Category: Political

Categories
Diversity Political

Nonlinear: where is the grandma on the side of the gays?

A few weeks back I went to my regular polling place–the Catholic Church associated with the Archbishop’s offices next door to our home– to cast my vote in the Missouri primary. On my way I passed the Catholic run retirement community across the street, as well as the Seminary that forms the land around our housing complex.

When I got there, I was asked which ballot I wanted among the options of Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and so on. Most of the parties had full ballot books, but the Democratic one looked like it was down to the last few pages. The state predicted there would be a heavier than normal Democratic turnout this year, as there was a battle among the Dems for both state and national positions. The Republican candidates ran uncontested for the most part.

On the ballot were two main initiatives: one in support of increased river boat gambling, and the other, a marriage amendment that would alter the state’s constitution to say that marriage was only between a man and a woman. I voted “No” on both, taking extra care to make sure I punched the right hole on the Marriage Amendment. Unfortunately, my caution was for nothing as the amendment won, and by a considerable margin.

The anti-marriage amendment forces fought to put the Marriage Amendment on the primary ballot instead of the regular ballot in November thinking there would be more Democrats voting in this primary than Republicans; more Democrats, to them, translated into more ‘no’ votes against the marriage amendment . That’s all well and fine – but what I couldn’t figure out is why those against the amendment assumed that most Democrats would vote against the marriage amendment, while most Republicans would vote for it. After all, Democrats aren’t traditionally the forerunners when it comes to social change.

Much of the early support for the Democratic party, in fact, came from southern slave holders, back before the civil war. It was this that led to the formation of the Republican Party: a group of people opposed to slavery got together in Wisconsin to create a party specifically to fight expansion of slavery*.

Remember George Wallace standing on the steps the schoolhouse in defiance of the courts, trying to bar blacks from entering a segregated school? Well old Governor Wallace was Democrat. In fact he was from that part of the southern Democrats that Howard Dean was referring to when he talked about attracting the confederate flag flying southerners–a statement that lost him most of whatever respect he had in this state.

It was the 1964 election between Johnson and Barry Goldwater that signaled a change in both the Democratic and Republican parties when it came to social issues. Many of the Southern Democrats, previously united with their northern brothers through FDR’s New Deal policies, became angry at Johnson’s overt support of the Civil Rights Movement, and made a mass exodus to the Republican Party.

There has, historically, been strong ties between slaveholding and southern fundamentalist Christian faith, with many slaveholders using religion as a defense of their actions. When those who supported segregation between blacks and whites made the move to the Republican party, they also took along much of the southern faithful with them.

This didn’t mean there was a mass exodus of people of all faith to the Republican side. For instance, members of several Protestant groups, in addition to the Jewish and the Catholic faiths have been some of the more liberal elements of the Democratic party, and have long fought for equal rights for blacks and other minorities. Rather than run from the Democratic party when it embraced civil rights, they were right there in the forefront, cheering the move on.

All well and good. Why, then, did the marriage amendment have such a success if the primary vote was mainly Democrat? since this state voted for Johnson over Goldwater, as well as Kennedy, Clinton, and other very liberal Democrats, it was a given there would be enough Democrats to help defeat the marriage amendment–or at least help contain and minimize the margin of victory.

The challenge is that even among the Democratic faithful, the fight for minority rights for blacks and adherence to other liberal causes doesn’t necessarily translate into support for some of so-called ‘personal morality issues’ –such as the support for choice, and gay rights.

It was Archbishop Burke in St. Louis – yes, the man who has offices right next door to where I live – who originally came out with the statement about denying communion to John Kerry because of Kerry’s support for Choice. And it is the same Archbishop Burke referenced in the following:

Archbishop Raymond Burke has become the effective spokesman for the orthodox Catholic position among the US bishops with his unabashed criticism of Catholic politicians who support abortion. Burke has been equally forthright on the subject of homosexual ‘marriage.’ He has issued a letter addressed to the Catholics of the St. Louis Archdiocese in which he urges his flock to participate in the decision and offers a document for instruction. Burke says, “The action in question has profound implications for the future of marriage and family life… I urge you to exercise your right and fulfill your duty to vote on Aug. 3″

Within the Republicans, on the other hand, are people who joined this party because of economic policies or issues of gun control or, most recently, the war on terror and within Iraq. Though they may be members of a particular faith, they’re not necessarily supportive of conservative religious doctrine. In fact, many Republicans are indifferent to gay rights as an issue, at worst; even supportive of gay rights, at best–when they’re gently reminded of the proud legacy of social justice that forms the history of the party.

