As a result of which, someone Politico identified only as "a Democratic strategist from a swing state" said Newsom had created "a permission structure for other Democrats to do this, too" - that is, to trash trans rights (plus other "far left" policies) in pursuit of that forever just beyond our reach mass of almost mythical "moderate" Republicans.
Among the comments and responses at Reed's site, there was a lot of questioning of why Newsom would do this, with some saying he was preparing a 2028 run for president (he is term limited and will be out of office as governor in 2026) with others saying this very act will kill his chances for that. But through it all was the throbbing pulse of emotional pain driven be a combination of genuine anger and deep betrayal.
For my part, truth is that I can't say I'm truly shocked by this. (I bet Kirk was a lot more surprised than I was.) Gavin Newsom always kinda creeped me out. He was - I can't put my finger on it, but he was somehow TOO polished, TOO smooth, TOO aware of how he looked, spoke, and moved. Okay, truth is he always seemed to me to be as slick as his hair and every bit as carefully created.
Still, he had built a certain reputation and to see him so casually toss that aside to suck up to the bigoted extremist reactionary right (and for what?) is deeply, deeply saddening and profoundly disappointing. Not so much for the action - because again I'm not really shocked; I've seen too many such cowardly, self-interested betrayals over the years for that - but for the hope that preceded each such betrayal by the institutional Democratic Party; the hope, that is, that this time I was wrong.
Ultimately, Newsom is engaging in old-fashioned triangulation, the tactic of embracing, even actively avowing, some of your opponents' programs or attitudes, intending to insulate yourself against being attacked on those grounds. Bill Clinton made the concept famous. Barack Obama was a master at it. And yes it can be effective, as Clinton and Obama proved - provided, that is, you don't give a damn about the impact on the people affected. Which we now have to assume Newsom doesn't.
On the other coast we can see a different, if you will a "kinder, gentler" version of the same sort of "give 'em an inch and they won't take a mile, we promise" thinking, this time from Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton. Stung by the reaction to his comments that he didn't want his daughter getting "run over" by a trans girl on the sports field, Moulton doubled down in a letter sent by an aide to a constituent (quoted in full in the comments to Reed's piece about Newsom).
Moulton’s view, according to the aide, is that "Republicans are using trans people in sports as a means to fearmonger about the trans population at large and get more people on board with their wholly anti-trans agenda."
Okay so far.
"[B]y divorcing sports from the broader issue of fundamental rights ... we can do a better job fighting back. [A] middle ground on sports ... can peel a large chunk of average Americans away from the extremism of the right."
Stop right there. This is utter bullshit. What Moulton actually said in the wake of the 2024 election was “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.” [Emphasis added for clarity.] 2[
There isn't a single goddam word in there about finding this so-called "middle ground." It is all about being "brutally honest" and not being "afraid" to throw trans children under the bus, using the excuse of the election loss to do it.
Later, he blamed criticism of him on "cancel culture" and whined about supposed "shouting from the extreme left corners of social media" and "purity tests."
So no, I don't buy the crap. Rather, I'd say this could be called Moulton's "Sister Souljah moment," a sort of mirror version of triangulation, where rather than embracing the opponent's view, a politician deliberately attacks some person or position that could be associated with their own campaign, a way pf going "Oh no no no, I'm not with them! It got the name when Bill Clinton attacked hip-hop performer/activist Sister Souljah as a way of rejecting Jesse Jackson and proving he wasn't "too pro-black." Later, Barack Obama used it to assert his own patriotism by going out of his way to impugn the patriotism of the movements and activists of the '60s. Here, Moulton declares his self-congratulatory supposed brave independence from those Democrats who apparently prefer seeing "little girls" get "run over" to being "honest."
But you know what, forget all that for now. Leave it aside. Take him at his word. He just wants to "peel away average Americans" from the extremist right and if only - oh if only - we just give them this one point, if we just say "Okay, you're right about that one," if we just say that "the dreams and aspirations" of girls and women in sports must be protected against "unfairness" - or, more exactly, those of cis girls and women must be protected, while the dreams and aspirations of trans girls and women, despite them being every bit as strong and representing every bit as much commitment, are to be, what, martyrs to the cause? Too unimportant for our attention? Whatever, if we would just sacrifice those hopes and aspirations, everything else will be so much better.
