Skip to main content

View Diary: Western Dems embrace Dean (318 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not simply personal privacy (none)
    Though I recognize that this is the current best effort to frame our approach in a soundbite.

    I think it's more effective to say that we're the party that supports the rights of the individual, not the state or the corporation.  Key among those rights, of course, is the right to privacy.

    -AG

    I'm a pro-gun, pro-nuclear-power Reform Democrat.
    UUJN: Brother Venerable Katana of Mindful Forgiveness

    by AlphaGeek on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 07:47:49 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  against the corporation, sure (none)
      But we believe that government has a role to play in giving everyone the tools (public education, redistribution of income, affirmative action) so that where you're born does not limit your options in life.

      "Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig." -- ACLU v Reno (E.D. Pa. 1996)

      by Adam B on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 07:54:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (none)
        One of my historical heroes, Teddy Roosevelt, said it best:

        "Let the watchwords of all our people be the old familiar watchwords of honesty, decency, fair-dealing, and commonsense."...

        "We must treat each man on his worth and merits as a man. We must see that each is given a square deal, because he is entitled to no more and should receive no less."

        "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."

        I didn't mean to imply that individual rights were necessarily in conflict with corporate aims or good government.  I recognize that many folks here are rabidly anti-corporate, but I'm not among them.

        It's a loser to emphasize programs instead of the impact they have.  It is far easier to appeal to the voter's sense of fairness and morality when you talk about how you're going to help people, and how this benefits society.

        -AG

        I'm a pro-gun, pro-nuclear-power Reform Democrat.
        UUJN: Brother Venerable Katana of Mindful Forgiveness

        by AlphaGeek on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 11:49:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Liberty, not privacy (3.83)
      The right to privacy emerges from Liberty, along with other rights.

      And abortion isn't about "choice" (what a weak word!), or "privacy" (a legal framework), but about LIBERTY.

      The right to keep and bear arms isn't about militias, it's about Liberty.

      Et cetera.

      There is an unsubtle difference between breathing fire and blowing smoke.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 07:54:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Right to Privacey........ (2.00)
      Is not in the Constitution. This is why Roe Vs. Wade is terrible law. Even though I am against Roe Vs. Wade, I would actually support a Right to Privacy Constitutional Admendment due to the technological advancements of the last fifty years.
      •  Well, the courts have interpreted such a right (none)
        although conservatives like Thomas claim it does not exist.  I agree that a constitutional amendment would be a good political move.
      •  right to privacy, you can find it.... (none)
        You really should read actual judgements instead of news releases about judgements.

        Amendment IX
        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

        Amendment IV
        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seize

        Amendment III
        No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

      •  The Right to Privacy Is More Fundamental (3.00)
        Nothing personal, but, as this is one of my hot buttons. . .

        The right to privacy is more fundamental than the Constitution. Everyone has a demonstrable right to privacy. Every two-year-old knows that they have a right to privacy and will announce it loudly if they need to.

        Anyone who claims that people don't have a right to privacy I will immediately make my slave. Without a right to privacy, what right do they have to prevent me from going into their house and searching through their papers and effects? (If you say this is trespassing, you have admitted my point.) Why shouldn't I be entitled to know all of the gory details of their life? They are suggesting that they have no right to hide anything from me, and if they claim that they have no such right I will certainly take advantage of them.

        People who think we have no right to privacy haven't thought it through--what this means to society, what it means to others, and very specifically what it means to them.

        As for Roe v. Wade, you are right. It is bad law. It's bad law not because it is wrong or because the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy, but because we didn't take the time to get it specifically past the legislature and the executive. We didn't make it so entrenched in people's moral values that it is unchallengeable.

        When 70% plus of Americans believe that a woman has a right to determine the medical procedures that happen to her, it should not be a problem to get the right of access to abortion written into the law. By relying on a court decision and not going through the whole political process those who favor fair treatment of women have not done enough to seal the deal.

