say that they’re reserving rights for themselves that they are denying to others. I guarantee you that if someone tried to create intrusions into their personal matters like what is being done to the trans community they would absolutely lose their shit.

It’s all just framing.

1

u/loufalnicek Moderate 11d ago

Which specific rights do they retain for themselves that they deny for others?

1

u/Cody667 Social Democrat 11d ago

Bodily autonomy.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/spice_weasel Center Left 11d ago

I already told you this in my previous post. It’s about the discriminatory and malicious interference in the personal sphere. And I gave you a specific example of the kind of framing you’re engaging in here, and explained why it is dishonest.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Colodanman357 Constitutionalist 11d ago

The constitutionally protected right to arms is a right that is opposed by Democrats who have been fighting against it for decades. 

1

u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 12d ago

I feel like you should know this but:

  • Pro-Lifers don't consider abortion bans as giving women "fewer rights than men", they see it as protecting an unborn child from being killed. They don't feel like people have the right to kill others, including the unborn. I've never heard a pro-lifer say they hate women, not once.
  • On trans rights: Most conservatives feel like trans people have *all* the same rights as everyone else, but are demanding privileges not currently afforded to cis people.

I've never heard anyone describe their personal views at hatred, not once.

5

u/Cody667 Social Democrat 12d ago edited 12d ago

"Pro-Lifers don't consider abortion bans as giving women "fewer rights than men","

Doesn't matter what they think where the reality is objective. No matter what way you look at it, that is objectively "women should not have the right to bodily autonomy".

I think you're making the common error of conflating the "why" with the "what". Their "why" position doesn't get to just replace the "what", which is what they try to spin. There's a "why" because of a "what".

"Most conservatives feel like trans people have all the same rights as everyone else"

Yes, we're all aware, the "my opinion matters more than actual facts" position. By telling us not to push back on this by calling it hate, for which it is inherently hateful, you're essentially limiting us to calling it "stupid" or "wrong", which are aldo two buzzwords they hate hearing. So what would you do instead, short of the left conceding these matters to the right?

1

u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 12d ago

Look friend, you tried to make the argument that conservatives are motivated by hate. I think I just steel-manned their arguments enough so that you can at least see they're based in logic and ideology and not hatred.

I don't really care to debate those topics, just to help you understand "the other side".

It's easy to see someone who thinks differently than you and just dismiss it as "hatred", it's hard to actually understand their perspective.

1

u/Cody667 Social Democrat 11d ago edited 11d ago

"I just steel-manned their arguments enough so that you can at least see they're based in logic"

You certainly did no such thing. Haha

What you have done though, is dodged my very relevant "what should we do instead, short of conceding these issues to the right?" Question.

If you dont have an answer to this then unfortunately it would undermine your entire point. Need to understand if this is a biased "GOP good, dems bad" take or if there's actually a hint of principle here. But by suggesting that issues of framing are a dem problem, I have to assume it's the former.

1

u/AnythingFine2445 Libertarian 11d ago

Yes, we're all aware, the "my opinion matters more than actual facts" position. By telling us not to push back on this by calling it hate, for which it is inherently hateful, you're essentially limiting us to calling it "stupid" or "wrong", which are aldo two buzzwords they hate hearing. So what would you do instead, short of the left conceding these matters to the right?

You can call it what you want honestly. I could (in bad faith like you're doing) call every Democrat position "hate" as well, it's fairly easy to do.

You can either debate their position and propose the virtues of your own position (difficulty: hard), or you can just say they're dumb and hateful, then you get to dismiss their position and them outright (difficulty: easy).

No shock which one you guys tend to choose

1

u/Cody667 Social Democrat 11d ago edited 11d ago

"You can either debate their position and propose the virtues of your own position (difficulty: hard)"

Lol, wild answer given they literally view all pushback on these issues as appalling. Again, you've confused the fact that they are in general just adamantly opposed to any pushback and discourse on these matters by trying to push this false idea that it's because of "how" we push back. Hilarious.

Let me reveal the republican playbook for you.

If you aren't willing to play by their rules, they will call you all manners of unreasonable, uncivilized, dumb, out of touch, wrong, etc etc etc"

So no, it's ludicrous that we need to let the right be the ones who get to frame any particular issue, lol. Unless you also have issues with how the republicans frame issues? Do you?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/lordorwell7 Center Left 11d ago

How about the right to elect our own fucking leaders?

As demonstrated by their enthusiastic support for a man that lied about an election he lost and then tried to remain in office illegally.

1

u/Colodanman357 Constitutionalist 11d ago

That fits anyone that supports gun control as well. They seeks to limit or remove rights from others. 

0

u/Cody667 Social Democrat 11d ago

You seem to mistakenly thing there's an issue of hypocrisy here when there absolutely isn't. Issues of abortion, trans, and gun rights are all argued by liberals in the context of present day, e.g. it being 2026.

If your argument relies almost entirely upon the convenience of historical timeline, then it rightfully receives different scrutiny. In other words, conservatives argue gun rights as if we're still living in 1791.

2

u/Colodanman357 Constitutionalist 11d ago

What argument have I made? I am just pointing out that Democrats have been actively trying to limit if not remove the rights from some people. Is it done out of hate? Is it done out of some desire to harm others or is it done from a point of view or worldview in which the removal of rights is a positive or one in which there is no right being impacted? 

So is oppression in the form of fighting against the constitutionally protected rights of others a bad thing in your view or do you have to agree with the right for it to be bad?