It seems like Obama, despite the continual promises of support for GLBT rights, especially the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it seems like the administration and the Democrats in general aren't able to live up to campaign promises and take decisive leadership roles on GLBT issues. In fact, between the Dems who supported McCain's filibuster and the lack of leadership by Obama administration, perhaps it's time that the HRC and major GLBT supporters of the Democratic party should be changing the focus of our fund-raising efforts to put more effort into supporting GLSEN, Lambda Legal, and organizations that support members of the military. I think it might be time for us to give up on the idea of these politicians to support us and for us to make more of an effort for us to take care of our own.
This isn't to say we should totally abandon Democratic and Independent candidates, and any others who pledge to support GLBT rights, that would be a mistake, but we should make our disappointment and displeasure heard by withdrawing financial support. If our political are more interested in keeping their jobs than in actually leading, maybe it's right for them to be voted out now while we have a Democratic president to veto Republican legislation and find candidates for the 2012 elections that are going to take strong stands.
One reason I am bringing this up is because of two recent cases of young teens, both 13 year old boys who were known to be gay, who because of extreme bullying in school, attempted suicide. One of the two shot himself and is dead, the other is on life support after hanging himself at home. This second victim had left school to be home schooled because of the peer torment and was still being bullied. It is unacceptable that just as these students are coming to an awareness of their sexual orientation at earlier ages that we aren't drastically increasing our efforts to protect them.
It has always been difficult for adult GLBT people to mentor young people. It is all too easy for supportive adults to become targets of accusations of sexual misconduct. This doesn't, however, make it any less important for us to put our efforts into supporting organizations that provide support groups, social opportunities, and safe spaces for our youths. If support from the government is being opposed by people on the conservative Right, or even the anti-gay center, than we should put our money power into supporting our young people.
Whatever steps we take in the future, we cannot allow our community to abdicate responsibility for our most vulnerable, thereby giving conservatives the ability to successfully limit our outreach programs and community support. If Obama and the Democrats can't take firm action on DADT, something the president could end with a single Executive Order, than we need to find leaders who will.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Republicans Created the Rhetoric of Healthcare
Democrats have a major problem in running campaigns this fall. First, there is an incredible amount of energy against them. Second, many of the good things they've done in Congress haven't had physical, concrete results in the minds of most people. Third, and probably most important, the rhetoric around the legislation that they've had successes with has been set against them. It's easy for people in the economic recession we have right now to be swayed against whatever party is in power. Although we had a slowing economy and the threat of a recession during 2007 and early 2008, the Obama campaign was about change and hope from the bleak political situation most people felt we were in. The economic crash then happened in the months after the election of Obama and from then until now we've suffered the most debilitating effects of the mortgage and credit crisis and the loss of jobs.
The first major piece of legislative action that came from the new administration was the Economic Stimulus. Bailouts were a necessity. After the Bush Bailout made $700 billion disappear into the banks, it was difficult for opponents of the Obama administration to reject the stimulus bill out of hand because so many manufacturing industries, principally the auto industry, were in jeopardy. A tremendous amount of negative energy came out of the base of those political opponents. They then spent the political capitol gained from their base on the health care bill.
Now, here's the crux of things: No matter how much the Democrats were in front of television to explain to the American public what the legislation was, the Republicans and the Tea Party were infinitely more successful. From the moment of the Tea Party protests onward the Republican Party has controlled the rhetoric surrounding healthcare. Even the fact that some people call the health care legislation Obamacare, is indicative of the control that Obama's opponents have over the rhetoric.
With a little more than a month to go before the elections, many Democratic candidates are avoiding directly discussing the particulars of the health care bill because Republicans have been so successful at playing on people's fears and misconception about the legislation to turn it into irradiated political nuclear waste.
Despite the rhetoric that Republicans have created over 'Obamacare', in their new policy statement, Republicans are advocating repealing the entire bill and instead implementing many things that have already been put into place by the health care bill. Many things that President Obama is now trying to barrage the press with, such as removing lifetime caps, getting rid of the restrictions against people with pre-existing conditions, and children with pre-existing conditions being allowed to get insurance, all of those things are nearly universally popular.
