Noir Politics
It's been awhile* since I've managed to read Deb Price's column in the Detroit News; shame on me. This latest piece, "Dems treat gays to 'Throwback Mountain' " (Detroit News, 13 March 2006) is a useful reminder of one of those things we know but sometimes forget in the heat of the political campaigns: that most Democrats are happy to take the homos' money but more than a tad uneasy with talking about equality for this group of Americans. We hardly even get the lip service that we used to get, in the Democrats' rush to avoid alienating the hate-filled, fundamentalist minorty that so many assume are the key to winning elections these days. "Can't win unless we win the election first!" is their uncertain and tiresome battle cry.
She goes through the tip of the sell-0ut iceberg: Virgina governor Kaine, who touts his opposition to marriage equality for gays and lesbians; Tennessee's representative Ford, so proud about supporting the constitutional amendment to "protect marriage"; Hillary Clinton, vocal supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act. There're more, of course, since courting the evangelical-reactionary-moral vote is such a hot ticket.
A decade ago, the Democrats had no qualms about driving straight over those of us who're gay when they thought hurting us might help them win votes. Apparently, times haven't really changed — or at least the backward mindset of many political strategists hasn't.
Today's "Throwback Mountain" maneuvering is a sobering reminder that defeating hostile Republicans like Santorum and shifting control to the Democrats wouldn't necessarily usher in a new era of enlightenment.
We've had false dawns before. I swooned when Bill Clinton told gay Americans, "I have a vision, and you are part of it." Then he turned around and signed the military ban and DOMA ["Defense of Marriage" Act].
Heart-breaking betrayals, cold calculations, whispered promises. It's another film noir political year. I've been scolded for revealing that Jack and Ennis didn't ride into the Brokeback sunset together, so I won't give away the ending of this year's real-life thriller — but only because I don't know it.
I do know the national Democratic Party is still taking millions upon millions of gay and gay-friendly voters for granted.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: most Americans are most attracted to voting for candidates they see as confident and filled with conviction even if the candidate is wrong — witness the current President — versus candidates they see as spineless, waffling wimps.
Just imagine what a potent combination confidence, conviction, and right could be!
———-
*Wow. Not since "We're Single. Really." almost a year ago.
4 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 at 22.21
Permalink
Point well taken. This has to be a vexing problem for Democrats of goodwill and good intentions. They know it's not right to ask people who are only seeking basic fairness to wait and bear with them.
Maybe consider this. Put yourself in the place of a platoon leader. Your outfit was dropped into a valley you were supposed to be able to take over. But enemy troops were more numerous and better dug in than expected. Weather turned against you and then your people got hit hard, taking casualties.
Now, taking over the valley isn't the issue, getting the hell out of there is the issue. And that's going to be dicey because you've got injured, are low on food, water and ammunition. You know from experience that no matter what you do, no matter which way you go, your outfit is going to get mauled again.
So, what do you do? On what basis do you come up with a plan to extricate your men from this mess as best you can?
The answer is to go for whatever plan seems most likely to get the greatest number of your men out alive. Bear in mind, you realize being home free without losses doesn't seem to be a realistic option.
In short, you do the best you can under the circumstances. It's literally all you can do.
I understand the need and desire to spur Democrats to show spine. At the same time, I understand their trepidation about losing races, leaving them unable to do much of anything for anyone.
I appreciate that it must sound lame to hear others say be patient, these things take time. And yet I take confidence in seeing how much better and fairer things are now than when I was in my teens and early 20s. I also am encouraged by survey results showing most of today's young people are dramatically more accepting of differences in sexual orientation than those over 30, who themselves are more tolerant than those over 50.
on Thursday, 16 March 2006 at 00.35
Permalink
Useful points, SW, but I still think not quite head-on at what I was suggesting. I can be — indeed, have been — very patient about many of these things, and patience with retreat and regrouping is often the best tactic. I am one of those who generally believes that doing the right thing is usually the best strategy but, as you say, retreat and tactical maneuvers are sometimes called for.
But! Although I see the utility of sometimes retreating, I don't believe this is one of those times. I am convinced, instead, that the Democratic candidate who stands up and confidently proclaims that his/her party has always stood for strong individual rights, that s/he supports marriage equality without reservation, the s/he insists on the rule of law, that s/he believes the unprovoked invasion of Iraq was a mistake from the beginning, the s/he believes in an independent judiciary, the s/he believes we can afford and should have universal health care for all Americans….
I believe that this candidate would strenghten the party and attract voters in droves for two reasons: 1) for showing resolve; and 2) for being right.
on Friday, 17 March 2006 at 03.28
Permalink
Jeff, I respect your position and like it a lot.
on Monday, 20 March 2006 at 08.36
Permalink
In the age of genetic engineering it is strange that still some of us do not understand the fact that homosexuality is a result of genetic programs and the only way to undo it (if anyone really wanted to do so) would be to alter the underlying genes that are at cause. It is simply appalling.
Best