As I read the reaction around the blogosphere, I can't help but think that people on both sides are overreacting to a point of hysteria. For many on the left, they think we're on the verge of a Fourth Reich, while many on the right seem to think that political nirvana is within reach as the hero Bush slayed the terrorist and communist sympathizer Kerry. May I suggest that everyone take a deep breath. You aren't going to run off to Canada and seek political asylum (and if you do, I think you will justifiably be laughed at by Canadian officials), and we're not going to start throwing pagans and infidels into the ovens, for crying out loud.
Am I concerned? Absolutely. I certainly don't like the fact that anti-gay sentiment appears to have been such an enormous factor in the election, with 11 states passing anti-gay marriage referendums and what I consider to be the worst and most repressive elements of our political system coming out to support the Bush (im)moral agenda in droves. But let's have some perspective. While state after state has voted by wide margins against gay marriage, the polls of those very same voters also show that about 60% support civil unions or partnership rights legislation. This may be inconsistent and silly, but it's also instructive. It tells me that their opposition to gay marriage is not fueled as much by anti-gay bigotry as by fear of change that is exploited by anti-gay bigots. And regardless of the fact that the Republicans picked up a couple seats in the Senate, the votes are still not there for the FMA.
I do have serious concerns about the future of the judicial system especially. But let's not leap to any conclusions on it before we know what's going on. If Rehnquist retires as expected, his replacement will certainly be no worse than he is on the various culture war issues. If O'Connor or Stevens retires, there is the potential for change, but it depends entirely on who Bush nominates to replace them. I think the Bork nomination shows that he can't nominate anyone too extreme and get them confirmed. If he does nominate a Bork clone, I'm fully prepared to fight that one tooth and nail, and the good news is that many principled conservatives will fight along with us. So while I think this is a cause for concern, it's not cause for the kind of overblown rhetoric I've seen around the web.
I do expect the kind of culture war issues this blog addresses to become more of a factor in Bush's second term, and I'm sure there will be plenty of time for heated exchanges and blunt talk. But let's not turn into a bunch of Chicken Little's and look like fools.
- Log in to post comments
On the other hand, perhaps the culture war issues will become less of a factor as reelection is no longer a concern and therefore bribing the religious right is no longer a concern for the president. I guess it depends on how much of Bush's faith is real and how much of it is a political tool. It will be interesting to see how that pans out. I'll definately be visiting this site to find out.
On the other hand, perhaps the culture war issues will become less of a factor as reelection is no longer a concern and therefore bribing the religious right is no longer a concern for the president. I guess it depends on how much of Bush's faith is real and how much of it is a political tool.
Absolutely right, Danny. And I'm curious to see it as well. Without the need to build a case for reelection, does Rove fade into the background? My suspicion is that Bush really is sympathetic to most of the religious right agenda. Time will tell.
Danny:
For the GOP, I think, the phenomenon of "bribing the religious right" as you put it is not about one election. One significant trend in the last few years -- probably catalyzed by the results of this election -- is a movement towards Republican dominance. I submit that we have to start thinking of our government in a more British parliamentary mode, in which (broad strokes here) you have a ruling party and a loyal opposition. The Dems are the opposition party now.
For that trend to continue, the GOP will have to continue to pander to their evangelical (anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-Jeffersonian/Madisonian) base. The most telling result of the voter turnout in this election is that the majority of Americans stand to the right of the "moderate" demarcation line, and the Republican political machine must and will continue to maintain hegemony over that base to continue as the ruling party.
In other words, religious values rhetoric has become the centerpiece of political discourse, and that's unlikely to change for the foreseeable future.
E
Ed,
You write, "their opposition to gay marriage is not fueled as much by anti-gay bigotry as by fear of change that is exploited by anti-gay bigots."
This may be true, and it has been argued that many voted in favor of these amendments because they feared gay marriage more than they wanted to enact civil unions. But now the religious right has been handed a tremendous weapon: They can claim--as Gary Bauer did yesterday on NPR--that overwhelming majorities really do oppose civil unions, too.
Take the results of the elections, add in this rhetoric, and finally consider that people out there really will remember how they voted, and want retroactively to justify it. The result is that 2/3 of the population is likely to be shoehorned into the position of opposing even civil unions, a position that suddenly seems reasonable and popular.
This may be true, and it has been argued that many voted in favor of these amendments because they feared gay marriage more than they wanted to enact civil unions. But now the religious right has been handed a tremendous weapon: They can claim--as Gary Bauer did yesterday on NPR--that overwhelming majorities really do oppose civil unions, too.
