Dear
westwall
In general the political strategy used by liberals, Democrats and Progressives who don't believe in naturally existing limits on Government (i.e., based on what people give EXPRESS CONSENT to authorize to the Federal authorities or not)
is the OPPOSITE of conservatives who follow these limits UNLESS people consent otherwise IN WRITING (ie Constitutional Amendment to qualify or expand on the 18 enumerated powers in the Constitution proper).
The liberals take an "anything goes" approach, similar to throwing spaghetti on the wall to see if it sticks, and that's when they know it's ready to eat.
Push, pass it first, then see "after the fact" if it get challenged or changed.
That's the liberal approach because they depend on the govt process to hash it out "after the fact."
The conservatives will argue IN ADVANCE and that's why the rightwing has more trouble REFORMING or proposing ALTERNATIVES to what the leftwing pushes because a LOT of what they push is "unconstitutional to begin with UNLESS you establish consent of people and states BEFORE writing and passing legislation."
The liberals use the govt process to "establish and prove" that what they propose "reflects the will of the people."
The conservatives try to establish a consensus first, and then the laws would reflect the consent of the people. NOT try to abuse govt and process to FORCE and MANUFACTURE the people's consent.
So that's where the abuses get out of hand.
Consent and writing good policies that truly reflect solutions and approaches that people AGREE to should come FIRST, BEFORE pushing proposed laws and reforms through govt. Otherwise it becomes a matter of politically bullying to get things through, and that doesn't take the form of what people agree to -- it just takes the form of what can be rammed past votes or judges, so it can be FUBAR like the ACA that focused on corporate insurance (where lobbying could be done to get "something passed") instead of reforming and reducing costs of health care to be more effectively accessed and delivered (which isn't something that can be done in 1-2 presidential terms but takes longterm planning and development on state and local levels).
As much as Democrats CLAIM to respect women's rights and liberation from patriarchal controls, the model pushed for govt is sadly similar to men forcing marriage on women and assuming they consent to sex because they agreed to get married. So anything goes. You push first until someone says no, and when they say no they don't really mean it, and require being forced into it.
That's the approach they take, and it totally goes against liberal principles of "prochoice" and liberation from dependence on patriarchy to control personal and economic decisions. Collectively it's forcing all people, not just women, to depend on govt to manage everything when women have been fighting NOT to be under the control of an outside authority assuming they know what's best for them.
