Jonathan Chait (fuck that guy) uses a familiar tactic to argue that Democrats should throw trans people under the bus. He points out How Progressive Overreach Gave Trump His Favorite Attack Ad, and argues that we should back off on policies that the Republicans don’t like. He wants to use Republican hate ads as a guide to how we ought to present our principles. Trump is currently using all kinds of divisive hate ads to stir up support, and we ought to avoid advocating for the kinds of things that make Trump and his followers angry.
The Trump ad describes an answer Harris gave on an ACLU candidate questionnaire five years ago. (“As President will you use your executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care?” Answer: yes.). I’m sure neither the ACLU nor the Harris staffers who cooperated in this response set out to seed Republican attack ads. Yet a large portion of the work of the progressive nonprofit complex is functionally dedicated to this very outcome. And these kinds of perverse outcomes will continue to occur unless Democrats get wise to the dynamic that continues to produce them.
So reasonable. We need to woo the bigots, so stop alienating the people who hate trans people. Stop standing up for the rights of an oppressed minority because it annoys an oppressive majority. Be more conservative, as if the Democratic party weren’t already a center-right party as it were.
But watch Chait run away from his position: oh my, he’s in favor of trans rights, as long as he isn’t expected to allow them any rights.
The point I’m making here is purely political. I have no moral problem with prisons giving properly run transition care to prisoners who wish to change their sex. I’d also agree that Trump is exploiting the issue in a way designed to spread hatred against all transgender people, rather than to question one small program. (It is so small, indeed, that it went on throughout Trump’s presidency without Trump noticing or caring.) The issue is that political candidates need to think practically about the existing electorate, and the progressive movement is currently designed to ignore pragmatism.
Trump is “exploiting the issue in a way designed to spread hatred against all transgender people,” but don’t you dare support that issue. That’s not pragmatic. It might be a life-or-death issue for trans people, but maybe the Democrats ought to pragmatically allow them to die? For a few more votes from people who want them to suffer and die?
It’s not just trans rights. Chait is unhappy because absolutists on a whole host of issues don’t like the compromises he is willing to make, and oh boy, but Chait is eager to write criticisms of trans people and unions and climate activists, he’d sure like them to sit down and shut up, all in the name of pragmatism.
The groups in the coalition increasingly tend to define agreement with their cause in maximal terms. If you support equality and respect for trans people, but question, say, medicalizing young people, you’re anti-trans. If you support labor unions but oppose some positions they advocate, you’re a scab. Climate activists increasingly use the term “climate denier,” once reserved for those who refuse to accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming, for any skeptic of any element of their preferred remedies. The rampant absolutism makes it difficult to acknowledge even the possibility that there are political risks attached to going too far in agreement with the movement.
Only an idiot would refuse to recognize that taking new, bold positions is going to involve political risks. That’s the whole point! You’ll never make any progress if you only support the “safe” position.
I don’t think Chait’s position is pragmatic at all. I call it chickenshittery.
Hey, Jonathan, rather than always complaining about sane, moderate, humane positions that a politician takes on trans issues, why aren’t you focusing on the mad, cruel, pointless bigotries that their opponents trumpet loudly? Do you think that hating gay and trans people, or union-busting, or ignoring climate change are pragmatic policies that we ought to let stand, quietly?
Buk buk buk buKAW.
Chait is also spreading chickenshit of his own. Nobody gets called a scab just for opposing unions. It’s a very specific term.
Is there really any reason to continue reading op-eds and think pieces? They seem to come in one of three forms: chickenshit, bullshit, or plain obvious.
You might call this approach “regression to the meanest”.
How ridiculous. You will never go low enough for some people. There are actually Americans who think we should reinstitute slavery, and if you’re in prison you may well be working as a slave already…looking at you Mississippi, et al. So should political candidates not condemn slavery because someone might be offended and not vote for the “liberal” candidate…someone who will be offended anyway and not vote for a “liberal” candidate no matter what.
Instead of setting the bar lower, let’s go higher. Let’s have medical insurance and home owners insurance provided as a public service, and get rid of profiteering off people’s disasters.
Chait is such a worthless PoS.
