Ask a Liberal

‍

I’m having a hard time understanding why my LGBT+ friends are so scared about the upcoming Trump presidency. He has certainly said a lot of alarming things about immigrants and women, but it doesn’t seem like he has a problem with the queer community. Are there policies put in place that are concerning? Is it the judges he chose? What are you concerned will happen in the next four years that is so worrying? - Amber, Utah

‍While Trump himself may not have much of a problem with the LGBTQ+ community, that’s not true of the Republican Party as a whole, or of the people he is likely to hire. Fewer than half of Republicans believe that same-sex marriage should be legal, and at least one Supreme Court justice has argued in favor of reversing Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the right to same-sex marriage. Trump’s judicial appointees are far more likely to be skeptical of LGBTQ+ rights.

The Trump administration is likely to reverse federal anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. During his first administration, he banned transgender people from joining the military and will likely do so again. While campaigning for reelection, Trump promised “to punish doctors who provide gender affirming care for minors and impose consequences for teachers who discuss it with students.” He vowed to dismantle the proposed Biden administration policy that would have offered protections for transgender students under Title IX.

Trump “also said he’ll ask Congress to establish that only two genders will be federally recognized. This would stop progress currently being made in the country to recognize non-binary individuals, which we’ve seen in federal and state efforts to allow people to choose a third gender option of ‘X’ on passports, licenses, and other documents.”

Finally, it’s worth noting that the Trump campaign leaned heavily into anti-transgender ads. House Republicans have already banned Representative-elect Sarah McBride from using women’s bathrooms at the Capitol. To the extent that Republicans believe scapegoating transgender individuals helped them during the election, it is likely to continue.

‍

‍Do liberals support exposing school-age children to books like Gender Queer & This Book is Gay with graphic descriptions of sexual acts? If not, why do they so vehemently oppose attempts to remove these books from school libraries? I’ll concede that most so-called book bans are too broad, but these specific examples seem like they should be less controversial. - Adam, Canada

‍The Knight Foundation “found that two-thirds of Americans oppose efforts to restrict books… More survey participants said it is a bigger concern to restrict students’ access to books that have educational value than it is for them to have access to books that have inappropriate content, especially when it comes to students in middle school and high school… 78% of all adults say they are confident that their community’s public schools select appropriate books for students to read.”

A NPR/Ipsos poll from 2023 showed that even “51 percent of Republicans oppose state lawmakers passing laws to ban certain books and remove them from classrooms and libraries, including 31 percent who said they strongly oppose it. More than 45 percent also said they oppose individual school boards banning books.”

That said, most liberals agree that books given to elementary school and middle school children should be age-appropriate, and most liberals would not consider the books you mention age-appropriate for those grades. Parents are particularly concerned about sexually explicit books. However, legislating book bans at the state or even county level is a slippery slope. The US has a long and sordid history of banning books, including Harry Potter (magic/witchcraft), Anne Frank’s diary (descriptions of female puberty), Huckleberry Finn, The Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, and even The Canterbury Tales.

‍

‍Why does your party support bodily autonomy for women’s reproductive choices but not for other health decisions, like vaccination? What is the rationale for supporting personal choice in some health matters but not in others? - Dawn, Connecticut

‍Reproductive choices do not affect others around you, whereas vaccines often protect both the person getting the vaccine and others around them from becoming infected. At some point, everyone is going to come into contact with others; perhaps taking a plane trip, or riding the train to work, or even just visiting the grocery store. There’s no way to simply opt out of society.

We’ve recently seen several outbreaks of measles in schools due to the increased numbers of unvaccinated children. Prior to the development of the measles vaccine, between 400 and 500 Americans died annually from the disease; thanks to the vaccine it was effectively eradicated. It’s concerning that it appears to be recurring now.

In many cases, widespread vaccination is necessary in order to reach herd immunity, meaning that “enough people in a group or area have achieved immunity (protection) against a virus or other infectious agent to make it very difficult for the infection to spread.” This is important to protect individuals who are unable to get vaccinated, such as those with compromised immune systems or young children.

