Here are three questions for Democrats/liberals to consider in light of recent events:
1. Why do you hate science, bro?
A long-waited report from the Environmental Protection Agency found that fracking does not pose a "widespread, systemic" threat to drinking water, undermining a popular argument among environmental groups opposed to fracking. Or, as POLITICO put its: The report's conclusion "dramatically runs afoul of one of the great green crusades of the past half-decade, which has portrayed the oil- and gas-extraction technique as a creator of fouled drinking water wells and flame-shooting faucets." The "flaming water" myth was perpetuated in part by environmentalist hoaxers.
Science is cool, but so is fracking. People who deny it are lame.
2. If early voting/universal registration is so critical to a functioning democracy, why do some of the most liberal states not allow it?
Hillary Clinton on Thursday called for dramatically expanding access to early voting and voter registration nationwide as a means of "preserving fairness and equality in our voting system." Anything less, she argued, is an affront to democracy. And yet, despite this critical threat to our national integrity, some of the most reliably Democratic states in the country do not allow early voting. Massachusetts only recently passed a measure to implement early voting in 2016, while Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Hillary's home state of New York are among the 14 states that currently do not permit early voting in any form. Why?
After all, promoting early voting and expanding voter registration is simply a matter of democratic principle, not a cynical ploy to enhance Democratic performance in national and statewide elections. Right?
3. Why shouldn't Ezra Klein's argument for "affirmative consent" laws apply to anti-terrorism efforts?
Vox.com editor-in-chief Ezra Klein famously defended a California law to establish an "affirmative consent standard" in sexual assault cases at state-funded schools. Actually, Klein wrote that the law itself was "terrible," but he supported it anyway, calling it "a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem." Klein's argument, in short:
If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it. Because for one in five women to report an attempted or completed sexual assault means that everyday sexual practices on college campuses need to be upended, and men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.
What other "terrible" laws can be justified by the nature of the problems they purport to solve? If you agree with Klein's argument, why shouldn't it apply to the government's controversial counterterrorism efforts, such as communication surveillance and the use of undercover informants? As Klein explains: "Ugly problems don't always have pretty solutions." Shouldn't men (or women) "feel the cold spike of fear" if they even begin to consider committing violence against Americans?
Disclosure: The author is a former liberal who voted for Barack Obama in 2008.