@Walter Solomon:
Is there some implied limiter there? I mean, we’re reading a think piece by PZ in which he’s expressing his view of what politics should be. Similarly, I write think pieces fairly frequently.
Are you talking ONLY about op/eds or think pieces in specific publications?
Alan: “I want to skin all puppies alive!”
Blayne: “That’s horrible, I’m opposing that!”
Ted: “Bit extreme there, Blayne! You might upset Alan and he could use your intolerant position against you. How about you just join Alan and skin puppies yourself?”
The most frustrating thing about fuck heads like this is the fact that they are both wrong and lost of “resonable” democrats take this kind of mental diarrhea seriously. The fact is that trans rights are broadly popular and transphobia is a losing message. Instead of leaning into it though and using this ss an opportunity to educate and build a stronger coalition the democrats run away from it, gaining zero conservative voters and at the least demoralize people in their coalition. The refusal to fight back also makes you look weak and wimpy. Like you can be both aggressive and pro social, it doesn’t have to be wimpy kumbaya shit. As a trans woman I am frankly disgusted by how so many “allies” have proven to be complete cowards on this issue, when with even a tiny bit of creativity trans rights could be a strong asset, especially in light of the Caliente of roe and the question of bodily autonomy. In short thank you PZ for remaining principled and outspoken. <3
That’s supposed to be salience not Caliente.
Usually when I make arguments similar to PZ’s to liberals, I get called a “purity leftist” and told I must want Trump to win.
@crimsonsage 7
That’s a good point about the refusal to fight and the cowardice.
In a political argument space Chait would be one of the ones going after me for tone and severity instead of our supposed political opponents. I’d tell him the same as everyone else. When I see him going after my political opponents I’ll consider dropping certain rhetorical weapons.
He can make the problem a general political issue and show me he can be even handed and then he’ll be a legitimate political obstacle I’d have to take seriously.
And lots of the language is probably just accurate. Kinds of bigotry and their expression, ignorance, incompetence, irrationality, illogic…
Chait has to fight for the world where we can do this smiling and cheerful.
And caliente is salient technically.
IIRC, Chait started his professional career covering Clinton. Clinton won big by triangulating to the right and bashing hippies. Chait apparently convinced himself that was the only way for Democrats to win.
It’s that bit about “medicalizing children” that makes me think that he isn’t being honest in his attempts to frame this as a matter of tactics to win elections. He’s using it as a threat to try to pry Democrats to the right. It’s not that he’s afraid that treating trans people with decency would be politically inconvenient, I don’t think he wants people do it and he’s choosing to focus on kids because he thinks trans kids are the most vulnerable. He may be right.
I’ve seen these people before. They’re everywhere online, pretending to be arguing in support of Democrats but taking every possible argument against any kind of support for trans people. I’m not saying that all Democrats support trans people, but it always comes off as disingenuous to me. They try to paint this as if the Democratic party suddenly became focused on trans rights when the truth is Republicans suddenly became focused on attacking trans people after they lost the fight to stop same-sex marriage. It doesn’t have to be your agenda of choice, you just have to be a decent person to realize that what they’re doing is wrong and to stand up against it. And when that happens and some people choose to stand up instead and pretend to ring their hands about how that might be an inconvenient position to take, I don’t believe them. I see anti-trans activists behind the keyboards who realize that they’re losing the culture war.
“And caliente is salient technically.”
Nope.
One means ‘hot’ in Spanish, the other means “stands out” in English.
—
I see CD beat me to the irony of Walter’s comment above.
(Also, it was a silly rhetorical question; obvs, one reads those things to find out others’ opinion and thus be informed)
—
I see the citation is from NYMag, which is ranked as very leftish: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-magazine
(In an USAnian context, of course)
Heat is salient.
Comparing Chait’s behavior to chickens is an insult to a noble and upstanding animal, by which I mean the chicken.
Crip Dyke @5
Yes. Any publication that charges you for the privilege of reading their columns. I don’t know if you charge or not, but PZ certainly doesn’t.
Walter, I read that referenced column by clicking on the link provided in the OP.
No charge for the privilege.
felixd, the comparison is to chickenshit, not to chickens.