What is going on with the Sullivan Democratic Party?
What is going on with the Sullivan County Democratic Committee? Their communications strategy is shockingly misguided and largely ineffective. Whoever is advising them should be fired. I’ll give them credit for the unified cheerleading effort in local papers, while attempting to 'convince' readers and thumbing their nose at us. Given how outspoken they’ve been on Prop 1, I think it’s only fair for us to take a critical look at their arguments and why it collapses on itself under scrutiny.
The crux of almost every argument from the Democratic Party relies on emotional manipulation and extreme straw-manning (oversimplifying a position to make it easier to defeat) to distract from glaring flaws in their own arguments. Emotional appeals without logic are simply deceptive smokescreens for the truth. As my grandfather told me: if someone can’t provide a simple and logical explanation for their argument, either they don’t understand it or they’re hiding something.
Jeanne Sager, who writes for the Democrat regularly, tells us not to worry because “Girls’ sports are already protected”, and in the very next sentence, states that there are already protections for athletes based on their “gender identity” - a complete contradiction to herself. Jeanne repeats in her piece that protections already exist more times than she explains why the proposition is needed. If protections exist, then why do we need Prop 1? While at the same time, she shames the average reader by subtly accusing them of fearmongering against the proposition, while not addressing legitimate concerns about the issue. The only reason to do this would be to avoid obvious scrutiny and to convince you that your completely reasonable position is unreasonable.
Anne Hart, the Sullivan County Democratic Committee chair, openly sets the foundation of her arguments based solely on emotional manipulation. In fact, the same logic she uses can apply to the most extreme examples.
She writes, “Prop One closes loopholes… that discriminate (based on) who they are, what they look like, or who they love.” - Sure, no one disagrees with this. Following her logic, Prop 1 would ensure we protect all relationships, even if they involve someone who, for example, identifies as a dog, is in a loving relationship with that childhood backyard tree, or has bonded with a special imaginary friend. Or, two straight men entering a legal marriage for tax breaks. After all, we must ensure that tax dollars are used so that all relationships are equally protected, right?
In another instance, she stated that “Prop 1 would ensure that (couples) in the public sector… receive the same healthcare benefits as straight couples”. Yes! I agree, we have an obligation to make sure that Chad the firefighter (with his reputation for multiple wives, and his secret traveling Tinder profile) can provide the health coverage to each and every one of his family members that they deserve - after all, no relationship should be too unique for taxpayer support, right?
We could continue, but you get the point. None of their arguments hold water to the most extreme examples. This is the absurdity of Prop 1 and none of these political partisans can actually explain to you, with any comprehensive detail, why this proposition is necessary given the laws that already exist in New York.
The reality of Prop 1 is this: it claims to empower voters, but instead it inserts government into every corner of your life, dictating what choices you’re allowed to make under the guise of equality and overly vague language. I’m voting no on this, simply put, because its proponents have failed to meet even the most basic burden of any argument to convince me otherwise.
They can cheer themselves “Brava!” on social media all they want, but this tells me they’re not being honest.
Nate Henderson
Founder
Sullivan’s Legacy
