Comments on: Timing, priorities, political capital, and why Brian Pierce should be patient

By: Rosie

Rosie — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:59:19 +0000

I would somewhat agree with Tim; the problem with relying on politics is that the Obama administration is likey to focus on certain issues (such as healthcare) that many Americans are wanting and/or expecting to be improved. I’m not saying that the DADT isn’t an exigent issue to many Americans, but I think many are putting a fair amount of pressure for Obama to make the “changes” he proposed during his campaign. It seems somewhat of a weak move politically to be spread so thin, tackling so many issues at once. In that respect, I agree with Josh. Thus, sticking with the courts seems more productive.

It’s early on. However, Brian, I do support what you’re saying, especially from a moral standpoint; Obama needs to stop ignoring an essential issue in many American lives.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:23:12 +0000

Wow, Tom hit the nail right on the head before I could even get to it. I need to start reading Urbanagora at work instead of actually working.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:22:00 +0000

No mainstream party gives a shit about gay rights. 15% of the population is going to have a hard time getting the political branches on board for this battle.

They should stick to the courts.

Check out my roommate’s blog http://legalboxerbriefs.wordpress.com if you’re interested in issues regarding gays and politics; he’s a student at Columbia University.

By: Tom Trumpinski

Tom Trumpinski — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:45:59 +0000

By the way–I find the entire “gays in the military argument” as somewhat ironic, since all I could think of when I was Brian’s age was staying *out* of the fucking military. Y’all do know that you can get killed over there? The people who are shooting at you and blowing shit up could care less about your sexual orientation.

Tom

By: Tom Trumpinski

Tom Trumpinski — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:42:15 +0000

It’s called Occam’s Razor, Josh, and it’s a long-accepted analytic tool.

Here’s the deal:

The Democratic Party has been, since the post-’68 power reshuffle, a coalition of progressive interest groups. Some of them, like women with careers, have large numbers and a large amount of power. Some, like blacks, have relatively large numbers, but less power. Some, like gays, have neither power nor large numbers *and* are less than popular with the mainstream of America (where the money ends up coming from to fuel the Dem’s power.)

Therefore, the Dems use the gays just long enough to get themselves into a position of power–as they did during the 1992 election of Bill Clinton–and then throw them under the bus as Bill did in January ‘93 when Barney Frank called in his marker concerning gays in the military then.

Especially after Proposition 8 showed that “democratically”, gay marriage was not a viable political position even for one of the most liberal states in the Union, it was a no brainer for the Party to abandon their gay constituents until about November of 2011, by which time most gays will have conveniently forgotten their betrayal once again.

After all–what are they going to do, vote Republican?

[Please note that gays are perfectly welcome to any part of the Libertarian movement that I'm promoting--we don't believe in identity politics, so you'll be judged only on your individual merits as a human being.]

Tom

By: Joshua

Joshua — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:52:55 +0000

You said “politicians are cautious by nature.” This is generally true. Sometimes when gay activists get really worked up, it also gets religious moderates and conservative democrats and some values independents worked up. When that happens, the cautious approach can easily become to ignore the gay rights activists. The gay rights movement has historically had terrible message discipline. That doesn’t mean they will going forward, and maybe they will handle pressuring on DADT in a more rational way, they should, since public opinion is on their side.

By: Brian Pierce

Brian Pierce — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:30:53 +0000

“Sometimes it seems like when gays go absolutely [crazy] it leads to a steeper climb for the gay rights movement.”

For the life of me I can’t imagine what you’re talking about. Look: politicians are cautious by nature. They’re risk averse, and the status quo is always preferable because doing anything inevitably requires pissing somebody off. Action only happens when organized groups push for it, and when it’s a small, discriminated against group like the LGBT community, they need to push like hell. Sitting around waiting for the Democratic party to just GIVE us stuff because we’ve been good little boys and haven’t made any waves isn’t gonna get the job done.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:11:14 +0000

Tom – Brian is right based on your expectation, because it is the simplest explanation. Thank you Captain Superficial Analysis

By: Tom Trumpinski

Tom Trumpinski — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:03:27 +0000

I expect that the gay community is merely the first community of supporters that the Obama administration is planning to screw over. Seems to be the simplest explanation to me.

Much as it pains me to say it, Brian’s right.

Tom

By: Joshua

Joshua — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:38:38 +0000

Its an interesting assumption you make, that the gay community going absolutely crazy will make the administration more likely to take action. Sometimes it seems like when gays go absolutely it leads to a steeper climb for the gay rights movement.

I concede your fears are valid, if the Obama admin hasn’t made such assurances. Then again, if those assurances were made, it’s possible they wouldn’t be widely known.