Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Can Kevin and Brendan Boyle Save the Democratic Party?
(This is a long read on electoral politics and policy, but worth it)
Philadelphia Magazine:
THERE ARE A LOT of reasons that Berniecrats can find hope in the Boyles. Their economic populism appeals to some of the same people who voted for Trump. They’ve also made labor the centerpiece of their brand: Instead of shying away from the fact that unions, as well as a super PAC tied to John “Johnny Doc” Dougherty’s IBEW Local 98, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get them elected, they say rejoining forces with labor is essential to the survival of the Democratic Party. The country, too. “At times when you’ve had higher unionization rates of workers in the United States, you also saw average wages increase. And right when the unionization rates of workers began declining, you saw median household income decline as well,” says Brendan. “I don’t think that’s a coincidence.”
In other ways, progressives find their formula more than a little disappointing.
The Boyles critique Philadelphia’s sanctuary-city policy. Early in their careers, they supported a bill that imposed restrictions on abortion clinics. (Pro-choice activists at the time said the legislation was unnecessary and an obvious gambit to restrict abortion services.) And last year, Kevin backed a proposal that would temporarily keep secret the names of police officers who shoot civilians. “I think we should give the benefit of the doubt, in the immediate aftermath of a highly traumatic event, to the police officer. It’s a very, very dangerous job,” he says. But Black Lives Matter said the bill would worsen relations between cops and civilians; the ACLU called it “a threat to transparency.”
The Boyles are quick to point out that they both now have been endorsed by Planned Parenthood and are strongly opposed to the GOP’s plan to defund both that group and sanctuary cities. They argue that they’ve got the same position on immigration as Barack Obama, and that admitting Syrian refugees is a moral imperative. But the Boyles also believe the party’s survival depends on it being big-tent enough to hold differing views on historically polarizing topics such as abortion and gun control: “If someone is a Democrat and votes with you 95 percent of the time,” says Brendan, “we probably shouldn’t obsess over the remaining five percent.” They’re positing, essentially, that Democrats should be less strident about some of the social issues that have defined the party’s platform in order to build a winning coalition around economic policies. Political strategist Mustafa Rashed agrees: “If Democrats want to get to the point where they’re anything but a super-minority, they have to widen the tent.”
In other ways, progressives find their formula more than a little disappointing.
The Boyles critique Philadelphia’s sanctuary-city policy. Early in their careers, they supported a bill that imposed restrictions on abortion clinics. (Pro-choice activists at the time said the legislation was unnecessary and an obvious gambit to restrict abortion services.) And last year, Kevin backed a proposal that would temporarily keep secret the names of police officers who shoot civilians. “I think we should give the benefit of the doubt, in the immediate aftermath of a highly traumatic event, to the police officer. It’s a very, very dangerous job,” he says. But Black Lives Matter said the bill would worsen relations between cops and civilians; the ACLU called it “a threat to transparency.”
The Boyles are quick to point out that they both now have been endorsed by Planned Parenthood and are strongly opposed to the GOP’s plan to defund both that group and sanctuary cities. They argue that they’ve got the same position on immigration as Barack Obama, and that admitting Syrian refugees is a moral imperative. But the Boyles also believe the party’s survival depends on it being big-tent enough to hold differing views on historically polarizing topics such as abortion and gun control: “If someone is a Democrat and votes with you 95 percent of the time,” says Brendan, “we probably shouldn’t obsess over the remaining five percent.” They’re positing, essentially, that Democrats should be less strident about some of the social issues that have defined the party’s platform in order to build a winning coalition around economic policies. Political strategist Mustafa Rashed agrees: “If Democrats want to get to the point where they’re anything but a super-minority, they have to widen the tent.”
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
but in your excerpt, how it's men talking about how the Dems should ease up on abortion. 
