this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
45 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10181 readers
198 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 49 points 1 year ago (7 children)

This article has a very weird definition of the word "conservative."

It argues that Democrats working to restore reproductive rights to women is a conservative value, because it's trying to return to the Roe v. Wade detente that existed prior to this Supreme Court. But that ignores the entire history of the conflict, which is that conservatives, traditionalists, and the Religious Right fought long and hard to undo women's access to reproductive rights... against liberals. Now that they've succeeded, they're not suddenly liberals and Democrats are not suddenly conservatives. These words mean something other than pro-status-quo and anti-status-quo, which this author seems to ... not know I guess?

And even if you were somehow to say "Republicans are anti-status-quo and Democrats are pro-status-quo," in what sense are Democrats protecting the current abortion status quo? Improving women's access to reproductive healthcare is an explicit Democrat goal.

You can use exactly the same framing to claim that Democrats are conservative about LGBTQ+ rights because they fight hard to protect and expand existing LGBTQ+ protections. But that's not politically conservative; that's still a liberal goal.

Anyway, strange framing, Atlantic!

[–] buckykat@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Liberalism is a conservative, pro-capitalist ideology

[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even if that's true, that is totally not what the article is saying.

[–] ram@lemmy.ramram.ink 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You mean you read the article before replying about it???

[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 5 points 1 year ago

Sorry, I know that's not Internet etiquette!

load more comments (5 replies)