The public in general, I think, has this perception that there is massive amounts of pieces to the legislation that will kill health care in this country, or that it is some totalitarian-ish take over of their right to control their own care. That's an interesting line of thinking, but it doesn't in any way mitigate the fact that the Republicans won't do any better.
With their outright commitment to privatizing Social Security, Medicare, and the VA hospitals and veteran's health care, it is curious to think that some people believe their interest is in terms of healthcare in general would be on the side of consumer protection and offering affordable options to the uninsured.
Democrats are afraid of the negative associations with their health care bill and that if they run on the merits of that bill that they'd suffer for it. Because they didn't respond to the Tea Party protests by getting their own activists out into the public forum and didn't make a more concerted effort to publicize those merits, it is probably true, they probably can't run on health care.
The first major piece of legislative action that came from the new administration was the Economic Stimulus. Bailouts were a necessity. After the Bush Bailout made $700 billion disappear into the banks, it was difficult for opponents of the Obama administration to reject the stimulus bill out of hand because so many manufacturing industries, principally the auto industry, were in jeopardy. A tremendous amount of negative energy came out of the base of those political opponents. They then spent the political capitol gained from their base on the health care bill.
Now, here's the crux of things: No matter how much the Democrats were in front of television to explain to the American public what the legislation was, the Republicans and the Tea Party were infinitely more successful. From the moment of the Tea Party protests onward the Republican Party has controlled the rhetoric surrounding healthcare. Even the fact that some people call the health care legislation Obamacare, is indicative of the control that Obama's opponents have over the rhetoric.
With a little more than a month to go before the elections, many Democratic candidates are avoiding directly discussing the particulars of the health care bill because Republicans have been so successful at playing on people's fears and misconception about the legislation to turn it into irradiated political nuclear waste.
Despite the rhetoric that Republicans have created over 'Obamacare', in their new policy statement, Republicans are advocating repealing the entire bill and instead implementing many things that have already been put into place by the health care bill. Many things that President Obama is now trying to barrage the press with, such as removing lifetime caps, getting rid of the restrictions against people with pre-existing conditions, and children with pre-existing conditions being allowed to get insurance, all of those things are nearly universally popular.
The public in general, I think, has this perception that there is massive amounts of pieces to the legislation that will kill health care in this country, or that it is some totalitarian-ish take over of their right to control their own care. That's an interesting line of thinking, but it doesn't in any way mitigate the fact that the Republicans won't do any better.
With their outright commitment to privatizing Social Security, Medicare, and the VA hospitals and veteran's health care, it is curious to think that some people believe their interest is in terms of healthcare in general would be on the side of consumer protection and offering affordable options to the uninsured.
Democrats are afraid of the negative associations with their health care bill and that if they run on the merits of that bill that they'd suffer for it. Because they didn't respond to the Tea Party protests by getting their own activists out into the public forum and didn't make a more concerted effort to publicize those merits, it is probably true, they probably can't run on health care.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Conservative Agenda
It's really interesting how much of the rhetoric of the conservative political movements and Tea Party surround the idea of limited size of government, limits on government power, restricting government's involvement in the private business sector and then removing the government's involvement in our private lives and our 'liberty'.
This last bit is a complete falsehood. The conservative politicians and Tea Party movement doesn't want the government out of OUR lives, they want it out of THEIR lives. What this means in some practical terms is that they want to be able to be free to do and say what they please, to believe what they want and to be free to act on those beliefs without any infringement. They want to be able to deny gay people and Muslims the right to rent apartments, they want to be able to fire people for 'lifestyle choices'. They want to be able to say whatever they want wherever they want, including at work, and not be afraid of others being offended or suffer any consequence for hurtful or outright hateful things they say. They want to dictate what is legally acceptable in our society based on THEIR beliefs and not be forced to deal with the 'special interest groups', which really means minority people.
This last is an especially hypocritical part of their rhetoric. They say they want to restore individual liberties and freedoms, which is actually the above, but they want to outlaw all abortion via constitutional amendment, as well as gay marriage. Some visible conservative activists, and leaders in the Tea Party movement, have actually said on television that they think we should outlaw the building of any new mosques in this country. I think that some of them would actually outlaw interracial marriage again if they could.
