The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[Virginiá]

I could just as well say that all Clinton supporters aren't honest and trustworthy. It'd be just as hackish.

I don't know - I expect politicians to lie about things. I don't like it, but let's be real here. For Christians who say family values/morals are important to them, whether they go to church regularly or not, I kind of expect them to act that way, especially considering a lot of it ties into what they believe to be the word of God. You can say its all about that supreme court justice - I actually specifically mentioned that in one of those 2 posts as the typical excuse, but it doesn't excuse the fact that they traded a lot with that vote for that slice of power. And that is even assuming abortion is the defining reason. IIRC, Trump got even higher support among evangelicals than Bush43 and McCain, no? Surely it can't all be abortion, otherwise they'd probably never vote for most Democratic presidential candidates.

And again, they had choices other than Trump. I consider 31%+ way too high for a man like him. The way he treats people, the bullying, the harassment, the constant lying - he should have been nothing more than a marginal candidate if these people held the values they talk about more closely. Especially given how obvious and brazen Trump was about such behavior.

[Virginiá]

Lastly, this sort of attitude indicates a failure to take Evangelical concerns around abortion and religious liberty issues seriously. Even if you think our positions our wrong, try to see things from our point of view. If the Candidate A, wants to fund baby killers, and make you betray your conscience to be in the wedding business, you'll be willing to accept a lot of crap from Candidate B, and criticism about "family values" from Candidate A's supporters will ring hollow.

I wish there was a way for Democrats to reach pro-life voters, but from a pro-choice perspective I really don't get how that is to be done without neglecting pro-choice voters. This particular issue really seems to be one or the other, unless you count simply not pushing abortion policy at all a choice, which I find hard because pro-life groups are constantly pushing the GOP to restrict abortion in extremely novel ways 365 days a year, which demands pushback from liberals.

I should state that I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I'm just saying that for someone who prides themselves in Christian values, their principles, and so on, to support Trump - let alone support him so deeply like many do, means you are sacrificing a part of your convictions. There is no way you can have both with Trump. Like I said, he is so objectively awul in almost every way that there is just no way to reconcile the two. I can get how people would choose him to get pro-life judges for instance, but it doesn't change anything else. They know who Trump is, what he's done and what he says on a daily basis, so it's just one of those choices people have to make and they have to live with that.

* edit: by "you" i don't literally mean you specifically

[Virginiá]

How about the Democrats instead push for defederalizing the issue? Just wondering how that would work.

That would be tantamount to banning it in whatever states Republicans control (which is, I believe, a majority of the country) at least the legislature, where I'm sure they would move quickly to refer amendments to the state constitutions and make the issue largely untouchable for some time. Given how much power Republicans currently have at the state level, and will likely maintain for decades to come in certain regions (like the South), making this a states' right issue is a no go.

The closest I think I can theoretically see Democrats going is a ban after x weeks or something. Basically policy that still leaves the right to have an abortion mostly intact but attempts to mitigate it in certain instances or maybe push women towards things like adoption/etc.

[Virginiá]

Context: Why are the boomers considered a more liberal generation then the WW2 gen

I think there's another important difference between boomers and GIs.

The GIs grew up in a society that was ravaged by an economic depression and their calling in life was a collective effort to fight in WWII. This would be what shaped their attitudes for the rest of their lives. Their political attitudes were focused on creating and maintaining civic institutions. Outer-world driven activists were the norm and the collective effort of Americans was more important than individual acts.  Social issues were generally agreed upon and politicians seemed vaguely similar in their core beliefs. Society and our poltiics had a clear driven consensus and politicians argued about how best to achieve a society that strengthened our institutions.

Baby boomers grew up in a very stable civic society. This stability required conformity and this felt stifling to the boomer youth who didn't understand the need to be so rigid. As they came of age, boomers set out to break this conformity. They sought out spiritual endeavors and other inner driven activities which they believed would bring more culture and liveliness to society. The era of sex, drugs, and rock n roll. The consciousness revolution. In many ways the mid 60's-mid 80's could be thought of as another Great Awakening in American history. As a result, civic institutions were to be distrusted, and instead it was "values" which were to be debated. Republican baby boomers fueled the rise of the Religious Right in the 70's and 80's, and the smaller (but just as noisy) liberal baby boomer cohort fueled the rise of the New Left.

Ever since baby boomers began exerting more and more power over our political system starting from the 1990's, our politics has become more polarized, more values based, and more aggressive. This is because baby boomers have always been the generational aggressors. When they were young, everybody over 30 was the problem. Today, everybody under 30 is the problem. By the mid 90's, it was clear that our political discourse had changed. Gone were the days of Reagan and Tip O'Neill making deals and joking around. Now we had Clinton and Gingrich drawing battle lines in the sand and engaging in political fights back and forth. Two boomers had replaced two GIs; and the difference was noticeable.

By the 2000's, the transition was complete. The boomers had ushered in the red state-blue state divide. Politics since the 90's had become increasingly more focused on personal values and social issues. Wealthy socially liberal states like New Jersey and California were now solidly Democrat, while the poorer, more socially conservative regions of the country (Appalachia and the Deep South) were staunchly Republican. Contrast how these states had voted in the 1960's and before. Maintaining and rebuilding civic institutions had been long gone. Politics became more partisan, more aggressive, etc. President Donald Trump was ultimately a culmination of many of these trends.