I totally forgot that I have blog.
Can someone explain something to me? A huge chunk of the 47% Romney is complaining about (the ones who aren’t, say, combat veterans, retired seniors or students), are low-wage earners who, thanks to Reagan-era tax reform, don’t make enough to qualify for federal income tax. But if Mitt and Company had their way, unions would go away and, rather than ship jobs and factories overseas, CEOs could create millions of low-wage manufacturing jobs here in America. Sound reasonable? Here’s the catch: Millions of these low-wage jobholders would, surprise surprise, not earn enough to pay federal income taxes, and would likely need some government assistance. Catch, meet 22.
Now admittedly, I’m no economist, but I just don’t understand the logic. Corporate America’s dream scenario (that America’s workforce look more like Malaysia’s), would actually make Mitt’s maligned 47% soar to, say, 70%. And I’m pretty sure that 70% wouldn’t gravitate to a party who thinks they ought to take their tiny untaxed salary and shove it.
The corporate wing of the GOP seemingly wants us to work longer and harder for a barely-livable wage AND receive no government assistance. How’s that gonna work? Okay, well, maybe we’ll just have fewer children. What’s that you say? Not a fan of birth control? Man, you GOPers really want to throw up roadblocks to prosperity, don’tcha?
In reality, rather than reduce dependency on government, the GOP’s wage slashing fetish would increase it drastically. The cure is not just to create jobs, but to create good, desirable, decent-paying jobs that create new taxpayers; taxpayers who won’t need to rely on social programs to make ends meet; taxpayers who can provide for their families and afford health care premiums and save for retirement; taxpayers who can contribute to the social safety net for those who still need a helping hand.
In short, I’m pretty sure the government won’t need to bail you out if you’re making enough at your job to provide for yourself and your family. It’s these jobs unions fight for and it’s these jobs Mitt Romney and his ilk think are too pricy for corporate America to afford. In order to compete with China, they think you ought to be willing to earn just as little as a Chinese citizen - but still pay for everything in America yourself. And if you can’t, you’re hopeless and will never be convinced to take responsibility for your own care.
The point, however, is to create a consumer base that can actually afford to buy the goods it’s manufacturing. If Mitt Romney and his friends really love America, they’d practice a little economic patriotism, and create better-paying jobs here in America even if it costs more. The move from grotesque profits to merely fantastic might actually be the rising tide that lifts all boats. If corporate America would stop whining that American labor is too expensive, maybe we’d actually have the more self-sufficient country Mitt Romney is pining for.
As it is, he and his fellow corporatists long to create instead a vast army of low-paid worker-bee automatons who, by definition, would join the very ranks of the dependent poor who madden him so. How does that make sense?
Barack Obama did something extraordinary tonight that I’m pretty sure is unprecedented, and I don’t want it to go unnoticed. Three times, in a major party convention nomination speech, the accepting candidate specifically stuck up for gay Americans. There was a reference to the government not telling you who you can marry, there was a shout out to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and “gays” prominently concluded his list of people and things that should not be blamed for the ills of the country.
It was only a few short years ago that the support of equal rights for the LGBT community was the Democrats’ dirty little secret, maybe in the platform, but rarely vigorously defended, and Republicans successfully exploited that support as a wedge issue to divide Americans. Tonight, the American president included it in his rhetoric - in perhaps the most important speech of his political career - as a means to unite us.
This is a testament to Obama’s character and political courage, but also - and perhaps even more so - to just how far the American public has come in a short period of time. It is largely because of how we have evolved as a nation, that the Democratic party and its standard bearer can wear its support of the gay community as a badge of honor and not risk losing a national election. In fact, not supporting equality is likely to harm politicians now, more than help.
This is not just amazing progress - it’s quite literally what change looks like.
