Termite’s new team and ‘extreme views’

That ‘Termite’ is deciding he’s more at home in the ALGOP, welcomed in with the usual fanfare, seems about right to me. A Washington County, Alabama County Commissioner deciding he wants to run for office on one team instead of the other isn’t all that notable. What a party official working her way through the cadre to her current position had to say neither means much. How Brandon Moseley closed his Alabama Political Reporter piece covering this at the end of last week is what caught my eye.

The national Democratic Party’s extreme views in favor of gay marriage, transgenders in public schools, opposing school prayer, opposing Second Amendment rights, in support of socialism, and pro-abortion views, etc. have made done much to damage the viability of Democrats across Alabama.

Extreme views? Slipping that opinion or analysis into what is supposedly meant to be a straight news piece aside, I’m questioning the premise. I’ll try to take what Brandon put down in order but will drop in my additional commentary. I’d want the chance to clean it up should anyone wish to use it. Link away, of course, but know that I generally approach blogging as a ‘first draft’ form.

Please feel free to drop a comment in – especially if you think I’m wrong about some assertion. That offered, I’m not all that interested in ‘because God said at verse ___’ stuff. I’m mostly a heathen and yet do value most religious or spiritual perspectives. However, I almost always find fundamentalism, from any tradition, frustrating. I might post such a comment, but I may ignore it.

For the record and just in case anyone cares, I don’t identify necessarily as a ‘Democrat.’ I’m post-partisan or nearly so. A good portion of my shift relates to the frustration I feel with Alabama’s ‘leadership’ but also the DNC. As a radical with a mix of traditions influencing my political thought, my focus is less on elections and more about movements. Among those traditions is some old-school conservatism. Most of today’s ‘conservatives’ seem to be often operating opposite from Russell Kirk’s ‘Ten Conservative Principles.’

And I’m just a guy with a keyboard who tries his best to read and think a little. It’s been years since I was involved with any group, even really an informal effort, and I’ve never been paid one thin dime to do any politics or advocacy work in or near Alabama. So I’m doing this post for no purpose other than just trying to advance an alternative, hopefully correct or close enough, perspective. Here we go —

Brandon’s sentence started “The national Democratic Party’s extreme views in favor of …” and I’ll generally apply it to every ‘issue’ or group he raised.

While Alabama might still be behind the rest of the nation as to support for same-sex marriage, I expect our younger folks fall in line, or nearly so, with the rest of the nation. The ‘Roy Moore’ faction is aging with young people identifying with either party being nearly on the same page.

For me, I’ve always looked at the above as just how people get treated under the law. I also don’t see how anyone’s ‘traditional marriage’ is threatened by a same-sex couple getting hitched – especially when there are so many other problems families face.

Why these ‘family values’ types so rarely, if ever, rant about the grind of late capitalism or talk up any old-school populism suggests to me they’re selective in their concern. Mom or Dad having to work like two Trojans, survive swing shifts, deal with precarity, worry about getting bills covered, seem far more damaging than whether ‘Steve and Maurice’ now have the same situation under our laws as other couples do.

And I’d also like to see it where neither Steve or Maurice or anyone else can be fired or discriminated against because of their sexuality. I’m not sure that I’d be the ‘extremist’ in holding such a view.

Regarding “transgenders in schools” in Brandon’s close, I felt somewhat like I needed to read between his/their lines. I used ‘their’ because Brandon is a long-time presence at APR who churns out this sort of copy routinely.

First, I noticed how he/they used ‘transgenders’ in writing. ‘Transgender’ is, I believe, always an adjective. To use it as a noun, especially plural and as to children or teens, seems off. Every style book I checked advises against writing and running that sort of thing.

People who may feel like they don’t fit the gender binary may now feel like they can be more open about this tension or social construct. Still, they’ve always been around. While growing up in rural Alabama in the mid-1970s through the early 1980s, I knew people somewhat pushing up against gender or sexuality expectations. It’s just now that people are sometimes given at least a little more room to be who they are. I think that’s something to welcome.

And yes, I get it that most folks have one of two types of ‘parts.’ That’s sex. Variances occur, however. Gender is something else. What that else is, as I understand it, requires too many keystrokes than I want to use right now. For the short answer, gender is a social construction. And there’s some more visible ‘reconstruction’ or ‘expansion’ of what gender means that’s occurring among more and more members of our society.

The question it seems to me, whether you identify with or try to ignore our two dominant political tribes, is how to navigate current and emerging conditions or tensions. It’s going to be a bit bumpy at times – for at least some people. But ought we now focus on trying to smooth it over for those most affected? Be kind and decent! Love these kids and protect them when possible.

I’ve been ‘in the trenches’ at several schools and understand that all of this might be just one more challenge to handle. I believe that whatever may arise, it’ll be way less burdensome than what’s been pushed down by know-it-all ‘reformer’ politicians and other dabblers. Most schools (or other public places) can probably be left alone to figure things out. Then again, there may indeed be a need for policy to be handed down and for the courts to provide some guidance.

The problem with getting any guidance handed down is that so much of politics now is about posturing. I’d submit that the vast majority of nearly every problem in the body politic is with the devolution of the GOP over recent decades. The modern GOP and ‘movement conservatism’ seems so bent up that I’m not sure there’s much to salvage. In the meantime, however, where things are inside that party and its aligned efforts matter to us all. Their rot is paralyzing policy and worse.