Okay, so if it's not bullshit, it's - stupid.
And I mean stooopid.
It's stupid because it won't work. I don't know if it ever has. When has giving into a bully ever satisfied them? The paranoia about trans folks was manufactured almost out of thin air by preying on fears about social change in general and sex in particular. What in hell makes a trimmer like Moulton think that if we surrender on sports they won't just switch back to restrooms? Or go even more in on "obscene" books? Or "trafficking?" Or whatever other "OMG! Save the children!" rant seems useful at the moment, regardless of truth? What have the fanatics ever needed truth or even logic to push their paranoia and when has the right-wing noise machine ever failed to turn that message, that focus, up to 11?3
That's particularly true because, as Reed noted in a different post, sports was never the real issue any more than bathrooms were the real issue when that was the first line of attack back in 2016.
Rather, each of them was a wedge issue, the thing the reactionaries thought they could get people upset about, creeped about, emotional about; they were a way in, a way to render and define trans people somehow as different, as other, as "not us" - and so to make anti-trans laws acceptable, even proper, even necessary.
Which is exactly how it has worked. Virtually every - if not every single - state that has passed a sports ban on the grounds of "fairness" and "protecting women in sports," often with support from the other side in pursuit of "compromise," has followed up with additional bills targeting everything from restrooms, to IDs, to stripping away civil rights protections, to entirely removing trans folks from existence in law, right up to one proposed Texas that would make someone telling their employer or a "governmental agency" (which could include police) that they are anything other than "the biological sex assigned at birth" a case of fraud - that is, telling such people you are trans would be a felony. Admitting you exist would be a crime.
Now, not every one of those proposed laws passed; the one in Texas all but certainly won't (it has no co-sponsors and no hearing scheduled), the caveat "all but" being distressingly necessary these days. And not all will survive legal challenges. But the point is, the bogus claims to "protect women's sports" was the proverbial nose of the camel4 that has resulted in damage to and even devastation of the lives of trans folks in 25 states.
Indeed, some among the fanatics will even openly admit it. For example, Reed points to Terry Schilling of the reactionary American Principles Project, who has defined extremism as "loving America," describing "the sports issue" as just the "beginning point," one chosen because among people who never accepted losing on same-sex marriage and had had wet dreams of overturning Roe v. Wade it provided a way to attack trans rights as a first step toward undoing all the changes they find so icky. And note I use the work "icky" deliberately because none of this opposition to basic rights is based on rational consideration of reality. It is all id and super-ego combining while skipping over ego5; it's reptilian brain and culturally-conditioned repression and shame about sex overruling rational judgment.
Which means, again, that despite their protestations, Newsom and Moulton and the others eager to follow their lead (such as that "Democratic strategist from a swing state") are not "engaging with the opposition," they are effectively confirming that the doubts and fears the reactionaries try to raise about transgender folks are legitimate questions. They are not in search of "middle ground," they are rationalizing their political cowardice while cowering against the threat that the GOPpers might call them a name. They are not "stripping people away from the right" or setting up for a better resistance to the reactionaries, they are declaring that when the pressure mounts, they will crack, preferring accommodation and slow-motion surrender to taking the risks involving in striving to win.6
The rebuttal to all the trimmers and their enablers was presented 165 years ago. It came in a speech by Abraham Lincoln at Cooper Union in New York City on February 27, 18607. Lincoln's target was the demand of legislators from the South that slavery be allowed in federal territories and it's wise counsel for those like to imagine that if we just concede, y'know, just this one little point to the fanatics, they'll be more reasonable about the rest.
