There was an elephant missing from the room during the congressional hearing on ENDA - the opposition.
I don't mean witnesses testifying against the bill; Craig Parshall of the National Religious Broadcasters Association was quite clearly in opposition. Camille Olson, while not so clearly opposed to the bill, made some cogent points about how current language might be too broad.
The absence was most obvious among legislators who oppose ENDA. Of the 19 GOP members on the committee, only three I could count -- John Kline, the ranking member, Todd Russell Platts, and Judy Biggert -- spoke, or even showed up, and the last two are cosponsors of the bill. Kline's opposition was vague and he never said it would be a bad thing to prohibit discrimination against lesbians and gay men; rather, he was concerned about "philosophical and logistical" considerations. Religious groups are now clearly exempted from the bill, and Kline was worried only about "how that exemption will be applied." He never even tried to make a respectable libertarian argument against the bill.
There's no doubt that the GOP will vote en masse against ENDA, so why weren't they at the hearing to articulate their case, or challenge the pro-ENDA witnesses? This is becoming characteristic of the anti-gay movement. They're no less opposed to gay equality in employment, housing, marriage and the military, but they've stopped trying to make arguments publicly.
That's a fairly recent development. Maggie Gallagher, for example, used to be a leading voice willing to debate the anti gay marriage case, but nowadays, it's rare to see her outside of Fox-friendly forums and religious or NOM-sponsored gatherings (these categories may have little distinction).
And it's not just that the right is not talking to the public - they now actively want to keep anyone else from hearing what they say to one another. In early September, Stand For Marriage Maine had a "pro-marriage" rally, and Jeremy at GoodAsYou asked for tickets. SFMM is the group that got Question 1 on the ballot, and you'd think their events would and should be public. But when Bob Emrich discovered Jeremy might not be sufficiently supportive of Emrich's cause, he said no, but offered to send Jeremy a DVD of the proceedings. Needless to say, that promise is still unfulfilled.
In place of arguments and persuasion, the right now hides behind commercials that deploy either fear or deception. To be fair, this tactic can certainly be effective, as we Californians can attest. But when a movement gives up on persuasion and relies only on surrogate strategems like this, perhaps it's safe to assume even they see they're coming to the end of the line. At the very least, it's hard to believe they have any confidence in their own logic.
UPDATE: The original post misidentified one of the Republican members at the hearing.
3 Comments for “Disappearing Act”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And it?s not just that the right is not talking to the public ? they now actively want to keep anyone else from hearing what they say to one another.
Which is, apparently, what the gay community is doing — so what’s the problem? Are teh gheys hiding as well?
At the very least, it?s hard to believe they have any confidence in their own logic.
Logic and persuasion are wasted on a community that, while claiming it wants tolerance, job protections, and respect, screams that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot and a “dumb bitch”, or who demands that people be fired for making political contributions they don’t like, or whose response to a story totally unrelated to gay issues is like this.
I wouldn’t waste time trying to argue with Fred Phelps, and I certainly wouldn’t invite or allow him into my gatherings. The gay community and the gay left in particular have demonstrated that they are no more open to logic or intelligent argument than is Fred Phelps; therefore, it should be no surprise that they would be treated similarly.
posted by BobSF_94117@yahoo.com on
At the very least, it?s hard to believe they have any confidence in their own logic.
I doubt they ever had confidence in their “logic”. I doubt they find much logic in their positions. If they did, they’d point it out. Instead, they focus on deliberate misinformation and fear. Not a bad strategy, since those work better in moving people. They haven’t lost any confidence in those tactics, as a visit to Maine will show.
The only thing that has changed is funding. The anti-gay right blew their wad on Prop 8. I’m not suggesting that there’s no money left — again, look at Maine — but the large amounts of money needed to put these folks out there 24/7 aren’t as easily assembled anymore. More likely the economy than any softening of opposition to us.
posted by Casey on
Interestingly, the DADT hearing last summer was similar in this regard. Sure, the other side had their witnesses – two to our three, at least one of which was so nutty as to be counterproductive to her cause – but I was there, and I didn’t hear a single lawmaker give any kind of serious defense of the policy. It was a lot of “we should do this deliberately and carefully, listening to the military, etc.” – no real defense. The silence was telling.