Marriage equality: consensus or cudgel?
Dear reader,
Do you have any ideas on how to push Romney and his party to join a consensus for marriage equality?
This pollster memo encourages such a move by the GOP.
If Democrats supported this cause and were successful, they'd be sacrificing their flagship policy advantage over the Republicans.
Would Democratic voters put this goal ahead of such a partisan benefit? How might this be encouraged?
Note well Arthur Silber's observations on lessons from the abolition of slavery:
Do you have any ideas on how to push Romney and his party to join a consensus for marriage equality?
This pollster memo encourages such a move by the GOP.
If Democrats supported this cause and were successful, they'd be sacrificing their flagship policy advantage over the Republicans.
Would Democratic voters put this goal ahead of such a partisan benefit? How might this be encouraged?
Note well Arthur Silber's observations on lessons from the abolition of slavery:
It is not necessary, and usually it is not even possible, to restrict one's compatriots to those with whom one agrees about all issues, or even a significant subset of issues. One need not and should not expect or demand that those with whom one joins in a particular cause agree with or endorse one's general views. In this case, Clarkson and Wilberforce disagreed on every other then-current issue of importance and controversy.
But they agreed about slavery, and they agreed that it must be ended. That is all one should require and, I stress, that is all that is necessary. As in this case, the goal must be very clearly defined, and the members of the coalition must be fully committed to it. I would go still further: provided the goal is defined in a way that is not subject to compromise and equivocation, even the reasons which inform the participants' commitment to that goal need not be the same. Provided they agree on the goal itself -- as here, that slavery be ended -- that is all that is needed.
posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy at 12:17 AM
9 Comments:
The end result of that compromise was segregation, and is now Romney v. Obama. If we cannot subscribe to a higher ideal than what seems to work effectively moment by moment, we're making the argument of the ends justifying the means, and accepting a lesser evil because it's "lesser."
In the instant situation, granting government subsidies and default statutory protections to two-person economic contracts is a mutation of the "two person union recognized by society" idea that will perpetuate the model. It's rather similar to allowing gays full access to imperial military service: "fair," but also insulting, noxious, and terribly wrong for those on the receiving end.
High Arka, thanks for posting your principled objections.
Did the limits of what abolition accomplished mean it was a mistake to advocate for it?
Limited though it is, and supportive of a matrimonial system some consider a societal fault, is this particular move to grant equality to gays and lesbians not of some value in fighting prejudice against them?
Though I have little regard for either of the two big parties, and even less for the glories of "bipartisanship," it seems to me that such a consensus move would be useful to deflate the flagrant homophobia of the religious right and other social conservatives.
As with racial segregation following abolition, a single legal change wouldn't wipe bigotry off the map, you're quite right. But it might be a meaningful step in a long road, no?
In this context racism might be a better analogy than abolition. That there are still racists among us is obvious, however it is no longer acceptable to use openly racist language in public discourse, regardless of political party. This has led to some significant gains in racial equality (see, e.g., Obama as POTUS, which would not have been possible a few decades ago). There is of course much progress yet to be made and racism is unlikely to ever be eradicated in U.S., but the Civil Rights Act was nevertheless a necessary first step to get us moving in the right direction.
The same road map can be followed with respect to homophobia and indeed any bigotry inherent in social conservatism: mock it, shame it, make it cost something socially and/or economically, and thus drive it into the shadows where it belongs.
If only the racism that is there were still publicly acknowledged. Instead, it has moved to someplace where it is harder to fight. We have not cornered and defeated the monster, but rather loudly demanded that it leave the "black" section of town and move elsewhere.
It would be unthinkable to bomb Harlem in pursuit of an African American criminal, but it's daily routine to bomb Pakistan in pursuit of swarthy criminals who might or might not even be Pakistani. Same behavior patterns, different targets. Better for African Americans in Harlem, worse for Arabs in Pakistan. Was it worth it to trade one for the other? To murder Vietnamese instead of Japanese?
Making certain kinds of racism "unacceptable for public discourse" has helped racism survive. Retrofitting a terrible, exploitative imperialist system so as to make it compatible with the occasional variation in human behavior only gives it even better camouflage for carrying the others.
Ergo why this one likened it to giving gays the privilege of assisting the American military in its slaughter, or of giving African Americans the privilege of being incarcerated, free, poor, under suspicion and jobless rather than enslaved. It's a deceptive step in the right direction, just as Obama was--for all the faults accurately chronicled here--a deceptive step away from Bush.
This one hopes we shall stop compromising out integrity for treats thrown from above, and refuse to let the monster be harbored anywhere, but instead, bring it to bay, naming it for what it is, and giving it nothing new on which to feed for the next several decades, in exchange for returning triumphantly to the bar for driving it from Lorraine to Alsace.
In my view, one can advocate for the occasional incremental treat while also trying to advance big picture understanding and action.
Best of luck. =]
It would be great to achieve consensus. I just don't see it happening.
The "centrists" who lurk among us only care about two things (one, depending on how you parse it): money and power.
And to achieve their goals in that regard, they play football with God, Guns, and Gays. These are topics which are important to the base, but not so important to the monied interests. What's more, they help foment tribalism.
As an honest liberal, I think gay civil rights/equality are incredibly important. Democratic leaders don't. Republican leaders don't. And so it's what they use as a bargaining chip in their little game of Beltway tug-of-war.
Both sides pay lip-service to it, from opposite angles. They might ultimately throw a few policy bones in the direction of their respective bases when they come to power, but it's never enough to remove it as a point of conflict between the parties.
This is why Romney won't adopt a pro-gay position in this campaign (even though he has in the past), and this is also why Obama won't do anything more significant to advance the cause of equality (Why would he take away one of the carrots he can dangle in front of the party faithful?)
From a more long-term perspective, I just don't see Republicans adopting a political stance that's pro-equality. The Overton Window in our political discourse is presently shifted to the right, and the rhetoric that the modern day Republican party has adopted keeps them to the right of Democrats.
Any expressed sentiment in the GOP which doesn't oppose the Democratic position, is seen as weak by the base. And so, GOP politicos have to say one thing, and try to get away with doing another. In an environment like that, they're not about to START advocating for gay equality.
The fact that Romney's half century old bullying is being cited by partisans of the left as being proof that he's unfit to carry on the the day-to-day murder of women and children around the globe, a la Obama is proof of how screwed up the US is.
Dear Vast, you and Arthur inspired From Slavery to Supermax. Thanks much for the pitch.
You'll excuse me to ponder on what the next stage is. Probably falling down the rabbit hole, forever, without anything interesting to look at. No, not falling, but merely tied, unable to shift even limbs, and drugged somehow to never be allowed sleep or death. The concrete closes 'round, it does.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home