Consider these excerpts, with emphasis as in the original and comments for context in brackets:
As a final note, I'm also reminded by all of this of writing to then-President Bill Clinton around 1997 to saying that he had been foolish in dealing with the GOPpers. I wrote, as best as memory allows so the exact words may be off but the point is accurately repeated, that "Every time you have offered some compromise looking for some equivalent response, it has instead been 'That's nice. Now what else will you give us?' You've got to stop thinking you're dealing with reasonable people," adding that "Whatever value strategic retreat has in military campaigns, in politics you never win by backing up."
Thirty years down the road and it's the same-old-same-old.
Which leads, in a way to a bottom line. The same old bottom line: It's up to us. We can't rely on our "leaders" and we can't rely on electoral politics, certainly not on its own. We have to go beyond, act outside of and beyond, electoral politics. We have to be in public; in the streets, even filling the streets; in the jails, even filling the jails. We have to be loud, noisy, disruptive, but most of all creative; we have to be impolite, rude, to power; and we have to not care what they call us - because they will call us all sorts of things - and keep on going anyway. It’s not a matter of, if I can oversimplify the terms, “protest or politics” (i.e., street protest or electoral politics), it’s a matter of protest informing politics.
Because, as this whole mess should have shown us yet again, political action and change does not come as the result of having "good people" in office; rather, having those "good people" in office comes as the result of political action and change.
Carry it on.
1I saw someone - I can't remember who, so unfortunately I can't give credit - who used the term "transmisiac," which I have adopted. The suffix "phobia" refers to fear; the suffix "misia" refers to hatred. Bigots like Kirk don't fear transgender folks, they hate them. They should be called the haters that they are.
2D'ja ever notice that in all the concern about sports, the subject of trans boys never comes up? That's gotta be because everybody just knows that "a female or formerly female athlete" could never really compete in sports against a real boy, amirite?
3Yes, that is a "This Is Spinal Tap" reference.
4If you don't know the story, see here. Notable here is that a 1915 telling of the fable has as a moral "It is a wise rule to resist the beginnings of evil."
5Yes, Freudian psychology is old stuff and pretty much dismissed now. But the image is still useful to describe fears and phobias overriding objective reality.
6Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has said a key ingredient in political victory is "the willingness to lose well," being ready to fight, lose, pick yourself up, and fight again.
7The full speech can be found here. For context, the Republican Party accepted slavery in the states where it already existed but opposed its expansion to the territories. Slave-holding states wanted to allow expansion, fearing that otherwise, as those territories later joined the nation as free states, the power and influence of slave states would keep shrinking until the power to maintain slavery against possible Constitutional amendments disappeared.
Among the comments and responses at Reed's site, there was a lot of questioning of why Newsom would do this, with some saying he was preparing a 2028 run for president (he is term limited and will be out of office as governor in 2026) with others saying this very act will kill his chances for that. But through it all was the throbbing pulse of emotional pain driven be a combination of genuine anger and deep betrayal.
For my part, truth is that I can't say I'm truly shocked by this. (I bet Kirk was a lot more surprised than I was.) Gavin Newsom always kinda creeped me out. He was - I can't put my finger on it, but he was somehow TOO polished, TOO smooth, TOO aware of how he looked, spoke, and moved. Okay, truth is he always seemed to me to be as slick as his hair and every bit as carefully created.
Still, he had built a certain reputation and to see him so casually toss that aside to suck up to the bigoted extremist reactionary right (and for what?) is deeply, deeply saddening and profoundly disappointing. Not so much for the action - because again I'm not really shocked; I've seen too many such cowardly, self-interested betrayals over the years for that - but for the hope that preceded each such betrayal by the institutional Democratic Party; the hope, that is, that this time I was wrong.
Ultimately, Newsom is engaging in old-fashioned triangulation, the tactic of embracing, even actively avowing, some of your opponents' programs or attitudes, intending to insulate yourself against being attacked on those grounds. Bill Clinton made the concept famous. Barack Obama was a master at it. And yes it can be effective, as Clinton and Obama proved - provided, that is, you don't give a damn about the impact on the people affected. Which we now have to assume Newsom doesn't.