Conservatives have a storied history of fighting fantastic government programs tooth-and-nail, and then adopting them as their own once they prove successful and popular. One need look no further than the pitched battles over Social Security and Medicare. Without liberals, neither of these valuable social safety nets would exist. At the time of their creation, conservatives railed against them as the death knell of freedom and democracy. Then, generations later, the same party that warned that those programs would lead to a socialist dictatorship, defends them - or pretends to - as if it had given birth to them. The GOP counts on the general amnesia of the populace, and generally gets it. It amazes me that just a few decades removed from the creation of the safety net they opposed, Republicans can dupe voters into believing that they are the party that should be entrusted with protecting it. I have no doubt that in twenty years time, Republicans will drop the “Obama” from the “care” and behave as though health insurance reform was their idea all along.
Well the same goes for the middle class. Republicans talk a lot about the middle class. You’d think defending it was near-and-dear to their hearts. But the middle class was created by the labor movement. Without union activism - which was, and continues to be strongly opposed by American conservatism - there would still be only two classes in America, wildly wealthy business owners and wage earners. And those wages would be tragically low. Codified protections would be almost nil. Working conditions would be sub-human. Because that’s exactly the way life was before the labor movement kicked ass.
Corporations object that unions, by demanding that the American worker have better wages and benefits than anywhere else on Earth, are actually job killers - and then, to prove it, they ship those jobs to everywhere else on Earth. Rather than celebrate and participate in a system that is able to make huge profits and create terrific, high-paying jobs that would lift all boats and strengthen our economy, these “patriotic” Americans quite literally say “We would rather America look like the developing nations where we move our factories. Cheap labor, no protections. And until it does, see ya.”
When you hear a corporate exec say “It’s too expensive to keep our business in America,” they are admitting that they have no interest in sacrificing a percentage of their profits to make sure America is the greatest country on Earth in which to be employed, with the finest standard of living. They are frustrated that they are not allowed to exploit American workers in order to create millions of shit jobs. They are pissed off that American workers should be able to live so well at the expense of their bottom line. They openly pine for an America that looks like a Third World Nation.
But the unions would and will have none of it. Unions fought tirelessly - and often with their lives - for 8 hours work days, and weekends, and a minimum wage, and overtime, and sick leave, and pensions, and health care coverage, and holidays, and workplace safety - all of the perks the modern American worker takes for granted. Corporations did everything within their power, including murder, to prevent American workers from winning these protections. And they continue to try and undermine unions and their hard-won gains at every turn.
Conservatism has consistently opposed American workers vastly improving their lot in life - essentially done everything it could muster to prevent the existence of a middle class - and yet the Republican party swears up-and-down that they are the party best suited to protect and defend middle class interests. It’s insulting to even the most humble intelligence.
It’s a matter of simple logic: The labor movement created the middle class, and Republicans want to beat back the labor movement. So why on Earth would you trust Republicans to protect a middle class that, if it were up to them, never would have existed in the first place?
The time has come,
The time is now.
Just go, go, go!
I don’t care how.
You can go by foot.
You can go by cow.
W. Todd Akin,
will you please go now!
You can go on skates,
you can go on skis.
You can go in a hat.
But please, go please!
I don’t care.
You can go by bike.
You can go on a Zike-Bike
if you like.
If you like, you can go,
in an old blue shoe,
Just go, go go!
Please do, do, do!
W. Todd Akin,
I don’t care how.
W. Todd Akin,
will you please go now?
You can go on stilts,
You can go by fish.
You can go in a Crunk-Car
if you wish.
If you wish you may go
by lion’s tail
Or stamp yourself
and go by mail.
W. Todd Akin!
Don’t you know
the time has come,
so GO, GO, GO!
Get on your way!
Please, Todd A!
You might like going
in a Zumble-Zay!
You can go by balloon…or broomstick.
OR you can go by camel in a bureau drawer.
You can go by bumble boat…or jet…
I don’t care how you go, just GET!
Get yourself a Ga-Zoom.
You can go with a….BOOM!
Todd, Todd, Todd
Will you leave this room!