Since sorting out ‘transgender’ questions undeniably provides new ‘culture war’ ammunition, there will be little incentive for Congress to reason out a path forward. Not only does the ‘culture war’ play a role in delivering and dividing voters, but some powerful interests may prefer those issues be the focus instead of economic considerations.

Some statehouses will act, to the good or ghoulish, so a need for federal policy could arise. GOP politics has become so nationalized around what various ‘Mighty Wurlitzer’ outlets focus on that I’m not that hopeful for any good-faith policy-making. I’ll have more to offer on the courts later.

This issue about moving past a gender binary that everybody must follow is a way to shift off some of the opposition to same-sex marriage yet retain some of those themes. Since more and more people aren’t all that worried about same-sex couples being able to marry, there’s perhaps a need to now refocus some of the modern GOP’s ‘foot soldiers’ onto other threats. That offered, I do think there’s authentic angst among some citizens about what these changes mean.

For instance, some people I read will write of concerns about how traditional gender roles or familial patterns flow out of deep or old traditions that are essentially natural. While there may be something to that, at least as to the majority of people, I also understand there’s been variance across time and in nature. And again, I think there’s far more danger to families and humanity in general from other conditions.

On prayer in schools, the establishment clause controls as to anything official or directed down. The free exercise clause protects students and employees from unreasonable restrictions.

Brandon’s ‘opposing’ probably would benefit from some additional research, but I’ll pass. I don’t think he’s on solid ground. Teachers, students, custodians … can pray in school. Where the constitutional quandary starts is when there’s an official, directed down, encouraged … prayer. I suppose there’s something there to Brandon’s use of ‘oppose’ since the modern GOP certainly has used the school prayer decisions starting back in 1962. However, it’s perhaps more about perspective than policy. In a pluralistic society, it’s always seemed to me that the best answer is to maintain a separation of church and state. If it’s ‘extreme’ to believe that, count me in.

And while using ‘religious right’ or ‘values voters’ has been good to the GOP for some time, I’m not so sure that’ll hold. Even here in Alabama, demographics and some realignment may soon be driving at least a modest shift.

Regarding any ‘extreme views” on “Second Amendment rights” that Mr. Moseley is referencing, those hanging out there on the absolute and unrestricted might be the outliers. Much of the polling depends on the questions, but the qualitative research I’ve read and just talking with people suggests there’s wide agreement on some basics. I’ve read numerous news pieces and other articles which seem to point toward at least a fair amount of consensus. I could write a long explanation of where I currently stand on this issue. Like perhaps many people’s positions, there’s a fair amount of ‘It depends.’

Brandon’s “support of socialism” is the silliest thing he wrote. Inside the Democratic Party, there’s been next to none of this until just recently among any bloc or the rank-and-file. Even now, it’s limited. Among leadership, there’s still no ‘support for socialism.’ Bernie, who I back in the past and current primary -I’ve been a fan of for many years, is an independent. I’ve been doing a critique of capitalism, to at least some degree, for a decade or more. And I’ve been sympathetic to socialism, at least aspects of what Marx and similar voices wrote since I first read some of that stuff ages ago. “Support of socialism” isn’t there.

The only ‘support for socialism’ I can think of are things like highways or ‘defense’ spending or Social Security or Medicare or stuff like that. They’re all rather popular across both parties. Politicians routinely brag over bringing home money for these things or shoring up these programs. And don’t get me started about agriculture policy! Even as to something like ‘Medicare for All’ in the health care policy realm, the US is the outlier compared to other similar nations.

Regarding abortion, I’m not so sure where the ‘extreme’ party fits. Every time it seems that I read something from some ‘pro-life’ source about how ‘extreme’ something is, once I dig into the claims I’ll see there’s more to the story or at least alternative interpretations. Even here in Alabama, I’m not so sure polling or especially qualitative research would be all that kind to what ‘our’ more vocal politicians say and do. Alabama’s new ‘Human Life Protection Act’ seems rather extreme, for instance.

Like the specific questions around gun control, many people hold an ‘it depends’ position on abortion. There’s a difference between the two dominant parties, and yet the question of where ‘extreme’ applies ought not to be assumed.

The courts are, unfortunately, now another site for wielding power and motivating the electorate. You’re naïve or worse to deny that there’s a powerful element in the ‘conservative’ world that doesn’t see value in keep judicial branch picks focused on issues like abortion or ‘religious freedom.’

Regarding what’s “done much to damage the viability of Democrats across Alabama” in that APR piece, I do not doubt that politics around those questions have hurt the prospects for Democrats running. I’d argue there are more factors involved, however. On some of the above, especially abortion and the old questions, past ‘leadership’ here in Alabama seemed to often adopt a ‘ConservaDem’ or ‘Republican Lite’ approach. And on the national level, there’s still seemingly way more room under the tent for variety in one tribe than the other.

What’s also seemed common is to leave unchallenged the pictures being painted for Alabama’s citizens by members of the opposition party. Among the ALGOP and in Alabama’s business, tourism … community, I expect there is a sizable population who would like to see the opposition party step up in hopes such could reel in some of the more ‘enthusiastic’ culture warriors.

That’s it. Or enough. Perhaps too much. Again, I view this as a ‘first draft’ and could certainly tighten it up given the need. Please do let me know where I might’ve missed the mark.