But the polling data doesn't support that, so the counter-argument is fairly obvious. Let's not let him get away with it.
Take the results of the elections, add in this rhetoric, and finally consider that people out there really will remember how they voted, and want retroactively to justify it. The result is that 2/3 of the population is likely to be shoehorned into the position of opposing even civil unions, a position that suddenly seems reasonable and popular.
I don't know, I think most people are sympathetic to the idea that unmarried partners should have legal protections, and the polls support that. But a sizable portion are scared by the reality of gay marriage despit that, and I suspect that's because they see it as too much of a radical change. The average person is just fearful of change and that fear is easily exploited by demagogues like Bauer. But in the long run, as they get used to the idea of civil unions and partnership rights, the change will be seen as less and less dramatic and therefore they will be less susceptible to such manipulations. I am convinced, still, that gay marriage is inevitable in the United States. I just think it's going to take some time to let people get used to the idea. The same thing was true of almost every step forward in struggles for equality. I think those of us who favor gay marriage can probably help that process along by opposing the bigots, but not screaming too hard for immediate and radical changes. Some of what has happened, like the various mayors around the country who decided on their own to start issuing marriage licenses even when the law said they could not, probably fed into the backlash we've seen. But I'm certain that this is little more than a slowing down of the process that ultimately leads to gay marriage, not a genuine and deep backlash against it that will stop the process. Given time to get used to the idea, most people will just slowly move to the other side because it just won't be a big deal.
I agree that homophibia was the driving force behind Bush's reelection. In the people I've talked to, and I live in a rural conservative state, that was the overreaching issue. Some talk about terrorism, but not a lot. A whole lot of talk about "morality." I think the urban/rural contrast argument has some merit as well, but I think those are marginal issues.
The majority of people in rural areas are bigots. It's just that simple. And like every nationalist or nativist movement of the past, these bigots have found someone to throw all of their blame upon. Gays/lesbians are todays scapegoats. George Bush has barely stopped short of condemning them to hell. Kerry toed the line a little and showed a bare minimum amount of sympathy. That is too much for this countries rural bigots.
Good Afternoon
First step in the fight is to stop calling the people who oppose it stupid bigots. There may be a reason for the opposition. If there is a fear that is not completely thought out, the sure-fire way to piss them off is to call them names.
Just because some people don't agree with your point of view doesn't necessarily mean that they are idiots.
Sincerely
First step in the fight is to stop calling the people who oppose it stupid bigots. There may be a reason for the opposition. If there is a fear that is not completely thought out, the sure-fire way to piss them off is to call them names.
I just wrote a post saying that I don't think most of the mare genuine bigots, just afraid of change and being exploited by bigots like Bauer and his ilk. In the area where Matthew lives, I'm sure there is a higher proportion of real bigots than in the general population. If those things are true, that's all that really matters.
Just because some people don't agree with your point of view doesn't necessarily mean that they are idiots.
And no one ever made such a claim.
Good Afternoon
First step in the fight is to stop calling the people who oppose it stupid bigots. There may be a reason for the opposition. If there is a fear that is not completely thought out, the sure-fire way to piss them off is to call them names.
Just because some people don't agree with your point of view doesn't necessarily mean that they are idiots.
Sincerely
I agree. I don't use the term bigot in so loose a fashion as to include anyone who disagrees with gay marriage, gay rights, or even homosexuality in general. I'm talking about people who say things like "i'm glad the marriage amendment passed; I don't want all them gays coming here" or "california is the only state that wants gay marriage because 80% of them are gay" etc. That's what I just got finished listening to, on a college campus no less.
I admit that I was a little generalizing; I really have no way of knowing how big of the rural population are actual bigots vs. scared people. But I would venture to guess that a very large chunk is. I've seen too many people who use the word "gay" as an insult or refer to gays/lesbians, hispanics, and even blacks in a derogatory fashion flippantly to think otherwise. People in rural areas will say racists or bigotted things to perfect strangers without even realizing that they are saying something offensive. It's just assumed that the person next to you doesn't like gays or hispanics. That type of overt bigotry towards blacks is less public, but it exists as well.
But yes, I agree that name calling shouldn't be thrown around in such a way. If a conservative read that and thought I meant that as a general insult to them, I apologize.
Ed,
I'm sure that there are lots of people who are afraid of change, but as you yourself have asked several times, "how does the fact that there is a gay couple living across town affect me"?