On the other coast we can see a different, if you will a "kinder, gentler" version of the same sort of "give 'em an inch and they won't take a mile, we promise" thinking, this time from Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton. Stung by the reaction to his comments that he didn't want his daughter getting "run over" by a trans girl on the sports field, Moulton doubled down in a letter sent by an aide to a constituent (quoted in full in the comments to Reed's piece about Newsom).
Moulton’s view, according to the aide, is that "Republicans are using trans people in sports as a means to fearmonger about the trans population at large and get more people on board with their wholly anti-trans agenda."
Okay so far.
"[B]y divorcing sports from the broader issue of fundamental rights ... we can do a better job fighting back. [A] middle ground on sports ... can peel a large chunk of average Americans away from the extremism of the right."
Stop right there. This is utter bullshit. What Moulton actually said in the wake of the 2024 election was “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.” [Emphasis added for clarity.] 2[
There isn't a single goddam word in there about finding this so-called "middle ground." It is all about being "brutally honest" and not being "afraid" to throw trans children under the bus, using the excuse of the election loss to do it.
Later, he blamed criticism of him on "cancel culture" and whined about supposed "shouting from the extreme left corners of social media" and "purity tests."
So no, I don't buy the crap. Rather, I'd say this could be called Moulton's "Sister Souljah moment," a sort of mirror version of triangulation, where rather than embracing the opponent's view, a politician deliberately attacks some person or position that could be associated with their own campaign, a way pf going "Oh no no no, I'm not with them! It got the name when Bill Clinton attacked hip-hop performer/activist Sister Souljah as a way of rejecting Jesse Jackson and proving he wasn't "too pro-black." Later, Barack Obama used it to assert his own patriotism by going out of his way to impugn the patriotism of the movements and activists of the '60s. Here, Moulton declares his self-congratulatory supposed brave independence from those Democrats who apparently prefer seeing "little girls" get "run over" to being "honest."
But you know what, forget all that for now. Leave it aside. Take him at his word. He just wants to "peel away average Americans" from the extremist right and if only - oh if only - we just give them this one point, if we just say "Okay, you're right about that one," if we just say that "the dreams and aspirations" of girls and women in sports must be protected against "unfairness" - or, more exactly, those of cis girls and women must be protected, while the dreams and aspirations of trans girls and women, despite them being every bit as strong and representing every bit as much commitment, are to be, what, martyrs to the cause? Too unimportant for our attention? Whatever, if we would just sacrifice those hopes and aspirations, everything else will be so much better.
Okay, so if it's not bullshit, it's - stupid.
And I mean stooopid.
That's particularly true because, as Reed noted in a different post, sports was never the real issue any more than bathrooms were the real issue when that was the first line of attack back in 2016.
Rather, each of them was a wedge issue, the thing the reactionaries thought they could get people upset about, creeped about, emotional about; they were a way in, a way to render and define trans people somehow as different, as other, as "not us" - and so to make anti-trans laws acceptable, even proper, even necessary.
Which is exactly how it has worked. Virtually every - if not every single - state that has passed a sports ban on the grounds of "fairness" and "protecting women in sports," often with support from the other side in pursuit of "compromise," has followed up with additional bills targeting everything from restrooms, to IDs, to stripping away civil rights protections, to entirely removing trans folks from existence in law, right up to one proposed Texas that would make someone telling their employer or a "governmental agency" (which could include police) that they are anything other than "the biological sex assigned at birth" a case of fraud - that is, telling such people you are trans would be a felony. Admitting you exist would be a crime.
Now, not every one of those proposed laws passed; the one in Texas all but certainly won't (it has no co-sponsors and no hearing scheduled), the caveat "all but" being distressingly necessary these days. And not all will survive legal challenges. But the point is, the bogus claims to "protect women's sports" was the proverbial nose of the camel4 that has resulted in damage to and even devastation of the lives of trans folks in 25 states.
Indeed, some among the fanatics will even openly admit it. For example, Reed points to Terry Schilling of the reactionary American Principles Project, who has defined extremism as "loving America," describing "the sports issue" as just the "beginning point," one chosen because among people who never accepted losing on same-sex marriage and had had wet dreams of overturning Roe v. Wade it provided a way to attack trans rights as a first step toward undoing all the changes they find so icky. And note I use the work "icky" deliberately because none of this opposition to basic rights is based on rational consideration of reality. It is all id and super-ego combining while skipping over ego5; it's reptilian brain and culturally-conditioned repression and shame about sex overruling rational judgment.
