The Democratic Party doesn't hold a monopoly on 'liberal' or 'progressive' ideals. The fact is that there are Dems who are in fact just as not-progressive as most Republicans. This is illustrated by the fact that there are plenty of men and women in Congress who either have direct ties to corporate and industrial interests like the oil companies and investment banks and hedge funds. It is also as problematic as the far right taking ownership of words like 'liberty', 'freedom', and 'patriot'.
At its heart 'progressive' thinking isn't the property of one party or the other, or any independent party masquerading as a legitimately independent group. We see this often when staunch and loyal Republicans who are not running for office speak out in support of civil rights, most noticeably now in the debate about LGBT rights. My favorite example of late is Meghan McCain. Here is the daughter of a Senator and former presidential candidate, an educated young woman who has experienced the best and worst parts of being on the campaign trail and participating in the most competitive national election in the election cycle. She often writes about how the GOP, by embracing candidates who aren't just Christian but extreme far-right Christians, and by using rhetoric of exclusion are setting themselves up for becoming obsolete and irrelevant.
That is part of the nature of our current political climate, though. Everyone has drawn their battle lines and claimed their labels and titles. And no it isn't fair for us to play the 'us' and 'them' game. But the truth is that there are people who are progressive thinkers, people who see that the only way forward is by leaving behind older technologies, older economic ideas, older political policies and adapt to the technologies and shifting geopolitical issues of our modern world. Progressive thinkers aren't necessarily behind green energy solutions because they are environmental activists, they're behind green energy because they recognize irrefutable proof that global climate change is already affecting our lives and will grow a bigger threat in the future. They support green energy because they recognize that as most industrialized countries either have already or will become prime markets for environmentally responsible technologies. They support it because they already see the nations who regularly rank higher than the US in quality of life and see the advanced public transportation, the clean energy solutions, the responsible consumerism and no lessening of the strength of the economy because of it.
Progressive thinkers recognize that some issues are apolitical and shouldn't have to impede our debate about economic and foreign policies. They have read the Bill of Rights and Constitution, were raised with the understanding that 'all men are created equal' and 'inalienable rights' should actually apply to all people, and with a spirit of empowerment. Perhaps it is just liberal idealism, but progressives, no matter their religious or cultural beliefs, recognize that every person deserves the same rights afforded to their peers. They recognize that just because a topic makes them personally uncomfortable does not give them the right to infringe on the rights of another. These principles then don't conflict with their personal religious beliefs nor their fiscal policies.
Younger generations seem to have more progressive thinkers, although we know from the cultural shifts of the 1960's and 70's that progressiveness was tied to youth then too, but also see that those progressive thinkers don't always remain progressive thinkers. This is an important part of the discussion, too. Should politicians not be thinking toward the future? Should they be acting as the parent who think they are right and want to impose the correct decisions and values onto younger generations on into the future? Or should they recognize that ideas and values evolve and that they should be making policy that is either adaptable as well or that reflects the direction our culture is going? Perhaps if more politicians were progressive thinkers they would have already have made some progress in recognizing and fighting cyber-bullying among young people, or cyber-terrorism on the national security front.
In a time of economic struggle like we have today it is difficult to recognize the commonalities between culturally progressive people. We are too busy drawing our battle lines in a two-party system and primarily because of the stark economic policy differences. It is just a shame, though, that regressive thinkers, all those people who clearly have forgotten the disastrous consequences of Reganomics and the recession of the 1980's, or even worse, those people who somehow romanticize pre-WWII America, have become the most visible and vociferous members of the GOP.
In a time when more and more young people have friends or loved ones who are gay people, when they've had more interaction with people of other cultures and races, the GOP isn't just in danger of becoming obsolete. If the Tea Party is any indication, the GOP of the pre-1990's with its social moderates has already become obsolete. They've abdicated their political authority first to the Christian Coalition during the 90's in an attempt further solidify political power, and now as the Christian conservatives have taken control of the Tea Party and the separatist/militia movement/libertarian/angry white people brand of politics, the true Republicans no longer hold the reigns of their own party.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
More on Obama and the ruling and injunction on Don't Ask, Don't Tell
There are some necessary thoughts about the effects of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Rachel Maddow on her show on MSNBC, which it shouldn't be a surprise that I love, interviewed two service members, both decorated Air Force fighter pilots who have served tours in central combat zones. Both men were kept in shadow and their identities were protected. The first of the two interviewees has a partner and laid out one of the most essential problems with the policy. Because he is gay and is forced to remain in the closet, his relationship with his partner must remain absolutely secret. That means the partner has no official relationship status with the service member.