I was reading a blog yesterday where a guy came out with the old statement that he personally didn't care what consenting adults did in the privacy of their own home (I think he was lying about that), but that he knew for a fact that gays really didn't care about getting married; they are just interested in pushing the "homosexual agenda". I think that these are people who live in Bush's alternate reality and in their heart of hearts they believe that homosexuality is infectious.
I agree with Matthew. They are bigots. As Steve says, they may not be idiots, but they sure are ignorant!
Stop, Don
They are not ignorant either. They just don't think the way you do.
Remember an insult is an insult whether it is "gay" or "fascist ignorant bigot".
Until you thoughtfully address their concerns, and avoid labelling and name-calling, you will get nowhere.
Sincerely
They are not ignorant either. They just don't think the way you do.
All bigotry is based upon ignorance. When you don't know anyone in the group you are bigoted against, they become empty vessels into which you can pour your hatred.
Remember an insult is an insult whether it is "gay" or "fascist ignorant bigot".
I don't care what is and isn't an insult - I care what is and isn't true. I'm sure Jim DeMint considers it insulting to be called a bigot. I don't care, because he is, in fact, a bigot. And if he doesn't qualify for ignorant, then no one does. I've already made clear that I don't think most people, even the big majorities who have voted against gay marriage around the country, are inherently bigoted against gays. But Jim DeMint? Jesse Helms? Jim Bunning? Sorry, they don't get that kind of benefit of the doubt. They've shown their true colors time and time again.
Don wrote:
I'm sure that there are lots of people who are afraid of change, but as you yourself have asked several times, "how does the fact that there is a gay couple living across town affect me"?
And that's a perfectly legitimate question. The thing is, I don't think the average person really gives much thought to the issue on that level. And once they realize that it doesn't actually affect them, it stops being an issue for most people. That's why I think time is the key to it all. 40 years ago, most people would have been horrified at the thought of an interracial couple, and the very same arguments would have been trotted out against it as are used against gay marriage. The average person would have viewed this as a vague and looming threat to society. Today, for all but the most backwards and ignorant among us, it would be a curiosity at very worst.
Humans by nature don't like sweeping changes, it makes them insecure, whether it objectively should or not. It takes time for society to evolve and for attitudes to change, but they change primarily by slow increments over time, and after a while what seemed unthinkable a couple decades ago is just not a big deal anymore. That has been the pattern in every struggle for equality so far, and I have no doubt it will be the pattern here as well. We're already seeing it.
Steve,
I said "ignorant", I didn't say "stupid" :-) Did you read the study from U of Maryland? If that doesn't define ignorance, I don't know what does.
Ed,
I agree that major change takes time amongst the average citizenery, but when you have an active social geurilla group like the bigotted wingnut right trying to erase a hundred years of social change, even a minor change is hard to achieve.
Slightly OT... I find it scary that making social changes has now become a matter of referendums (should that be referenda?). If this had been the case over the last century we'd still not have Integration, much less interracial marriages.
Don
Ed,
So you think things are "basically OK"...
Look here: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
So you think things are "basically OK"...
Well I think there's a lot of range between "everything is fine" and "the world is coming to an end". I'm only responding to some of the more absurd pronouncements from those on the left to the effect that we're on the verge of a Fourth Reich and that they're moving to Canada. This strikes me as rhetorical hyperbole that doesn't really help either to understand the situation or to change it. As much as I dislike Bush, he is not another Hitler by any sane reasoning. It's one thing to remain vigilant against encroachments on our liberty, which I obviously favor, and quite another to trivialize the horrors of the past by pretending that throwing the infidels into the fire is imminent.
Since I live in Rhea County, TN, the "buckle of the Bible belt" and famous for the Scopes [monkey] trial, I have to agree that such rural communities have more bigots than other places, but I see progress being made, slowly but surely against these biases.
When there was a vote by the Rhea County Commission against gay marriage which apppeared to suggest that gays be banned from the county alltogether, which gained Ed's "Idiot of the Month" award, there was a heart felt protest from most of our citizens.
When the "Gay Day in Rhea County" was held a few months later in protest, it proceeded as uneventfully as a church picnic.
As ignorance fades and understanding takes over, the dyed in the wool bigots are increasingly marginalized and isolated from the mainstream.
Writing dozens of letters to the editor over the years may be a slow and laborous process, but it does have a gradual and cummulative effect in changing attitudes for the better.
So let us keep faith in the principles we believe in, persever in our day to day efforts while realizing that changes occur slowly and, as Ed says, decades from now we may approach our goal of "liberty and justice for all."
B