‍

‍Why are you certain that all the necessary research on vaccine safety has already been done? Can a person be concerned about the high number of required vaccines without being a crazy conspiracy theorist? - Janet, Oregon

‍There have been extensive studies showing that vaccines are safe. Studies are ongoing, even for existing vaccines; a few years ago thimerosal, a preservative which had been used in vaccines for many years, was removed. While there wasn’t evidence it was causing harm, it did cause minor reactions at the injection site and was dropped as a precautionary measure. If and when other concerns arise with vaccines, they will be evaluated and, if necessary, changes will be made.

In fact, Democrats are constantly asking for additional funding for medical research. It’s especially important to fund research by independent researchers (academics, government) in order to supplement studies conducted by Pharma companies. As a general rule, research is never done! Slate recently published a great article defending the scientific method and explaining why science is often (and should be) repetitive.

‍

‍Why do you think there is a narrative of the right as being anti-abortion, when many states who voted for Trump also turned down abortion bans in referendums? - Anonymous

‍The GOP has been stridently anti-abortion for over 50 years. “For decades, the GOP has explicitly pledged its support for a so-called human life amendment, which would extend the protections of the 14th Amendment — its guarantees of due process and equality under the law — to a zygote, from the moment an egg is fertilized, thereby banning abortion as a matter of constitutional law.”

Former Vice President Mike Pence last week urged Republican senators not to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the Cabinet because he’s pro-choice. Trump won over large numbers of evangelical Christians in 2016 despite his many character flaws because he promised to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v. Wade. He succeeded, and abortion is now banned in 13 states and heavily restricted in several others.

These absolutist views are not representative of Republican voters; only 23 percent of Republicans (and 10 percent of independents) believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. While Republicans are far more likely to support restrictions, nearly half support legal abortion during the first trimester, along with three quarters of independents. Now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, the pro-life movement is discovering that few voters support total bans. The GOP party platform is therefore likely to evolve in the coming years.

‍

Ask a Conservative

‍

Explain to me how shuttering the department of education will be better for students and educators? - Meredith, New Jersey

‍The Department of Education (DoE) was only created in 1979; before then, the Department of Health & Human Services included education in its mandate. In fact, it was only created to fulfill a campaign promise to the National Education Association, a union. It was opposed by the American Federation of Teachers (another union) “due to fears about excessive federal meddling in local education decisions and concerns that it would cater to the NEA’s interests.”

Eliminating the DoE doesn’t mean eliminating all of its functions. College loans, for example, could be handled by the Treasury Department. The Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Labor could absorb other functions. Meanwhile, state authorities along with local school districts would have the ability to tailor policies and curricula to fit their specific needs. This would reduce bureaucracy and save taxpayer dollars.

Some conservatives consider the DoE to be unconstitutional: the Constitution doesn’t mention education, and the federal government only has authority to legislate on powers granted by the Constitution (everything else is reserved for the states).

Conservatives also highlight several recent actions by the DoE that are controversial. The recent overhaul to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) was a fiasco “riddled with technical issues.” Then there’s the DoE’s attempt to re-define “sex” under federal law to protect sexual orientation and gender identity, including allowing biological males to use girls’ bathrooms and participate on girls’ sports teams. DoE has also attempted to reduce due process protections for individuals accused of sexual harassment, which would dramatically increase the potential for innocent people to be punished.

‍

‍A lot of democrats feel that women's safety is now in jeopardy because of this election. Do conservatives really want to pass laws where ectopic pregnancies will result in a mother's death because she can't get an abortion? How strict are these abortion laws going to be? - Kelly, Indiana

‍No, they do not. Every state allows abortion when necessary to save the life of the mother. It’s true that there are disturbing examples of pregnant women being denied care, but these appear to be largely due to hospitals/doctors misinterpreting the law. That is deeply regrettable, but it should be resolved over time.