One of the consequences of this lack of status is that the partner of a service member on active duty would not be notified if their partner was killed in action. The reverse is also true, should anything happen to the non-military partner, unless a family member or close friend was able to inform them, which is not always the case if they are in a heavy combat area, that military person wouldn't know if they're partner died. If they were recognized by the military, the administrative arm of the military would make sure that this notification happened either surviving partner.
Also, according to the interviewee, a service member can be sent home to be at the bedside of their spouse. Because of DADT, when his partner was in the hospital because of medical complications and his heart stopped and had to be resuscitated, he not only couldn't be there by the partner's side but wasn't even able to be informed of the situation. As a result he didn't find out until later how critical the health scare was. Because he's not out to his family or any but a few very close friends he couldn't obtain that information indirectly either. In the interview he said that he'd written a letter for a friend of his to give to his partner in the case of something happening to him during active service, and that that would be the only way his partner would be notified.
Estimates as to the number of gay men and lesbians in active military service probably vary widely, but a statistic I thought looked good from the methodology of those studying the issue came up with about 11,000 lesbians, 14,500 gay men. I've heard estimates that are three times that number.
Whatever the actual number of service members are gay or lesbian, it is inconceivable that anyone who truly respected the service of troupes and the needs of military service members would not recognize the incredible burden they are placing on these people by not repealing DADT. It is a clear example of the hypocrisy of the right-wing of politics that they have taken control of discourse around the meaning of freedom and liberty and what it means to be a patriotic American, yet they largely oppose open-service. You cannot be both. Either you are a patriot who loves our country and the freedoms that are at the foundation of our society, that you respect and are devoted to the welfare and well-being of all our service members, or you oppose the fundamental right of people in the service to healthfully and respectful acknowledge and embrace their essential identity and be unafraid of reprisals because of that openness.
It is a fact that Obama could issue an executive order that would put a moratorium on the execution of DADT. It is nearly a fact that there is no chance of the repeal of DADT actually passing as a part of legislation in the Senate, especially with the inevitable results of the 2010 mid-terms. Let me repeat that to be perfectly clear, there is almost NO chance for the repeal of DADT to pass in the Senate. If that doesn't happen, there is absolutely no way for Obama to oversee it's outright repeal. Even with a moratorium via executive order, that would only stay in effect until the next president decides to lift it, thereby reinstating the policy.
Right now, barring an act of honesty and integrity on the part of the Republican minority in the Senate, the only way for DADT to be repealed is through the courts and the only way for it to happen under Obama's current term is for him to instruct his Justice Department to not appeal the ruling from "Log Cabin Republicans vs. the United States" and the subsequent injunction. If he is honestly serious about seeing the policy end, which he states over and over again, this is his last real option. If he is honest in claiming that he is an ally of the LGBT community, this is his chance to prove it.
One of the consequences of this lack of status is that the partner of a service member on active duty would not be notified if their partner was killed in action. The reverse is also true, should anything happen to the non-military partner, unless a family member or close friend was able to inform them, which is not always the case if they are in a heavy combat area, that military person wouldn't know if they're partner died. If they were recognized by the military, the administrative arm of the military would make sure that this notification happened either surviving partner.
Also, according to the interviewee, a service member can be sent home to be at the bedside of their spouse. Because of DADT, when his partner was in the hospital because of medical complications and his heart stopped and had to be resuscitated, he not only couldn't be there by the partner's side but wasn't even able to be informed of the situation. As a result he didn't find out until later how critical the health scare was. Because he's not out to his family or any but a few very close friends he couldn't obtain that information indirectly either. In the interview he said that he'd written a letter for a friend of his to give to his partner in the case of something happening to him during active service, and that that would be the only way his partner would be notified.