How do you justify having these above beliefs when you profess the principles of freedom of religion and rights to privacy? They hate it when they are called racists, yet they continually proclaim the illegitimacy of President Barak Obama. They don't do this by using a situation like the Florida recount of 2000 when George W Bush was elected because those 'liberal activist judges' upheld ballots some said were questionable based on the principles of voter rights. No, instead they use language that, though they claim it isn't racially motivated, isn't even subtle in its racial implications, such as saying he's a 'Kenyan tribal anti-colonialist'. They have no problem claiming that that isn't racially motivated or racist language, which is incomprehensible to me.
Some among the conservative candidates running in this year's mid-term elections have even publicly taken the position of being anti-abortion, with no exceptions made for victims of rape or incest. Rachel Maddow claims that this kind of stance on abortion used to be totally off-limits for all but the extreme fringe. Obviously that fringe has taken to the mainstream. The idea that making it illegal for women to have access to reproductive health resources ISN'T a right to privacy issue is ludicrous. If there are any circumstances in which we should absolutely have a right to privacy it is in our most intimate relationships and the right to control our own bodies. While they are claiming the Obama administration is part of a socialist/communist conspiracy to control the minds and bodies of everyone in this country, ironically not recognizing any difference between socialism and communism, they would do EXACTLY that and are completely unapologetic about it.
The same principle of hypocrisy holds true for their stance on gay marriage. While they have a right to believe whatever they want to believe, and are free to practice their religion, it is bizarre to think that their values of 'freedom of speech' and individual liberty wouldn't extend to the governments interference in the private relationships of same-sex couples. If they were truly for individual freedom and liberty they would make every effort to ensure that the government doesn't make any laws to restrict the rights of any of its citizenry. And while some conservatives might say that they aren't restricting gay people's rights to marry, they could marry a member of the opposite sex any time they want, no one can deny that this is exclusive of the types of loving relationships gay people do enter into. Those same people who would reinstate sodomy laws if they could share that same sentiment of not seeing any conflict between their stance of individual freedom and being anti-gay marriage.
Ultimately it comes down to this, and I've said it before: the conservative political movement isn't about freedom for all citizens, it's about freedom for themselves and asserting control over everyone else in the country so that theirs is the only system of beliefs and values that are legal in this country. They may rail against the current administration and against progressive politics in general, but when any rational, thinking person thinks through the issues surrounding these social values, they will see that progressives, many of whom are Democrats, some of whom are Independents and moderate Republicans, are the only ones looking to protect the 'liberties' that those in the Tea Party most enjoy and take for granted.
This last bit is a complete falsehood. The conservative politicians and Tea Party movement doesn't want the government out of OUR lives, they want it out of THEIR lives. What this means in some practical terms is that they want to be able to be free to do and say what they please, to believe what they want and to be free to act on those beliefs without any infringement. They want to be able to deny gay people and Muslims the right to rent apartments, they want to be able to fire people for 'lifestyle choices'. They want to be able to say whatever they want wherever they want, including at work, and not be afraid of others being offended or suffer any consequence for hurtful or outright hateful things they say. They want to dictate what is legally acceptable in our society based on THEIR beliefs and not be forced to deal with the 'special interest groups', which really means minority people.
This last is an especially hypocritical part of their rhetoric. They say they want to restore individual liberties and freedoms, which is actually the above, but they want to outlaw all abortion via constitutional amendment, as well as gay marriage. Some visible conservative activists, and leaders in the Tea Party movement, have actually said on television that they think we should outlaw the building of any new mosques in this country. I think that some of them would actually outlaw interracial marriage again if they could.
How do you justify having these above beliefs when you profess the principles of freedom of religion and rights to privacy? They hate it when they are called racists, yet they continually proclaim the illegitimacy of President Barak Obama. They don't do this by using a situation like the Florida recount of 2000 when George W Bush was elected because those 'liberal activist judges' upheld ballots some said were questionable based on the principles of voter rights. No, instead they use language that, though they claim it isn't racially motivated, isn't even subtle in its racial implications, such as saying he's a 'Kenyan tribal anti-colonialist'. They have no problem claiming that that isn't racially motivated or racist language, which is incomprehensible to me.
