There is a famous saying that ‘politics is the art of the possible.’ As far as it goes that is true, but there are additional P’s to couple with politics, Principle and Priorities and it is these secondary P’s that are often in conflict and often denied for their importance.
Principle is not dogma. Dogma is inflexible. Dogma does not admit the half-loaf and demand only total victory. Dogma demands total fealty. Principle is a guidepost, a map, not a straight jacket.
Priority is about what matters more. If we are being mature about our politics and realistic about our expectations, then priority becomes important and presents us with the most difficult decisions.
For example I support gun rights and I support marriage equality, it is quite rare to find an acceptable candidate that holds both of those positions. Therefore when looking at candidates I end up, via my vote, prioritizing one over the other. In practice it tends to be marriage equality, while I support gun rights I must be honest that it is a secondary cause and that the fight there has to wait while a more important battle is waged.
In my experience most people have the conflicting priorities, but they rarely are honest with themselves in their hierarchy. In my positions they would proclaim themselves both for gun right and marriage equality, claiming the honorable mantle of both camps while ignoring the ground facts of their actual support.
We now know the huge loophole the Democrats wish they had to get around the limitations of the 1st Amendment. That resolution to change the 1st Amendment had 48 Democratic Senators as co-sponsors. Why would you think that desire is over, just because they lost that first attempt in 2014?
Even Hillary has come out in favor of changing the 1st Amendment. From the first link I provided…
Hillary Clinton endorsed a constitutional amendment today to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. Clinton said that the Citizens United ruling should be reversed “once and for all, even if it takes a constitutional amendment,” according to MSNBC’s Ari Melber.
correction: the amendment WAS proposed. It had been part of the previous congress it was defeated and has not been reintroduced.
I did not and would not support that amendment.
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
“Article —
SECTION 1.To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
SECTION 2.Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
SECTION 3.Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”.
I did not say it was extreme I said it possessed only two settings. It is binary, unfettered access for corporations or no 1st amendment and I reject that premise. I believe it is possible to limit corporate influence without destroying the 1st amendment.
You ask me if I support changing the 1st amendment. Show me the text of the proposed new amendment and I can answer the question.
Sure, we can agree to disagree. Though I reject your characterization of my 1st Amendment position as extreme.
But I would very much like to know if you support the Democratic Party effort to amend the constitution and change the 1st Amendment.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/09/al-franken-misrepresents-the-censorship
It would be pointless to discuss corporations and political influence as we proceed from incompatible base premises. you proceed from a quantum state, there is either unfettered political access for corporations or there is destruction of the 1st amendment, while I believe that there are states in-between those extremes. Since I reject your premise and you reject mine there can be no meaningful discussion on that topic.
The 2nd amendment point is nothing more than an example your own priority. Yes, it is a knife edge. It is also a knife edge for marriage rights, it is also a knife edge for choice issues. It is a knife edge for many issues when you make you decision to support one faction or another you are regulating an issue to the ‘wait’ line even if it is something you support because something more dear to you has taken precedence.
“Priority is about what matters more”
Yep. Like the 1st Amendment. Gotta ensure that ‘corporate’ speech and ‘hate’ speech are properly regulated by our lords and masters!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416935/hillary-says-we-should-rewrite-first-amendment-if-thats-what-it-takes-reverse
Of course many of these pesky issues over the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment are being decided by the knife edged balance of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Imagine how great things will be once the Democrats finish packing the U.S. Supreme Court! D.C. v Heller will be reversed (as the minority opinion in McDonald v Chicago made it clear that was exactly what the minority wanted to do). As soon as the 2nd Amendment is nullified, Chicago and Washington D.C. can put back the handgun bans the court denied them, and rifle bans of seven states will no longer be in danger.
Because you can’t advance the cause of Social Justice without putting people in jail for victimless crimes! Or so it would seem according to our lords and masters.
Gun rights apply to gay people too. I don’t think I’ve heard of anyone going to jail or acquiring a criminal record over a gay marriage that wasn’t legal.