Estimates as to the number of gay men and lesbians in active military service probably vary widely, but a statistic I thought looked good from the methodology of those studying the issue came up with about 11,000 lesbians, 14,500 gay men. I've heard estimates that are three times that number.
Whatever the actual number of service members are gay or lesbian, it is inconceivable that anyone who truly respected the service of troupes and the needs of military service members would not recognize the incredible burden they are placing on these people by not repealing DADT. It is a clear example of the hypocrisy of the right-wing of politics that they have taken control of discourse around the meaning of freedom and liberty and what it means to be a patriotic American, yet they largely oppose open-service. You cannot be both. Either you are a patriot who loves our country and the freedoms that are at the foundation of our society, that you respect and are devoted to the welfare and well-being of all our service members, or you oppose the fundamental right of people in the service to healthfully and respectful acknowledge and embrace their essential identity and be unafraid of reprisals because of that openness.
It is a fact that Obama could issue an executive order that would put a moratorium on the execution of DADT. It is nearly a fact that there is no chance of the repeal of DADT actually passing as a part of legislation in the Senate, especially with the inevitable results of the 2010 mid-terms. Let me repeat that to be perfectly clear, there is almost NO chance for the repeal of DADT to pass in the Senate. If that doesn't happen, there is absolutely no way for Obama to oversee it's outright repeal. Even with a moratorium via executive order, that would only stay in effect until the next president decides to lift it, thereby reinstating the policy.
Right now, barring an act of honesty and integrity on the part of the Republican minority in the Senate, the only way for DADT to be repealed is through the courts and the only way for it to happen under Obama's current term is for him to instruct his Justice Department to not appeal the ruling from "Log Cabin Republicans vs. the United States" and the subsequent injunction. If he is honestly serious about seeing the policy end, which he states over and over again, this is his last real option. If he is honest in claiming that he is an ally of the LGBT community, this is his chance to prove it.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
President Obama and the Gay Left
Something pretty incredible happened recently. After two important rulings regarding the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the US military first declared that the policy violates constitutional rights of service members and people considering entering military service but that in at least the instance of a specific flight nurse the policy actually hindered readiness and morale. The primary reason given by those opposed to repeal is that allowing gay and lesbians hurts readiness, morale and group cohesion. Recently, the judge who declared the constitutional issue via a ruling in a lawsuit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans issued a worldwide injunction basically saying that anyone and everyone involved with the military administration and chain of command must immediately halt any and all procedures involving implementing DADT.
Now, those on the progressive side of politics, progressive Republicans as well as Democrats, have seen the faces of service members who were discharged, some of whom have honorable and highly lauded careers as well as specialized skills such as being Arab linguists. As most US citizens support the repeal, and as the military struggles in many areas of recruiting and retaining qualified and talented service members, it becomes apolitical to support the cause of repeal.
And then there's the position of the President. From the beginning of his campaigning for the support of the LGBT political left Obama has made repeal of DADT his clinch issue. Many other issues important to progress of gay rights do not really have national platforms or attention right now, nothing like the attention on DADT. Because of that, it was an extremely important to securing the kind of financial support and political action from groups like the HRC.
From what I understand, as Commander in Chief, the president had the power to immediately halt the investigative process in the discharging of gay service members. While it wouldn't outright repeal the policy, it would have kept hundreds of qualified and awarded members of the military from being removed from service. As of now, Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, has given instructions to the military to halt enforcement of a key part of DADT, which is the involuntary outing, so basically the witch hunts and the investigations prompted by rumors from other service members of a service member's sexuality. One of the reasons he did this was to prompt a more 'humane' approach to enforcing the policy and was done around the time that they commissioned the study on the most effective way to implement repealing the policy. The president could have done that more than a year earlier.
It is important to note, and this is something that conservative Republicans, and those who repeatedly used anti-gay rhetorical reasoning in their committees, so not necessarily outright derogatory remarks but rather lines of reasoning based on base stereotypes and horrible prejudices, is that it is only a matter of time before it is repealed. Nearly all the military leadership recognizes and wants this to be repealed. The President and the Secretary of Defense are committed to repealing it, one way or another. The majority of citizens think it makes no sense and support repealing it and allowing open service. Thus, it's only a matter of time, so while they argue against repealing it, that's not the issue cause it's going to be repealed. The issue, in terms of their filibusters and nay votes, has been when they would implement the procedural activities involving repeal, not whether it would happen at all.