W. Todd Akin, I don’t care HOW!
W. Todd Akin, will you please GO NOW!
There are two schools of thought when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Conservatives tend to favor what is known as “constructionism.” Strict constructionists argue that there should be no reading of the document other than that which reflects the unerring intent of the original framers. Never mind that there’s no particular reason for considering the 55 politicians who drafted the document, or the 39 who signed it, to have been wholly infallible; never mind that the framers themselves were often wildly at odds with each other; never mind that they couldn’t possibly have envisioned the various issues that might crop up in future generations.
Despite all of this, the rigidly doctrinaire constructionist crowd doesn’t believe you have, say, a constitutional right to privacy, if those specific words weren’t written down in the original document or in one of its many ratified amendments. Liberals tend to be more “developmentalist,” viewing the Constitution as a living, breathing document, the specific clauses of which can be interpreted more widely in light of modern legal dilemmas which were unforeseen at the time of its 1787 adoption—or as Chief Justice Earl Warren put it, “The evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
It would be hard to argue that the framers wouldn’t eventually have come to a consensus on issues such as privacy, or reproductive rights, had those been 18th century concerns, but that is exactly how constructionists—or their only marginally more open-minded cousins, originalists—expect us to behave; if it didn’t exist then we must pretend it doesn’t now. This progress-hindering position is complicated by the existence of the Ninth Amendment, which states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Meaning just because the document doesn’t specifically grant that aforementioned right to privacy, doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. In fact, this language was specifically added by those fabulous, supposedly fault-free framers to prevent die-hard constructionists from later attempting to apply the maxim “Expressio unius exclusio alterius” (“The express mention of one thing excludes all others”). So when a conservative protests “Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to an abortion?”, one could quite reasonably point to the Ninth Amendment and say “Where does it say I don’t?”
The constructionist argument is further complicated by the fact that the original framers’ specific intentions are, by definition, open to interpretation (which essentially is the difference between a constructionist and an originalist, the latter of whom will at least acknowledge some wiggle room). Whereas a constructionist wants a strict reading of original intent, an originalist will claim to want a reasonable one; both, however, demand adherence to what they see as the specific designs of the framers, frozen in time in 1787. Or at least they pretend to. As University of Tennessee College of Law Professor Thomas Davies has written about the Court’s current conservative majority:
“As practiced in the Supreme Court, originalism is merely a rhetorical pretense under which justices justify their personal predilections by falsely claiming fidelity to historical meaning, while actually ignoring or altering the historical meaning.”
In other words, conservative judicial activism. Despite the many problems with the “framers’ intent” position, both in theory and praxis, it has become a Republican shibboleth. As far as the right is concerned, (alleged) fidelity to historical meaning is the overriding concern of Constitutional interpretation.
Which brings us to the Bible. Yes, the Bible. The Bible may be the only document that many über-conservatives will assert that they value more than the U.S. Constitution. When George W. Bush was asked at a 1999 GOP presidential debate in Des Moines who his favorite political philosopher was, he didn’t say, for example, “Thomas Jefferson,” a Founder and early proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. Instead, he answered “Jesus.” Several of the other GOP hopefuls then fell over themselves to agree with the choice. Left unexamined was the fact that from a political standpoint, Jesus was a die-hard liberal who preached nothing if not pacifism and the kind of social and economic justice lamented by many modern conservatives, such as newly-minted vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, a devotee of the godless objectivist Ayn Rand. Jesus was also an anti-money demagogue who routinely demonized the wealthiest among us. So why the philosophical incoherence?
When it comes to the Bible, you would think that these same conservatives—for whom “original intent” is the whole ball of constitutional wax—would insist on a close reading to glean its “framers’ intent,” and that they would then behave accordingly. Well, not so much. Which is a funny thing. Because even more than the Constitution, the intent of the language in both the Old Testament and New is remarkably, inarguably clear.
“Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.” - Exodus, 35:2
A strict constructionist, or even an originalist like Antonin Scalia, would have to maintain that the framers’ intent was that anyone working on the Sabbath be put to death. A developmentalist like Earl Warren, however, would argue that modern mores lead us to a new conclusion, perhaps only that one should honor the Sabbath as a day of rest. It is this “interpretation” that we as a society now widely accept. Score one for the activist liberals.
