The 'progressive movement' is going nuts over the defeat of gay marriage in California.
A few Prop. 8 truths:
1. Prop. 8's margin of defeat was supplied by Obama's core base of support, African American fundamentalist churchgoers. But for Obama's presence on the ballot, many of this demographic sub group would have neither registered nor voted, and Prop. 8 would have failed.
2. Obama all but endorsed Prop. 8. He's said he's against federal action banning gay marriage, but in favor of allowing states to decide the issue of gay marriage, and is personally opposed to gay marriage. So, confronted with Prop. 8, WWOD? Vote for it!
3. The Governator and The One both refused to expend one penny of their political capital campaigning against Prop. 8. Talk's cheap. They were too scared to act when it mattered.
4. Biden, during the VP debate, announced "I agree with John and Sarah" on gay marriage. Again, if you were following your leaders . . .
5. Olbermann and others, who are now famously expressing their outrage at the election result, did NOTHING to defeat Prop. 8 before the election, because they didn't want to do anything to hurt Obama's chances. Where were Olbermann's PRE election final rants? You know, back when they could have made a difference?
They can picket Rick Warren's church, they can boycott Mormon owned businesses, and they can blame all the usual subjects. But, the so called "progressive movement" needs to look in the mirror and at their own triangulating leadership for an explanation of the Prop. 8 result.
BTW, I support gay marriage on libertarian grounds. Thus, I consistently criticised the Obama/Biden "wink/wink, nod/nod, we're just saying this to shut up the rubes" avoidance of the subject. Fact: Obama/Biden defeated gay marriage in California.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I get the impressions that so-called 'progressives' see minorities in a two-dimensional way, and project their own views onto minorities.
It never seems to occur to them that minorities can and do hold social views that are as conservative, if not more so, than whites on the right.
In a similar way as the left has tried to forge a left-Islamic alliance post 9-11.
Exactly - - in fact, isn't it racist to think that fundamentalists and evangelicals of different races will vote differently on social questions (abortion, marriage, sexual preference) solely due to the color of their skin? Church ladies are church ladies.
Obama held registration drives in black churches and toured with black gospel singers (starting in South Carolina). Why isn't it racist for "progressives" to assume these folks will vote liberal just because they're black? It shows how they really don't know black people and the black community. . . AND it shows another missed opportunity by the conservatives "leaders".
Ah but therein lies the dilemma Barry.
"Church ladies" are uniformly socially conservative only on SOME things. Such as being opposed to gay marriage and being opposed to unfettered abortion on demand.
But many of the "church ladies" whether black or white, while opposed to abortion and gay marriage are otherwise pretty liberal - in favor of big government welfare programs, very much against the war in Iraq and therefore anti-Bush (and suspicious of McCain), etc. My impression of black church going ladies are that they are not so much like them bible-beltin, gun-totin, evangelicals (who are politically conservative across the board) except on a very few issues such as THOSE two...otherwise they are more like CATHOLICS (which I happen to be). Big govt., anti-war, anti-death penalty, ok with gun control, welfare statists, ambivalent about Israel/Palestine etc....in other words, half to 2/3 of Catholics are pretty much your run of the mill liberals EXCEPT on the abortion/gay issues. And I think black christians are similar to that.
So your suggested "opportunity" for conservatives leaders with ANY undecided "church ladies" would have been to try to kowtow to them on two of the issues which serve more than anything else, to ALIENATE you moderates out there who might be more inclined to vote for the Republican, BUT FOR the GOP's perceived insistence on being so dang "homophobic" and insistence of "taking away women's sacred right to choose".
Damned if they do and damned if they don't, if they choose to push the anti-gay marriage or pro-life buttons too hard. MAYBE they garner some extra "church lady" support, but at the same time, alienate a HUGE swath of the middle of the road electorate, who have a palpable FEAR of the influence of evangelical christianity on the GOP. How many times did we have to get subjected to "W is creating a christianist theocracy" claims.
So there's your dilemma Repubublican politicians face. And the only way true conservatives can win and have a broad based appeal (in my opinion) is for them to do the same thing with their hard right evangelical bible thumpers, for whom pro-life and anti-gay marriage are such hot buttons, is to be like smart Dems (such as Clinton) was with gays. "Shhh....keep quiet...we'll wink wink talk about being 'moderates' on this issue, but just lay low and we'll appoint a Scalia or two for you when we get in - but we got to get IN first, so don't make any waves."
If I'm hired as a political adviser to Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin in 2012, my advice is contrary to yours....I'm saying "go LOW KEY on the gay and abortion issues. Those are bottom priority is the message. Be vague. Spin. Sidestep. Tell everyone what you think they want to hear depending on what group you're in front of (like Obama did - take a page right out of his playbook on that - he was the master "I am what you want me to be"...so - make gays think you may be okay on gay marriage - wink out the side of your face at the evangelicals). And hammer home the Conservative message (SMALLER government, massive tax reform (e.g., flat or fair tax), strong defense, etc, etc.) so that the choice is not between a real Socialist and a sort of socialist. But a true CHOICE between two very distinct political philosophies."
It may not be a winner - but hey, at least give voters an actual apples vs. oranges choice instead of McCainIntosh Apple or (Commie) Red Delicious Apple.
Oh, and another thing, as long as I am on a rant:
Go FINS! BEAT Oakland!!
STOP USING CONSERVATIVE AND REPUBLICAN AS SYNONYMS !!!
If Poppy and W taught you anything, it's that they're not.
Clinton ran a more fiscally conservative administration than either (and DON'T give Newt all the credit). CARTER was the president who ended federal funding for abortion.
* * *
And 'fins could be # 1 in the east? If the Gators sweep SC, FSU, and ALA, they go against Texas Tech for the championship? Who cares about this other stuff!
No worries about me confusing Republicans with "conservatives."
How well I learned that Poppy, W, and for that matter McCain, are not in any way "Conservative."
My point was only, a conservative republican, in trying to reach over and parlay the social conservatism of say, many black voters into votes, has to walk a fine line between winning them over and alienating those who are "economic" conservatives but social liberals.
Oh, and I think the winner of the Florida-Alabama game will most certainly be playing for the National Championship.
I think our Fins are a year (and a couple of players, like a RG, and a CB) away from the playoffs. But after 1-15, and hoping this year for 6-10....that 8-8 or 9-7 record and a tough competitive product to watch on the field, has been VERY sweet.
Post a Comment