So the problem now for the President is that he's got not only two court cases, landmark cases, that justify repeal and rule against the policy's constitutionality, but that there is now a legal injunction in place preventing any implementation. Does he have the Department of Justice, which was the group acting as the plaintifs in both cases and basically arguing for the constitutionality of the policy, appeal the ruling on the Log Cabin Republican's case and the subsequent injunction? They have already started the appeal process for a recent ruling in Massachusetts that overturned DOMA, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act put into place after gay marriage was allowed in Hawaii, a situation that has since been changed through voter memorandum. The argument about DOMA was made around the distribution of federal benefits by the state to married same-sex partners and the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause to the Bill of Rights, which guarantees that any legal contracts recognized in one state, be they private or business contracts or whatever, must be recognized by all other states. DOMA specifically defines marriage on the federal level as between a man and a woman, and rejects any same-sex marital status from a given state in terms of federal pension and social security benefits and everything else on the federal level. It also said that any state can decide for themselves what the definition of marriage is and choose to not recognize marriages from other states. They will appeal that ruling.
In light of the Justice Departments decision to appeal the DOMA ruling, and in light of the fact that the White House has taken a soft position on the repeal of DADT as wanting it to be done by Congress, it is not certain whether they will then appeal this ruling as well. These are important cases and would be hugely influential on all civil rights laws, just as those regarding African Americans were in past decades, if they reach the Supreme Court. As there is, right now, a balance that slightly favors the liberal end of the Court, it would be a good time for these cases to go before them. The problem for Obama and for the gay community is, if Obama has them appeal the DADT ruling as they are doing with DOMA, they will be not only acting against their position on repeal but in fact will be standing against the progress of LGBT civil rights.
There are arguably three cardinal issues in struggle for LGBT civil rights. The first is same-sex marriage, which is probably the most divisive issue nationwide. Eventually, no matter how much the religious conservatives in this country speak out against it, gay marriage will be a reality. All conclusive evidence in terms of polling and studies done about election turnouts indicate that the country is growing more and more supportive with younger generations, and sorry to say this but eventually those who think they are on the correct side of the issue by opposing it are going to die off. Most likely they'll die off soon as most of those who oppose it are older. The second cardinal issue is Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This is the one that has been most pressing in the past two or three years and the one that Obama took the most decisive progressive position on. The third and possibly fourth issues are same-sex adoption and then policies in schools dealing with the harassment of LGBT youth.
Obama has now made a serious misstep in terms of a progressive, pro-civil rights position, on one of these cardinal issues in having the Justice Department appeal the DOMA ruling. That particular ruling is pretty solid and has legal precedence behind it in the overturning of laws prohibiting interracial marriages. If that goes to the Supreme Court, however, no matter what the outcome the repercussions across the country will be significant. Ruling in favor of striking down DOMA would be a move towards considering the issue of the legislation and amendments to state constitutions, which cannot violate the federal constitution. The DADT ruling, however, and particularly the injunction are on much shakier ground as they are unique, they do not have the backing of precedent and while the constitutional issue may be upheld by the Court, the injunction could be challenged on multiple fronts, including the separation of powers clause.
President Obama has not taken decisive action in repealing DADT. Instead he has issued strong positions while implementing soft actions, failed to put the necessary pressure on Congress to proceed in a way that was conducive to passing repeal, and now may or may not appeal the most conclusive and decisive action taken on the policy, this time by the federal courts, thereby either directly compromising his position on repeal or, if choosing not to appeal, taking no action at all as another branch of the government altogether takes the hard action. Either way there has been a profound failure of decisive leadership. If promises and policy positions are to mean anything, a leader needs to take strong, clear action on them. If he pledges his support to a policy position and promises to do whatever it takes to accomplish the goals of that position, it means nothing if he doesn't take action to achieve those goals. By stating publicly, both in meetings with LGBT lobby groups like the HRC and in the State of the Union Address that he was going to make sure it was repealed, he must make good on his promise. He hasn't done so, though. Instead he has abdicated that function to the courts while providing just enough political action to give himself cover if the issue is brought up by progressives in his own reelection campaign.