“Do not wear garments woven from two types of thread… do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard… if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, do not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and you shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” All followed by the admonition “Keep all of my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the Lord.” - Leviticus, 19:19, 19:27, 19:33 and 19:37
God’s intent in Leviticus 19 is not really open for interpretation: a modern adherent must be staunchly pro immigrant and be so while never getting a hair cut or, as the famed Letter To Dr. Laura cleverly notes, wearing a cotten/polyester blend. Doesn’t exactly sound like Clarence Thomas, does it? And yet Thomas is an originalist whose entire legal world view, like most conservatives, is all about framers’ intent. I don’t get it. Isn’t God the original Founding Father?
Some would quibble that I’m talking Old Testament, and there’s a New One. So here are just a few things Jesus and his disciples said about money and wealth:
“Jesus said unto him, if thou wilt be perfect go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” - Matthew 19:21-22
“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” - Matthew 6:24
“People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil… but you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.” - Timothy 6:4-12
“Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.” - James 5:1-3
“Then Jesus said to his disciples, “It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” - Matthew 19:23-2
And, of course, the biggie:
“Then He will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” - Matthew 25:31-46
How must an originalist view these biblical admonitions? There is only one obvious answer: Jesus was a passionate advocate for the poor, distrustful of the wealthy, and if you don’t look out for the needy, the sick, the homeless, even the prisoner… you’re going straight to Hell. Yet the GOP seemingly has no problem calling for Christians of all stripes to ignore Jesus’ clear words in favor of a modern, relativist reading of the Bible more attuned to our present day, evolved needs and beliefs.
American conservatism has bastardized the New Testament’s original lessons so drastically that there is now even a Prosperity Gospel, propounded by the likes of Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen, which goes as far as to argue that Jesus blesses his believers which riches; gifts of health and wealth to which they, as his faithful followers, are clearly entitled. No matter that this flies in the face of an originalist reading of Christ’s own words. This is exactly the sort of “creative interpretation” of the Bible that conservatives rail against with the Constitution… and yet when it comes to their own most sacred text, such an über-liberal view is de rigueur.
The questions scream to be asked: How is it that to a conservative mind, what is supposedly the literal, unerring Word of God is open for miles wide interpretation, but the creation of 55 warring politicians must be narrowly defined as if it were the unerring Word of God? How can they believe that the framers were perfectly clear when they were vague but that their Lord and Savior needs an army of interpreters when he was perfectly clear? God is not infallible… but some liberal lawyer named Rufus is?
I guess this leads to one inexorable conclusion: Either progressives have been right all along to employ a broader interpretation of the Constitution—one that, like the GOP’s modern view of the Bible, evolves along with society—or conservatives give infinitely more credit to the Founding Fathers than they do their Heavenly Father.
Listen, I know it’s just politics, but I can’t help but become sickened and furious: Mitt Romney, of all people, making a stink about “welfare queens.”
First of all, as much as he wants to channel Ronald Reagan, it ain’t happening. This isn’t 1980, and he doesn’t have the charisma; further, that was Reagan at his petty, demagogic worst.
But beyond that, Romney is a supposedly pious man worth hundreds of millions of dollars who is outraged that there are desperately poor women in America who need a helping hand. Does he not see how gross that is? Worse, he’s a man who believes in rigging the tax code to benefit families like his who are already fantastically wealthy, draining the U.S. Treasury in the process. But it’s not okay to take far, far less from the treasury to help the least among us? What kind of church elder thinks this way? What kind of human being does?
Finally, and not for nothing, these so-called “welfare queens” are by and large women who didn’t get abortions, women who actually had the babies the Republican party platform insists must be born at all costs. At all costs, that is, except the relative pittance we spend on assistance programs for the poor. So basically, the GOP believes their precious “limited government” should be able to invade your freedom and your privacy to mandate that you carry a baby to term if you’re pregnant, but that it’s absolutely out-of-bounds and worthy of outrage for that same government to then assist you if you choose life. Helping these moms is so terrible, in fact, that it must be elevated to the level of a national presidential campaign. Ask yourself what Romney isn’t talking about in favor of this pressing issue.