Some among the conservative candidates running in this year's mid-term elections have even publicly taken the position of being anti-abortion, with no exceptions made for victims of rape or incest. Rachel Maddow claims that this kind of stance on abortion used to be totally off-limits for all but the extreme fringe. Obviously that fringe has taken to the mainstream. The idea that making it illegal for women to have access to reproductive health resources ISN'T a right to privacy issue is ludicrous. If there are any circumstances in which we should absolutely have a right to privacy it is in our most intimate relationships and the right to control our own bodies. While they are claiming the Obama administration is part of a socialist/communist conspiracy to control the minds and bodies of everyone in this country, ironically not recognizing any difference between socialism and communism, they would do EXACTLY that and are completely unapologetic about it.
The same principle of hypocrisy holds true for their stance on gay marriage. While they have a right to believe whatever they want to believe, and are free to practice their religion, it is bizarre to think that their values of 'freedom of speech' and individual liberty wouldn't extend to the governments interference in the private relationships of same-sex couples. If they were truly for individual freedom and liberty they would make every effort to ensure that the government doesn't make any laws to restrict the rights of any of its citizenry. And while some conservatives might say that they aren't restricting gay people's rights to marry, they could marry a member of the opposite sex any time they want, no one can deny that this is exclusive of the types of loving relationships gay people do enter into. Those same people who would reinstate sodomy laws if they could share that same sentiment of not seeing any conflict between their stance of individual freedom and being anti-gay marriage.
Ultimately it comes down to this, and I've said it before: the conservative political movement isn't about freedom for all citizens, it's about freedom for themselves and asserting control over everyone else in the country so that theirs is the only system of beliefs and values that are legal in this country. They may rail against the current administration and against progressive politics in general, but when any rational, thinking person thinks through the issues surrounding these social values, they will see that progressives, many of whom are Democrats, some of whom are Independents and moderate Republicans, are the only ones looking to protect the 'liberties' that those in the Tea Party most enjoy and take for granted.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Conservatives/Tea Party
You know, they can say whatever they want about being anti-big government but George W Bush added the biggest increase in government in decades. He exponentially increased the amount of government involvement in our private lives through the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.
The Tea Party Libertarian candidates with their anti-government regulation schtick want to increase the restrictions on abortion and discriminating against same-sex couples while decreasing the Department of Education and thereby putting huge cutbacks into teachers pay and eliminating national education standards. By reducing government oversight of businesses they are giving corporations and the financial industry free license to ruin our lives.
There's a basic difference in principles here, I think. Progressives and liberals look to government to provide stability and protection. Conservatives want to freedom for businesses to make money by cutting back regulations and taxes so they can gain campaign contributions. Tea Party people and Libertarians wand the government to step away and ignorantly believe that the private commercial and financial sectors will protect consumers and the economy just out of the goodness of their hearts.
It's criminal to think that government regulation and taxation to balance the budget are bad when we've had a plethora of examples of what happens when corporations are not regulated enough both through the financial collapse and through the BP oil spill.
The Tea Party Libertarian candidates with their anti-government regulation schtick want to increase the restrictions on abortion and discriminating against same-sex couples while decreasing the Department of Education and thereby putting huge cutbacks into teachers pay and eliminating national education standards. By reducing government oversight of businesses they are giving corporations and the financial industry free license to ruin our lives.
There's a basic difference in principles here, I think. Progressives and liberals look to government to provide stability and protection. Conservatives want to freedom for businesses to make money by cutting back regulations and taxes so they can gain campaign contributions. Tea Party people and Libertarians wand the government to step away and ignorantly believe that the private commercial and financial sectors will protect consumers and the economy just out of the goodness of their hearts.
It's criminal to think that government regulation and taxation to balance the budget are bad when we've had a plethora of examples of what happens when corporations are not regulated enough both through the financial collapse and through the BP oil spill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