Mr. Obama promised to be a fierce ally and advocate for the civil rights of LGBT people. He has said multiple times that he is committed to the repeal of DADT and not done nearly as much as he can in order to ensure repeal. Can the LGBT community then really claim that Obama is our ally? John McCain, during his election campaign, also took a pro-repeal position. He might have been the principle senator in filibustering the repeal legislation but if he had won the presidency, who's to say he wouldn't have worked toward repeal. When it comes time to start drawing battle-lines for the 2012 presidential campaign, when Obama begins soliciting campaign contributions and looking to excite the progressive base who were instrumental in his initial election, will the LGBT community show up in similar numbers? Will we give in similar amounts or act with similar force as we did in 2008? If the major policy issues the President can affect are decided through the courts and there isn't much left for him to do, then the question will be should we support him as we did. In a year when there may possibly be a Sarah Palin nomination for the Republican candidate, we may have no choice. However, when we have such immediate issues as the recent gay teen suicides to deal with and organizations that can benefit those youth directly with our contributions, wouldn't our money be better spent there rather than on a candidate who proved himself to be at best a useless ally?
Now, those on the progressive side of politics, progressive Republicans as well as Democrats, have seen the faces of service members who were discharged, some of whom have honorable and highly lauded careers as well as specialized skills such as being Arab linguists. As most US citizens support the repeal, and as the military struggles in many areas of recruiting and retaining qualified and talented service members, it becomes apolitical to support the cause of repeal.
And then there's the position of the President. From the beginning of his campaigning for the support of the LGBT political left Obama has made repeal of DADT his clinch issue. Many other issues important to progress of gay rights do not really have national platforms or attention right now, nothing like the attention on DADT. Because of that, it was an extremely important to securing the kind of financial support and political action from groups like the HRC.
From what I understand, as Commander in Chief, the president had the power to immediately halt the investigative process in the discharging of gay service members. While it wouldn't outright repeal the policy, it would have kept hundreds of qualified and awarded members of the military from being removed from service. As of now, Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, has given instructions to the military to halt enforcement of a key part of DADT, which is the involuntary outing, so basically the witch hunts and the investigations prompted by rumors from other service members of a service member's sexuality. One of the reasons he did this was to prompt a more 'humane' approach to enforcing the policy and was done around the time that they commissioned the study on the most effective way to implement repealing the policy. The president could have done that more than a year earlier.
It is important to note, and this is something that conservative Republicans, and those who repeatedly used anti-gay rhetorical reasoning in their committees, so not necessarily outright derogatory remarks but rather lines of reasoning based on base stereotypes and horrible prejudices, is that it is only a matter of time before it is repealed. Nearly all the military leadership recognizes and wants this to be repealed. The President and the Secretary of Defense are committed to repealing it, one way or another. The majority of citizens think it makes no sense and support repealing it and allowing open service. Thus, it's only a matter of time, so while they argue against repealing it, that's not the issue cause it's going to be repealed. The issue, in terms of their filibusters and nay votes, has been when they would implement the procedural activities involving repeal, not whether it would happen at all.
So the problem now for the President is that he's got not only two court cases, landmark cases, that justify repeal and rule against the policy's constitutionality, but that there is now a legal injunction in place preventing any implementation. Does he have the Department of Justice, which was the group acting as the plaintifs in both cases and basically arguing for the constitutionality of the policy, appeal the ruling on the Log Cabin Republican's case and the subsequent injunction? They have already started the appeal process for a recent ruling in Massachusetts that overturned DOMA, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act put into place after gay marriage was allowed in Hawaii, a situation that has since been changed through voter memorandum. The argument about DOMA was made around the distribution of federal benefits by the state to married same-sex partners and the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause to the Bill of Rights, which guarantees that any legal contracts recognized in one state, be they private or business contracts or whatever, must be recognized by all other states. DOMA specifically defines marriage on the federal level as between a man and a woman, and rejects any same-sex marital status from a given state in terms of federal pension and social security benefits and everything else on the federal level. It also said that any state can decide for themselves what the definition of marriage is and choose to not recognize marriages from other states. They will appeal that ruling.