I believe you can judge a man, and assess his agenda, based on who he chooses to demonize and who he lays off. Is Mitt Romney taking on tax cheats (hardly), Wall Street con artists, irresponsible lenders? Is he angry at any of the bad actors who almost sent us headlong into an Even Greater Depression? Not a peep. No, to Romney’s mind, it’s these scheming, evil “welfare moms” scrounging to feed their dirty urchins on the backs of the rest of us who are really wrecking the country.
He probably doesn’t even mean it. He likely just sees a political opportunity; a way to play to pernicious stereotypes about minorities and the poor to paint his opponent as being pro-laziness and anti-hard work. It’s clear from Obama’s life story that nothing could be further from the truth, but Romney is dealing with a GOP base that has literally come out against critical thinking, so that shouldn’t matter much. More important for Mitt, it plays instead into a broader narrative about Democrats in general that many in the middle are unfortunately quick to subscribe to. Let’s hope the center, too, hasn’t abandoned critical thinking and sees Romney’s craven attacks for what they are:
Vile. Disgusting. Shameful. Cynical. Antithetical to his stated religious values. And not a little insane.
My parents worked hard all their lives–-my mom as a schoolteacher and my dad as a probation officer. They were productive members of society, they played by the rules, and paid their fair share of taxes—no loopholes, no offshore shelters.
In the past few years, my mom has had numerous major surgeries and has had some of the best medical care in the world. It has been paid for almost entirely by Medicare and we’ve never seen a bill.
My parents were not freeloaders. They paid into this system all of their adult lives and now my mom is reaping the benefits. That is exactly how it should be. Anyone who would criticize the existence of programs like Medicare to take care of our seniors has completely lost their humanity. Without Medicare, my mom wouldn’t be alive. Despite the fact that she spent her whole life educating children on society’s behalf and paying every dime that was asked of her, in her retirement she never would’ve been able to afford life-saving surgeries or medicines. Thank God for Medicare, yes, but she earned it, goddamnit. This is not a gift from society. This is not charity. This is fucking hers. And fuck you if you would take it away from her.
So when I hear overly-privileged, wealthy-beyond-imagining politicians who twist themselves into pretzels to deprive the U.S. Treasury of revenues talk about an “entitlement crisis,” it rightly infuriates me. We don’t have an entitlement crisis, we have a morality crisis. And they are moral slugs, these low-lifes, and they live in dark places, surviving only by covering themselves in protective slime.
My mom is, as I write this, being weaned off a breathing tube. I can’t wait for her to regain her voice. She’s 76 years old, and her body may be breaking down, but her voice is a strong one. And thanks in large part to a Medicare system that her taxes (and mine, and yours) have supported, it will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
Her name is Lois Carl, and I testify here on her behalf. She deserves every last dime that’s being spent on her. She is more important than war. She is more important than a tax cut. She is more important than debt.
A world without women like my mother? That’s the only deficit I worry about.
I find it thoroughly entertaining—and equally maddening—to listen to conservatives freaking out about John Roberts in the wake of SCOTUS’ 5-4 ruling affirming the constitutionality of Obamacare.
The American right despises Roberts today for actually being the very thing they claim they want all judges to be: an impartial arbiter, not an activist, who followed the law where it took him, and who didn’t allow his personal political beliefs to guide his decision; above all, a judge who practiced “judicial restraint.” Roberts was, at long last, the embodiment of the conservative jurisprudent ideal, and they loathe him for it. There is no greater irony.