Which means, again, that despite their protestations, Newsom and Moulton and the others eager to follow their lead (such as that "Democratic strategist from a swing state") are not "engaging with the opposition," they are effectively confirming that the doubts and fears the reactionaries try to raise about transgender folks are legitimate questions. They are not in search of "middle ground," they are rationalizing their political cowardice while cowering against the threat that the GOPpers might call them a name. They are not "stripping people away from the right" or setting up for a better resistance to the reactionaries, they are declaring that when the pressure mounts, they will crack, preferring accommodation and slow-motion surrender to taking the risks involving in striving to win.6
The rebuttal to all the trimmers and their enablers was presented 165 years ago. It came in a speech by Abraham Lincoln at Cooper Union in New York City on February 27, 18607. Lincoln's target was the demand of legislators from the South that slavery be allowed in federal territories and it's wise counsel for those like to imagine that if we just concede, y'know, just this one little point to the fanatics, they'll be more reasonable about the rest.
Consider these excerpts, with emphasis as in the original and comments for context in brackets:
And the hell with the trimmers.Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us [over slavery], let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections [such as Harper's Ferry] are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.
The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone [to practice slavery], but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task.
What will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
Let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
As a final note, I'm also reminded by all of this of writing to then-President Bill Clinton around 1997 to saying that he had been foolish in dealing with the GOPpers. I wrote, as best as memory allows so the exact words may be off but the point is accurately repeated, that "Every time you have offered some compromise looking for some equivalent response, it has instead been 'That's nice. Now what else will you give us?' You've got to stop thinking you're dealing with reasonable people," adding that "Whatever value strategic retreat has in military campaigns, in politics you never win by backing up."
Thirty years down the road and it's the same-old-same-old.
Which leads, in a way to a bottom line. The same old bottom line: It's up to us. We can't rely on our "leaders" and we can't rely on electoral politics, certainly not on its own. We have to go beyond, act outside of and beyond, electoral politics. We have to be in public; in the streets, even filling the streets; in the jails, even filling the jails. We have to be loud, noisy, disruptive, but most of all creative; we have to be impolite, rude, to power; and we have to not care what they call us - because they will call us all sorts of things - and keep on going anyway. It’s not a matter of, if I can oversimplify the terms, “protest or politics” (i.e., street protest or electoral politics), it’s a matter of protest informing politics.
Because, as this whole mess should have shown us yet again, political action and change does not come as the result of having "good people" in office; rather, having those "good people" in office comes as the result of political action and change.
Carry it on.
1I saw someone - I can't remember who, so unfortunately I can't give credit - who used the term "transmisiac," which I have adopted. The suffix "phobia" refers to fear; the suffix "misia" refers to hatred. Bigots like Kirk don't fear transgender folks, they hate them. They should be called the haters that they are.
2D'ja ever notice that in all the concern about sports, the subject of trans boys never comes up? That's gotta be because everybody just knows that "a female or formerly female athlete" could never really compete in sports against a real boy, amirite?
3Yes, that is a "This Is Spinal Tap" reference.
4If you don't know the story, see here. Notable here is that a 1915 telling of the fable has as a moral "It is a wise rule to resist the beginnings of evil."
5Yes, Freudian psychology is old stuff and pretty much dismissed now. But the image is still useful to describe fears and phobias overriding objective reality.
6Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has said a key ingredient in political victory is "the willingness to lose well," being ready to fight, lose, pick yourself up, and fight again.
7The full speech can be found here. For context, the Republican Party accepted slavery in the states where it already existed but opposed its expansion to the territories. Slave-holding states wanted to allow expansion, fearing that otherwise, as those territories later joined the nation as free states, the power and influence of slave states would keep shrinking until the power to maintain slavery against possible Constitutional amendments disappeared.
Posts
