Some odds and ends from here and there.
Michael Bronski continues to make his case for left-wing alliance building. But despite Bronski's pretense that this is all new and ground-breaking, his strategy has been tried (and tried) and failed. The reason is that those groups on the left that Bronski still sees as a progressive vanguard are, in fact, profoundly backward-focused (to the heyday of the '60s and early '70s), pro-"liberation" but obsessed with enforcing political correctness and dreaming of a more powerful, controlling and intrusive big government (with themselves, naturally, as the guiding apparatchiks). That's not "liberation," it's a nightmare, and the overwhelming majority of Americans recognize it as such.
Dan Blatt (aka Gay Patriot West) responds to critics who defend certain activists' refusal to debate gay marriage and want him to shut up about it. Dan does a great job of making it clear why this is such a significant failing.
Off topic, but another indication of what's so wrong with the left, check this out.
14 Comments for “The Road to Nowhere.”
posted by kittynboi on
Bronski is just saying the same “social justice” trash that one often hears from the left when they want gays to work FOR them, but they aren’t really interested in gay rights.
The left largely wants to give lukewarm support for gay rights just to get gays to support various leftist causes.
posted by JimG on
Yes, One of the problems here is that if one agrees with one aspect of the Left, then one is expected to eat the whole enchilada. I remember going to anti war protests before the invasion of Iraq began. And there were many people there who I would never have expected to see at an anti war march. And I could only wonder what they were thinking when, coming to hear anti Iraq invasion speeches, they got to hear about the plight of the Palestinians, the Phillipinos,police brutality against blacks, the USA prison system, the horrors of the Patriarchy, and blah, blah, blah. I think the Left, that Mr. Bronski is speaking of, is a big vaccum waiting to consume and absorb. After the invasions began I prayed that I was wrong and that what we were doing would turn out to be the right thing. I didn’t dare tell that to my friends on the Left.
posted by Randy R. on
One of the most frustrating things that happened last year was the HRC’s absolute refusal to discuss gay marriage. Cheryl whatshername would be on tv against someone trashing gay marriage, and when it was her turn to talk, she refused to engage. She would say that Americans want to talk about the budget and the war, not something as silly and inconsequential as gay marriage! (Well, that was the message, at least).
And after the election, she was run out of town. Then we got Joe Solomenese, and he too refuses to fight! I can’t believe it. They listen to focus groups that say people want to talk about the war and health care, but what they are missing is that people EXPECT a gay rights organization to stand up for gay rights! Simple, no?
It’s abso-fucking-lutely bizarre.
posted by kittynboi on
Everytime there is a left wing orientated event, you can always expect at least one speaker to loudly shout “FREE MUMIA”.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t like the HRC’s approach, but I’m working with the local Democrat Party in Sauk County.
Why?
It’s simple.
The local Democrat Party in Sauk County wants to work with us to defeat the amendment in Wisconsin. The local Democrats are distributing our literature, inviting us to participate in events, working with us to help us make our case.
The Sauk County organization represents the reality in Wisconsin politics this year. The DPW will have a strong, clear and uncompromising platform plank this year opposing the amendment and statewide Democrat candidates are, in fact, speaking up in opposition. Local Democrat organizations are building ties with Fair Wisconsin and other GLBT advocacy groups to defeat the amendment.
The Republicans? The Republican leadership put the amendment on the ballot, with votes right down the party line, and Republican candidates are all loudly mouthing off about the need to “protect marriage, adopting the talking points of the religious right, just as President Bush did in his pathetic recent performances. The local Republican organization? The response we got from them was basically “You guys are political rectal herpes. You never talked to us.”
While I think that the HRC’s timidity on the marriage issue is both stupid and harmful to the fight, I have to say that the HRC’s unwillingness to engage in the fight for marriage isn’t unexpected — the GLBT “leadership” has always been gun shy about marriage, right from the beginning in 1974. The push for marriage has always been a “bottom up” push, and the “leadership” has always wanted to change the subject and talk about “achievable” goals. The more things change, the more things stay the same.