In light of the Justice Departments decision to appeal the DOMA ruling, and in light of the fact that the White House has taken a soft position on the repeal of DADT as wanting it to be done by Congress, it is not certain whether they will then appeal this ruling as well. These are important cases and would be hugely influential on all civil rights laws, just as those regarding African Americans were in past decades, if they reach the Supreme Court. As there is, right now, a balance that slightly favors the liberal end of the Court, it would be a good time for these cases to go before them. The problem for Obama and for the gay community is, if Obama has them appeal the DADT ruling as they are doing with DOMA, they will be not only acting against their position on repeal but in fact will be standing against the progress of LGBT civil rights.
There are arguably three cardinal issues in struggle for LGBT civil rights. The first is same-sex marriage, which is probably the most divisive issue nationwide. Eventually, no matter how much the religious conservatives in this country speak out against it, gay marriage will be a reality. All conclusive evidence in terms of polling and studies done about election turnouts indicate that the country is growing more and more supportive with younger generations, and sorry to say this but eventually those who think they are on the correct side of the issue by opposing it are going to die off. Most likely they'll die off soon as most of those who oppose it are older. The second cardinal issue is Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This is the one that has been most pressing in the past two or three years and the one that Obama took the most decisive progressive position on. The third and possibly fourth issues are same-sex adoption and then policies in schools dealing with the harassment of LGBT youth.
Obama has now made a serious misstep in terms of a progressive, pro-civil rights position, on one of these cardinal issues in having the Justice Department appeal the DOMA ruling. That particular ruling is pretty solid and has legal precedence behind it in the overturning of laws prohibiting interracial marriages. If that goes to the Supreme Court, however, no matter what the outcome the repercussions across the country will be significant. Ruling in favor of striking down DOMA would be a move towards considering the issue of the legislation and amendments to state constitutions, which cannot violate the federal constitution. The DADT ruling, however, and particularly the injunction are on much shakier ground as they are unique, they do not have the backing of precedent and while the constitutional issue may be upheld by the Court, the injunction could be challenged on multiple fronts, including the separation of powers clause.
President Obama has not taken decisive action in repealing DADT. Instead he has issued strong positions while implementing soft actions, failed to put the necessary pressure on Congress to proceed in a way that was conducive to passing repeal, and now may or may not appeal the most conclusive and decisive action taken on the policy, this time by the federal courts, thereby either directly compromising his position on repeal or, if choosing not to appeal, taking no action at all as another branch of the government altogether takes the hard action. Either way there has been a profound failure of decisive leadership. If promises and policy positions are to mean anything, a leader needs to take strong, clear action on them. If he pledges his support to a policy position and promises to do whatever it takes to accomplish the goals of that position, it means nothing if he doesn't take action to achieve those goals. By stating publicly, both in meetings with LGBT lobby groups like the HRC and in the State of the Union Address that he was going to make sure it was repealed, he must make good on his promise. He hasn't done so, though. Instead he has abdicated that function to the courts while providing just enough political action to give himself cover if the issue is brought up by progressives in his own reelection campaign.
Mr. Obama promised to be a fierce ally and advocate for the civil rights of LGBT people. He has said multiple times that he is committed to the repeal of DADT and not done nearly as much as he can in order to ensure repeal. Can the LGBT community then really claim that Obama is our ally? John McCain, during his election campaign, also took a pro-repeal position. He might have been the principle senator in filibustering the repeal legislation but if he had won the presidency, who's to say he wouldn't have worked toward repeal. When it comes time to start drawing battle-lines for the 2012 presidential campaign, when Obama begins soliciting campaign contributions and looking to excite the progressive base who were instrumental in his initial election, will the LGBT community show up in similar numbers? Will we give in similar amounts or act with similar force as we did in 2008? If the major policy issues the President can affect are decided through the courts and there isn't much left for him to do, then the question will be should we support him as we did. In a year when there may possibly be a Sarah Palin nomination for the Republican candidate, we may have no choice. However, when we have such immediate issues as the recent gay teen suicides to deal with and organizations that can benefit those youth directly with our contributions, wouldn't our money be better spent there rather than on a candidate who proved himself to be at best a useless ally?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Should GLBT people abandon Dems?
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.
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.
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)