        We should not be depending on this. We need to make the case clearly to everyone that abortion is just one special case of a more general principle that affects them personally--the right to privacy. Would we put someone in jail if they used a bullet to stop a robber in their house? No, because we understand that each person has a right to safety and to the quiet enjoyment of their home. But many people think that it's fine for someone to invade a person's body for months without permission. A woman's body belongs to her. It is more sacrosanct than her home. She should never be forced to give birth when she doesn't want to.

        For the same reason, it is not within the legitimate purview of the government to decide which drugs you can take. When it's your body, you have an unlimited right to use it as you see fit. By what right does anyone else tell you what to do? As an adult, you should not have to ask the government for a permission slip to take a drug you want to take.

        For the same reason, no corporation has any right to pollute your environment, to any extent whatsoever. To mediate your claim and that of many, many others with that corporation we need (and currently have) laws to regulate pollution. The law, legitimately, can require corporations to limit their pollutants to such a degree as to not materially harm you and others. In the absence of regulation, you have an absolute right to take these people to court for any amount, no matter how trivial the insult. It is not legitimate for the government to limit torts for this. To do so is to curtail your right to privacy.

        The problem is that many of our politicians, including many Democrats, don't think that the government should have any limitation on power. They think that any problem, no matter what, is something the government should solve. There are limits to the power of government and the U.S. government has crossed them.

        Democrats must come to terms with these issues. We must be for individual liberty, where it doesn't invade someone else's privacy or threaten imminent harm to another. We need to defend Roe v. Wade both as legitimate law based on a fair reading of the Constitution and as an application of the right of privacy independent of the Constitution. We need to be strong in our defense of the right to privacy and know its place. It is guaranteed most indirectly by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (and extended to the states through the Fourteenth). But people need to understand it for a fundamental moral principle, not subject even to what is written into the Constitution or an individual law. It is much more basic than that.

        Liberal Thinking

        Think, liberally.

        by Liberal Thinking on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 03:44:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Democrats in a soundbite (3.50)
      Democrats: The party of support and privacy.  We give you all the tools you need to succeed, and we stay out of your life.

      I'm a Democrat because of my beliefs. Democrats believe in economic, social, and moral responsibility. Republicans take risks with our future.

      by Katydid on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 09:00:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (4.00)
        I've been hoping for a while that Dean would swing this way.  

        With the GOP swinging ever more authoritarian and totally losing any cred about financial responsibility, the dems have the space to pick up BOTH the libertarians AND the fiscal conservatives.

        And having something of a libertarian streak myself, I wholeheartedly support it.

        A lot of western states ... Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, have been on the border in the last few elections as it is.  These are people who don't like big brother.

        I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.

        by IdahoEv on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 10:21:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Dean You're Hearing (4.00)
          Is Vermont Governor Dean.  Vermont has an awful lot in common culturally with the mountain staets of the west.  (After all, it's our own New England scale mountain state!)  A place that has never been terribly wealthy, but where people have deep ties to the land and by hard work people make a living and get by, where they expect the government to spend their scarce tax dollars wisely and well, where the individual right to be left alone is central to the strong communities built on that premise.  Where principles of personal and civic responsibility are still thriving.
          •  Exactly the Point I Made to the New Chair (none)
            The new Montana Chair hadn't looked past the hype to where Dean had been Governor.  Tried to explain to him the points that you made.  Now that had a Paul like conversion and had his picture taken, he may begin to put two and two together.

            There are only two kinds of Montanans, those who love Montana and those who want to use Montana.

            by MontanaMaven on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:08:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  not quite... (none)
      not "against the corporation" but "make sure people have more rights than corporations", and "make sure that people get preferential treatment over corporations".

      Wouldn't it be great to have a President who did the right thing as the automatic choice instead of a grudging last resort?

      by DemInTampa on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 03:02:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (139)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Media (23)
  • Law (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Memorial Day (20)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site