Conservatives tacitly admitted today, through their whining, temper tantrums, over-heated rhetoric, and foot-stamping pique, that what they really want, have always wanted, is a rubber stamp conservative activist—one who always rules for their side no matter what. Does the right truly believe that an impartial judge, simply calling balls-and-strikes (to borrow Roberts’ own terrible analogy), will always find for them? Do they honestly think that liberals only throw balls and conservatives only throw strikes and they should forever go undefeated? That no progressive law could ever pass constitutional muster? Some might, but they’re the crazies. Others, especially the professionals, know better—but intellectual honesty and consistency has never been the hallmark of conservative politics.
Roberts today was the Roberts he promised to be in his confirmation hearings: a non-activist who called it as he saw it and who gave Congress wide deference. Yet judging by his own party’s breathless criticism, you would think he was the reincarnation of Thurgood Marshall.
Roberts’ majority opinion was a thoroughly sound one. He made it clear that he was not endorsing the law, or claiming the policy to be good. In fact, it might stink to high heaven. But elections have consequences, and if you don’t like the law, throw the bums out who enacted it; it is up to the People, not the Court, to invalidate the law. The Court could only intervene if the Act, or part, were unconstitutional. The law in this case, specifically the mandate at its core, said the head of the officiating crew, caught the outside corner of the constitutional strike zone. It was a contested call, to be sure, and it needed instant replay, but the umpiring crew got together and they got this one right.
Just once I’d like to hear right wing pundits and politicians say something akin to, “Yep—it was the right call. It’s a terrible law, and I hope it gets gutted someday, but it was well within the right of Congress to pass it, and the President to sign it, and the Court properly executed its responsibilities. Now let’s go punish the bastards who shoved this awful legislation down our throats!” I wouldn’t agree with the sentiment, but I would agree with the tactics. Because at least there would be some ideological consistency and blatant hypocrisy wouldn’t rule the day.
It’s entirely fair to pick a side and then cheer relentlessly for your team. And it’s okay to be upset, even miserable, when you lose. But even Yankees fans sometimes acknowledge when they’re beaten by Red Sox pitching. Yes, even when their star slugger is frozen by a nasty curve ball and it’s a pitch that ends the game. Yes, even when they’re in scoring position and that umpire’s call causes them to lose a heartbreaker, by a final score of 5-4.
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance” — Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972
Title IX turned 40 yesterday.
In 1972, Democratic majorities in the House and Senate passed Title IX—first proposed by Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana—which leveled the educational playing field and which has allowed countless young American women access to a quality education and, perhaps most famously, to collegiate sports programs. And while Richard Nixon, a Republican, signed the amendment into law, he made no mention of the fact at his signing that he was expanding women’s rights, focusing instead on other aspects of the Education Amendments Act of which he was not embarrassed.
In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court, under arch-conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ruled in favor of watering down Title IX, effectively making it toothless (Grove City v. Bell). In fairness, the ruling was unanimous, with a couple of concurring opinions.
In 1988, though, the 100th Congress—again with Democratic majorities—passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which restored Title IX to its full force and effect. Ronald Reagan, noted conservative, vetoed the bill. Congress overrode Reagan’s veto and women’s collegiate sports to this day has 2/3 of that Democratic-led Congress to thank for it. According to a piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer, in the calendar year 2009-2010, a whopping 48% of the athletic scholarship dollars spent by Division I schools, went to women. In ‘72, such scholarships were virtually non-existent. The same piece states that according to many women, “The most dramatic impact of Title IX… is on how young women see themselves, accept their body types, and develop confidence that extends beyond athletics.”
Title IX has had a massive impact on education, ultimately benefitting everyone one of us, regardless of sex. Yet had there been Republican majorities in 1972, or even just a Republican House as there is now, Title IX would never have existed in the first place. Motivated Democrats brought us one of the most popular civil rights laws in our history, fixed it when the Supreme Court exposed flaws, and overrode a Republican president’s veto to make sure that sex discrimination in American education would not stand.
To sum up: The Republican War on Women isn’t new, just in case anyone needed a quick refresher course in which party fights tirelessly for the rights of women and uses civil rights legislation to make our country stronger, and which party fights against those rights tooth-and-nail.