Rather than support these initiatives, many of these Economic Right Republicans (I’ll call them for want of a better term) believe that the government has no business getting involved in people’s personal lives. Whether a woman has an abortion or not is up to the woman and her doctor. If two men who are gay want to live together, well, that’s they’re business.

The only time they’re likely to take note of these issues is when they might be impacted by them, such as having to pay taxes for welfare. Or having to fuss around with the expense of adding another amendment to a constitution.

But these people weren’t targeted here in Missouri. No, most of the effort to reach out to voters here was focused at the Democrat’s traditional base; the same base that was almost guaranteed to support the marriage amendment here in Missouri.

While the church members in support of the amendment were on the phone – I myself received three phone calls in the week before the election, and I don’t even belong to a church – those against the amendment were airing ads on TV, talking about discrimination and rights of all people, and calling the amendment “meanspirited”. But, says the kind, gray haired, sweater wearing grandma on the phone, this isn’t discrimination–all God’s children are welcome in his eyes. This is just keeping marriage to its traditional definition of being between a man and a woman.

“No one is discriminating against homosexuals in this state,” Grandma says. Heaven forbid.

Where was the kindly, gray haired sweater wearing grandma on the side of the gays?

Oh. There she is.

Those who fought the amendment continue the fight in other states, saying:

“We’re already reaching out to these other states, sharing with them what we learned, what worked, what didn’t work, and we’ll move on,” said Doug Gray, campaign manager for the Constitution Defense League. “Ultimately we’re right and they’re simply wrong.”

Ultimately we’re right and they’re simply wrong.

Doesn’t sound like proponents for gay rights learned all that much from Missouri.

*The Republicans weren’t just socially liberal when it comes to blacks, either: the first women elected to Congress in the United States was a Republican – Jeanette Rankin elected in Montana four years before women were given the right to vote in 1920.

Categories
Political

Missouri: where to be this election

Sam Ruby pointed to the Electoral Vote Predictor making note that it may all come down to Missouri. Watch it closely.

Missouri is what’s known as the bellwether state, picking the winning President more than any other state in the Union – only missing once in the last 100+ years. This includes picking liberal presidents as well as conservative, surprising people who see Missouri as being ‘conservative’ – especially in light of the recent vote on the anti-gay marriage amendment.

Not surprising, though, when you consider that ‘gay’ marriage isn’t necessarily an issue split between liberal and conservative lines – a mistake the gay marriage proponents made when campaigning in this state.

At American Street and his own weblog, Chuck Currie wrote on the recent vote:

Bigotry and bad judgment won out in Missouri tonight.

If there’s anything we learn from the political processes in the United States this year, it’s that the choices we’re being asked to make are neither inherently good, nor inherently evil. Those in favor of gay marriage need to scratch beneath the surface of the vote here in Missouri in order to see what went wrong and what can be done in the future to bring about this significant social change.

I’ll have more to say on Missouri and US politics over the next few months. But note that, at this time, Missouri is split, equally, between Bush and Kerry.

Categories
Political

This is Democratic National Convention week

I know that there are many of you unaware that this is National Democratic Convention week. For those new to American politics, all this fooflah must seem a bit bewildering. What is all the fuss about if Kerry has the nomination?

So what does the National Democratic Convention mean to webloggers, anyway?

Does it mean that weblogging is going to be inundated, nay, saturated with American politics?

Does it mean that we’re going to be subjected to 100 different weblogger interpretations of just the type of speeches we wouldn’t watch on TV, read in the papers, or listen to the radio?

Does it mean that we’re going to hear about free meals and not enough port-a-potties?

Does is mean that there’s a possibility that Kerry will lose the nomination in a last minute breathless bid by (what was the name of that guy that had all that money and was going to win the nomination–oh yeah) Ralph Nader?

No! None of this!

It means that it’s time to start a new meme.

This week, regardless of who you are and what you write, try to incorporate the words ‘democratic’, ‘national’, and ‘convention’ into whatever it is you’re writing. The words don’t have to appear together– they just have to appear in the body of the post. You could of course write about the DNC, but that’s a bit of cheat really.