And, in fairness, the HRC’s timidity isn’t all that different than the timidity I see from GBLT self-identified conservatives on this blog — constant calls for gays and lesbians to abandon the push for marriage in favor of a “sensible” push for civil unions, laments about how the push for marriage has enraged folks and set us back, and so on.
So before those of us who claim to be conservative start calling the kettle black too loudly, maybe we should give some thought to the pot.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
When I read the Bronksi piece several days ago, I thought, how embarrassing. The Phoenix touted it as powerful and essential. Give me a break! His opening sentence refutes the rest of the piece. Sure, he says, we’ve achieved this and this and this. Well, yes, thank you. This persistent bubbleheadedness about “liberation” has driven me up the wall for the past quarter century. All it really means is blind adherence to a Marxist program, and those pushing it simply refuse to acknowledge that the capitalism they despise, for all its faults, has brought greater freedom and quality of life to more people than any other system in the history of the world.
As for the “Free Mumia” movement, that slogan for me is like the first invocation of Hitler in a discussion thread being the end of that thread. Any sign of the Mumia nonsense, and I’m done. Forgive me for saying this, but if he is ever executed for murdering that policeman, I intend to say, in homage to Porky Pig, “Mumia, Mumia, Mumia, that’s all folks!”
posted by John on
It’s time the name of this website was changed to reflect reality. Far from being ‘independent’ in either focus or substance, it is just one more excuse to stereotype and smear the left while excusing and kow-towing to the right. Anyone know if there’s a site out there that really is independent enough to not need to bash the left or pander to the right in order to discuss issues facing the the gay world?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
“Stereotype and smear the left,” John? Speaking only for myself, I do not make any assertions about the left that I have not witnessed and endured. Of course, it is possible to over-generalize. Steve, for instance, often refers to gay activists as if they are uniformly far-left, despite the fact that IGF has published many articles by yours truly, an officer of the non-leftist Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C. I have mentioned this several times, and I haven’t noticed Steve doing it lately (although I could have missed it; I’m not watching closely for it). But overgeneralizing is not stereotyping or smearing. I think on the whole that the articles on IGF are much more thoughtful, critical (in the best sense), and free of cant than in any other single repository of gay commentary. Of course, you might expect an IGF contributor to say that.
posted by John on
The articles – yes, I’d agree. The blog and its commenters? Rarely.
posted by Lori Heine on
There are plenty of GLBT folks who are not flaming liberals. I think we all know that by now.
But you’ll convince me that the Republicans are better friends to us than the Democrats about the same time you convince me that Santa Claus really flies down my chimney every Christmas Eve.
Neither one may be great on gay issues, and lately the Democrats have been particularly disgusting. But that anybody can bend that into meaning that the Republicans are any better is sad, sad, sad.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Unfortunately, binary thinking has been a part of the political process in Washington for a long time now.
Either you’re a Democrat, or a Republican.
Either you support my big, expensive and ineffective socialist health care bill, or you hate the elderly.
Either you support my war, or you’re not for defending the country.
Either you vote for my anti-gay bill, or you hate families.
Either you agree with my strategy of downplaying gay issues, or you’re not a serious political realist.
Either you agree with me, or you’re one of *them* (liberal/conservative depending on who you are speaking with).
And on and on.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
True, NL. And to be fair to Steve, he has criticized people in both major parties on his blog, which clearly suggests that he doesn’t buy into the false either/or alternative.
posted by Ed Brown on
If you are unhappy with only have two choices you are free to lobby for legislative election law reforms.
Might I suggest Ballot Access News and Fair Vote.
posted by Lori Heine on
I am not unhappy with only having two choices, because we don’t only have two choices. The Libertarian option is a third choice, and there are others besides that.
It is a cop-out to claim that because it isn’t yet a majority choice, that makes it not worth taking. All you’re doing is helping to make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.