‍

‍How can you defend forcing a woman (or child) to bear children against her will? - Anonymous

‍The important point to note here is that for conservatives, there are two competing rights: that of the woman over her body, and that of the unborn child within it. Maybe you believe that life begins at conception (as many pro-life people do), or perhaps when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, or even at viability. At some point, the child becomes a human being with rights equal to that of the mother. So one might equally ask: How can you defend a woman killing her child?

Here’s a quote that clarifies the moral dilemma: “I wish that I could be pro-choice because the awful circumstances so many women face—that I can’t even imagine facing—seem so much more real to me than the rights of a fetus who doesn’t even always look human. But abortion is the intentional killing of a human being and we look back with horror at anyone in history who decided a group of people did not actually count as people. We cannot solve the problem of injustice against women with more injustice. We need solutions that support women without killing fetuses.”

‍

‍If the goal is to reduce the amount of abortions, why is the big focus on banning it? Why not address the actual causes (cost of healthcare and childcare, paid leave, poverty)? Didn’t abortions go UP in the US in 2023 even when access was restricted across many states? - Anonymous

‍Conservatives absolutely do focus on more than just banning abortion. Some advocate for expanding Medicaid and child care subsidies. Others support paid family leave and additional incentives for marriage. Incoming Vice President JD Vance has argued “that abortion is not just a moral and religious issue but also an economic one. Matters such as housing affordability, tax and corporate policies aimed at giving parents more options, and a national economy oriented toward the creation of higher-wage jobs and social stability for its own citizens are essential if we are going to turn the cultural tide.”

‍

‍Why are “identity politics” and “wokism” viewed as bad things by Republicans? They seem to be well-intentioned efforts to help under-served communities, but I keep hearing those two terms thrown around as the reason why some people don't want to vote for Democrats. What am I missing? - Matt, California

‍While the motivations are not necessarily bad, in practice wokism has been prone to excess. For example, the claim that the American flag is a “hate” symbol. Math is racist. Hard work and rational thought are aspects of “white culture.” So are progress, the nuclear family, and delayed gratification. A professor was suspended for using a Chinese word (ne-ga) because some students thought it sounded like racial slur. A utility worker (of Mexican descent) was fired from his job for cracking his knuckles while driving, because another motorist thought he was making the “ok” symbol, which has allegedly been associated with white supremacy. These are just a few of many examples.

There’s quite a bit of evidence that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are harmful. At the University of Michigan, they resulted in a less inclusive campus in which “students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics.” Corporate DEI programs have not been shown to offer benefits, and may even cause harm. Focusing on racial disparities in society makes people less supportive of reform.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the current DEI movement is that it insists intentions no longer matter. Thus if anyone is offended, the intentions of the speaker are irrelevant: “defending oneself against accusations of aggression—or even asking for an explanation as to why one's behavior is perceived as aggressive—is taken as proof of the accused's culpability.” One proponent of DEI absurdly claimed, “The very heartbeat of racism is denial… When people say they're not racist, they're sharing the words that white supremacists use.” Another added, “The question is not 'did racism take place' but rather, 'how did racism manifest in that situation?’”

There’s also the argument that contemporary wokeness is often patronizing. Minorities not being held to the same standards as others denies them agency. Black people are different - and therefore must be held to different standards - is precisely what most white supremacists think. The term Latinx (a gender neutral term for Latinos) is mainly used by white liberals; only two percent of Latinos use the term, and nearly half find it offensive.

It may be helpful to read this description of Critical Race Theory which we wrote last year (please scroll down to “Ask Both Sides”).

One of our contributors adds: Identity politics are divisive. The idea is to divide people into groups based on superficial characteristics that say little or nothing about the individuals themselves. People have enough issues with tribalism as it is; it seems counterintuitive that the remedy for discrimination and bigotry is to assign people to groups and treat them differently. That reinforces the “us vs. them” narrative that is the foundation of discrimination and bigotry to begin with.

‍