For instance, are you writing about breaking up with your boyfriend? Then try this for size:

It’s not been my convention to talk about my personal life on my weblog. After all, it’s rather embarrassing to think of my private thoughts being read by a national audience, must less by an international one.

But I believe that we can learn from each other’s pain. We can grow as we share these moments together in a democratic display of fellowship.

And I want to make that asshole pay. I want to make him pay real bad. So I’m going to write about every one of his fetishes…including the one where he …

See? Couldn’t be easier.

Categories
Political Weblogging Writing

A Missouri woman heads to American Streets

Starting this next Sunday, I’ll be writing a weekly essay at The American Street–my first time as contributor to a group weblog. Each essay is a longer writing, and may or may not include links. Though the topic will vary from week to week, I hope to bring a unique perspective to each that reflects, among other things, being a woman living in Missouri. Since it’s been said by those who say such things that women prefer facts over theory, you might say I’m providing the show me sex in the show me state viewpoint.

(Speaking of which, Missouri, an important swing state in the upcoming election, is also the site of one of four presidential debates scheduled for this Fall. It’s also a popular campaign stop for both parties, as witness President Bush’s visit today.)

I’ve resisted group weblogs in the past, preferring to keep all my writing here in my own space. What changed my mind in this case–aside from the other excellent writers at The American Street, not to mention my respect for Kevin Hayden–is that I want the discipline that comes with writing in another’s space, and at specific times in the week.

I’m writing on impulse too much lately. Writing impulsivly is not the same as being fresh and spontaneous. There is an element of ‘knee jerk’ reaction to impulsive writing, and I end up regretting such writing, more often than not.

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of material lately that leads to reactive behavior, much of it political in nature. I’ve been reading the top linked stories the last few week and I’m seeing a new element entering into weblogging; we’ll call it the “Fox” element for want of another classification. You can see it with the relatively new weblog written by Michelle Malkin, who happens to be, among other things, a Fox News Contributor.

Malkin has looked at weblogging and seen what it’s done for Wonkette and others, and has enthusiastically jumped in. She’s a real pro, too, having written for the New York Post and National Review Online, as well as being trained by that media maw that is known as Fox. Though we can laugh and sneer at Fox’s lack of credibility, make no mistake–it is the highest rated news station in the country now. Fox sells here in Missouri. Fox sells in a lot of places.

Malkin has, quickly and efficiently, demonstrated how to push the right buttons with her writing. Though I am pleased to see a woman gain such immediate attention, I am less than sanguine when I read her form of journalism.

Malkin succeeds by generating impulsive reactions. Whether they are reactions for or against (primarily for, at this time), there is something about her writing that makes me, at least, want to sit down in a heat of anger and write a blistering refutation.

However, the problem with this kind of reaction is all we’re doing is responding to having our buttons pushed; instead of providing a counter-point, we’re providing a chorus. It’s somewhat comparable to Fox News and that new documentary, Outfoxed. Is Outfoxed outfoxing Fox? Or will it be outfoxed itself as Fox’s audience increases rather than decreases over the next several months, thanks in part to this documentary. The documentary and that foolish MoveOn challenge of Fox’s slogan, “Fair and Balanced”, I should add.

Rather than immediately respond to Maltin’s writings, or other events just as heated and reactive, with many postings barely controlled, I’m hoping that by picking one specific topic, thinking about it carefully and calmly and then writing about it on a specific day, to a weblog shared with other people, my writing will not only be more disciplined, but more effective. The writing can still be as passionate; hopefully, though, it will also be thoughtful, cohesive, and coherent.

(Not to mention spell checked, and carefully edited for grammar. Not, toomany, comma’s or other punctuation an grammar errors other other typos in the writing of it.)

My appreciations to The American Street folks for inviting me in.

Now, I may be more thoughtful with my political writing at The American Street, but I’ll still blather incoherently about everything else here, or in Practical RDF. Just in case you were worried.

Unfortunately, reading popular political weblogs from all sides of the fence, I have a feeling my approach is not going to gain The American Street any fans.

Categories
Political

Political Games

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

With the American election getting ever closer, the political games will continue to increase. If we’ve managed to stumble about in naiveté for the last three years, now is the time to wake up, and smell the cynicism.

There have been a number of folk who have tried to generate discord in the “Anyone but Bush” solid front by questioning whether Kerry would be a good President. They say, what are the positive things about Kerry that would make him a good leader? After all, can’t elect a man just because he’s not George Bush, can we?

