November 5th, 2008
|11:11 am - SSM defeated in CA|
This is, err, not exactly my favorite election. Even the few races that seem to have gone my way aren't a lot of fun.
|Date:||November 5th, 2008 05:41 pm (UTC)|| |
Where's Rosa Parks when you need her?
Californians vote to put us at the back of the bus. Coming soon to a State near you, segregated bathrooms, water fountains, and a return to the good ol' days of Jim Crow laws. You know Joel, half the stuff you believe in is far right of my own opinions, but I dig what you have to say, as it makes me think and question my own views. Thanks greatly for making me feel some hope that there are folks out there who know the difference between right and wrong, regardless of where they fall on the liberal/conservative spectrum.
Re: Where's Rosa Parks when you need her?
Thanks for saying that; it's one of the few bits of comfort on a dreadful day.
I don't see much good about all this. (I accept that others, for example, see that a black man being elected President is a huge deal, but I don't; it's been clear to me for years that very few white folks would have a problem with that, and that it was just a question of when. Wish it had waited for a better candidate, mind you . . . .
(Even the little things about this seem hollow -- it would have been a huge deal for Obama's grandmother to see her grandson elected President, and she died just short of his victory.)
As to the SSM issue, I'm constantly puzzled about parts of the opposition to it. (I do understand -- disagree with, but understand -- other parts of it.)
Beyond that, the good news is that it'll still happen. As far as California goes, as the decision overturning the ban made clear, the only real difference between CA SSM and CA SSDP is the "naming rights." As you've gathered, I'm in favor of recognizing marriages as marriages, but this is just a setback, not an end; couples will still be able to fall in love, live together, break up, have kids, and all, and by and large, the straights who have trouble with that will continue to, more and more, get used to it, and many of them will look back and wonder why it seemed like such a big deal to them.
Which, really, is largely where we are, except for the naming rights, in most times and places. I'm old enough to remember, say, a psychiatrist kicking his favorite daughter out of his home when she came out to him, privately, as a lesbian, out of the (probably exaggerated, but not necessarily utterly crazy) fear that his practice would dry up if he had an openly lesbian/gay child.
These days, that sounds utterly crazy.
Gay-bashing referenda (along with so-called "right to life" referenda) have become a standard Get Out The Vote tactic in most states. This is intended to increase the vote for the party of Coleman, Bachmann, McCain, Pawlenty, etc. If you are going to get votes for Coleman, Bachmann, Pawlenty, McCain, etc., this is how the present-day Republican Party draws out their reliables.
I know full well you're neither a racial nor a sexual-orientation bigot, and I readily acknowledge that this is true of many Republicans I know (and many more self-described ex-Republicans). But the hardcore base of the post-Nixon, post-Reagan, post-Gingrich Republican Party is exactly there, in the lily-white suburbanites terrified of scary minorities and pushy women, and the narrow fundamentalist minds: the demographic for which Palin was a sop. Log Cabin Republicans and J.C. Watts tokenism aside, this is how the modern Republican Party was built.
There's at least some reason to believe that one of the factors that drove Prop 8 to victory were new black and Hispanic voters -- recruited by ACORN and Obama. (It's worth remembering, I think, that while the Obama campaign did not support Prop 8, both Obama and Biden have, when pressed, stated their opposition to SSM.)
I think it's useful to think of our political parties as coalitions, much as the multiple European parties form coalitions to govern. On the Democratic side, you have the various minority groups, gays, educated white liberals, civil libertarians, and anti-corporate activists. On the Republican side, you have evangelicals, states-righters, pro-business blocks, and others.
These groups do not necessarily have similar world views. Honestly, how much does a Greenwich hedge-fund baron really have in common with a rural Alabama Pentecostal? Do you really expect the roofer supporting an extended family in a Los Angeles barrio to see eye-to-eye with a Minnesotan college professor?
Our mistake is that thinking that just because we have two candidates, that there are just two political factions. In reality, no one is ever completely happy with election results.
For me, I'm glad Barkley did as well as he did. Wish he coulda pulled a Ventura, though.
Until the ACLU learns to count to 10 without skipping 2, don't call the Democrats the party of civil libertarians.
Wish I had my camera here. I could take a picture of my ACLU card next to my carry permit.
Of course, neither major party is very good on civil liberties. But after the disaster of the Patriot Act, FISA, et al., the GOP gets the Big Brother award. And at least the Dems have a few people (Chris Dodd comes to mind) who actively speak out on the subject.
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns."...Edward Abbey (1927-1989)
|Date:||November 5th, 2008 06:52 pm (UTC)|| |
Unfortunately, I suspect the success of 8 in California was significantly due to the new black and hispanic voters Obama brought to the polls. I haven't seen California polls breaking down in enough detail to confirm or deny it in terms of voting on that resolution, but in general even the younger Hispanic and black population are not big supporters of gay rights.
Yup. And I don't see anything really good about that. It's not like CA was ever in play, or that the anti-gay sentiments in the black and hispanic communities are unknown.
|Date:||November 5th, 2008 07:17 pm (UTC)|| |
I'm in favor of democracy. Getting people engaged in the political process is a good thing in and of itself. And I certainly don't imagine California to be reliably politically liberal; this is the state that gave us Nixon and Reagan, after all!
I think that in any possible scenario where Obama lost California -- hell, any one where he had to spend money, rather than generate it, there -- he had no chance at all.
The collateral damage here was eminently predictable.
|Date:||November 5th, 2008 07:31 pm (UTC)|| |
Winning California was not something to be counted on from the beginning. Apart from anything else, appearing to do so would change things.
From the sounds of it there was also a lot of Mormon money that went to the "Yes On 8" folks.
Sure; I think there's lots of folks to share the blame. It's not a secret that both Mormons and blacks are, generally, against SSM.
Or anywhere else. There are, after all, Republicans who favor SSM, and those whose opposition to it isn't anti-gay, but out of a (totally mistaken, IMHO) impression that SSM leads to the breakdown of marriage and family or that changes in the law, short of real constitutionality questions* should be done by legislators, not judges (a position I have some sympathy for).
* As I've probably mentioned before, I read the decison and dissent in the CA case, and it was clear to me that the majority had, after saying that they didn't want to write policy into law, wrote policy into law. I'd be upset if I was opposed to the policy, so I find that troubling.
Readily acknowledged; but he's under constant attack by his party's red-meat right, as I understand it, for just such sensible stances.