The hope is that they’ll pull the more liberal or seemingly liberal of us about and get us thinking that, why of course we shouldn’t vote for someone just because they’re not someone else. They pro-Bush camp is joined by Ralph Nader and his supporters in this effort to drain off just enough of the votes from Kerry to put Bush back into the White House, while giving Nader the ego boost he seems to desperately need.

What the parties involved forget is that for many elections, people vote for the best of a lot we don’t generally care for, making a determination that we’d rather have someone who is inactively good, than actively bad.

I am voting for Kerry and Edwards because, first of all, they are not Bush and Cheney. Even if Kerry spent the next four years, comatose at his desk and didn’t do a damn thing, he would be a better President than George W. Bush in the White House for four more years without the constraints of worrying about a future re-election. An unconstrained Bush is the stuff of nightmares. (Puerile humorous pun unintended.)

If Kerry just sat in his chair, contemplating his navel, he wouldn’t be attempting to work around the decisive support for ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Reserve) by opening up the rest of the Arctic for devastating damage via oil drilling infrastructure (thanks Julie.)

If Kerry spent the time playing Solitaire, at least he wouldn’t be invading other countries on shallow pretexts, and then find a handy scape goat when things don’t go according to a badly thought out plan. Or inviting in big time financial supporters to change the course of the environmental and energy policies in this country, until such time as the supporter gets busted.

If Kerry and Edwards spend all their time traveling the country, appearing in nightclubs as a singing act called “The Breckettes”, hopefully they would fire that incompetent Ridge first, with his deliberate manufacturing of fear through vague and unspecified threats; not to mention thoughts of bloodless coups. Then some kid who happens to be the wrong skin color can go back to finishing his photo assignments without being arrested.

(By the way, I didn’t mention this earlier, but half of my photographs that will be appearing in the August issue of Missouri Life were of bridges. I figure this should help sales–all those brown skinned terrorists in this country, you know.)

No, if Kerry spent most of his time finger-painting on the walls of the Oval Office using ketchup, he at least wouldn’t be harrassing gays in order gain a few extra votes from those who like nothing better than to interfere in the lives of others. In the name of God, of course. Don at Hands in the Dirt had it right:

This was about election political posturing at the expense of a minority segment of the population.

And since Kerry is under threat from being denied religious comfort for being a leader to the people rather than a good Catholic, perhaps the righteous religious in this country will have to go back to practicing their religion, all that golden rule stuff, rather than trying to force the rest of us into their beliefs.

(Oh, and for those critical of Edwards and Kerry for not being present for this vote, be aware that the members of Congress almost always know how a vote will go before it happens. A favorite election year gambit is to use this knowledge ahead of time to make those who are running for office seem negligent when they aren’t available for a vote. Members of a party will actually change their vote on a measure to make the vote seem much closer than it would really be, just to generate bad publicity for a candidate. Yeah, I know: devious. And both parties are guilty of it. So take the cries of, “But they didn’t vote” with a grain of salty sand.)

No, I reckon a dead Kerry is worth more than a live Bush in office. After all, we thought a dead man was worth more than Ashcroft when he ran for Congress in Missouri.

But having said this, I think a live Kerry will do a lot of good. I think he’ll put back many, if not all, of the environmental protections we’ve lost over the last three years. I also think he’ll reduce the office of Homeland Security to it’s proper role, and roll back many of the paranoid acts that have been foolishly passed. Contrary to unfounded implications, I expect that he’ll be a strong leader in case of conflict, if needed; but I also don’t think he’ll go looking for a fight.

He knows that healthcare is an issue, needing more effective legislation than that foolish Medicare drug reform that just so happens to benefit yet more Bush supporters. He also knows that we’ve botched our handling of the military needs for the Mideast and will hopefully stop punishing the same military by yanking them about with little regard and even less pay.

He’ll make tough choices – like eliminating some of those tax cuts. Mario Cuomo did a brilliant TV interview this weekend saying that only the top 2% of the country really benefits from the tax cuts. The problem, he said, is that the top 20% of income earners think they’re in the top 2% income bracket. So about 18% of the people think they’ll benefit from tax cuts, when in reality the benefit is negligible.

Most of all, I think both Kerry and Edwards will listen to others, and be prepared to change their minds when new facts arise. Some people call this flip-flopping; I call this learning from experience, and being willing to admit you made a mistake.