This debate on CNN shows how the HRC event provides cover for the President's silence about Maine and Washington. Hilary Rosen -- who I tend to agree with, mostly -- is exclusively focused on one thing: the federal government. The President cannot do anything because it takes a long time to get a bill through Congress. We have to give him time because Congress is slow.
No one with any sense could disagree with that, but its blinkered focus is dangerous. There are two critical state elections about our relationships, and the President's ambivalence about our relationships will be a factor in both of them. He doesn't need to ask Congress to do a thing. His very clear remarks last night reinforced the fact that he supports qualifed equality for our relationships (Washington) but not marriage (Maine). Like his statements as a candidate, this reaffirmation of his position (which the event attendees cheered) can and will be used against us, either explicitly in Maine, or implicitly in Washington, where his failure to say anything against repealing their domestic partnership law will not go unnoticed.
We are right on the verge of winning the support, not only of courts and legislatures, but of voters directly. The President is the leader who could tip the balance. Last night he stepped away from the field. And we let him.
4 Comments for “Unfierce Advocate (2)”
posted by Stephen on
QUOTE:”The President cannot do anything because it takes a long time to get a bill through Congress. We have to give him time because Congress is slow. … No one with any sense could disagree with that…”
George Bush accomplished plenty, including passing the Patriot Act and the Wall Street Bailout, in remarkably short order, so I’m not sure how reasonable it is to assert that anyone with “sense” couldn’t disagree about giving Obama more time. Further, Bush accomplished the bulk of his worst damage using Executive Orders, a power also available to Obama. Obama has undone almost none of these EOs, let alone used the same power to free the second-class citizens of the 21st century. We’d have been better off electing a haberdasher; at least Truman did have the spine to push through against popular whim rather than to passively resign himself to the politically expedient. Obama is not acting because we are low on his priority list. Paying back the FIRE industry who paid for his election is his first order of business, and that mostly means using up his political capital on corrupt health care legislation. For the time being, all we can expect from Obama is a thanks for the votes (with an unstated, ‘now bugger off until I need you, your votes, or your money, again’).
QUOTE: “There are two critical state elections about our relationships, and the President’s ambivalence about our relationships will be a factor in both of them.”
Indeed, but since Obama was hardly going to address the latent homophobia within his own party, rather than to lecture at Republicans, his silence may well be in our best interest. In the same way that the Norwegian’s sad effort at lecturing America is likely to blow-back on their hoped for goals, Obama’s telling the states how to run themselves in regard to civil rights might very well result in the quite the opposite of his (supposed) intent.
This does bring up a critical point though. We have gotten next to nothing from the federal government, or from federally-elected Democrats. And while we have had more losses then wins, the one area where we have moved forward politically is in the states. This is a pretty good argument for returning to the model of government wherein the country is a crucible of 50 different state republics experimenting with what works best. Sure, as a minority we are likely to lose a lot, but we are also going to win a few. If we rely on the Washington for our freedom, it will be at their unitary discretion, something that they can just as easily take away as grant. Besides, it may well take another generation of political waffling. Since that began, almost 30 years ago, Hollywood as made more progress in changing the social culture regarding the acceptance of gays and lesbians than the Democrats have in changing the political culture.
So, can we really afford to wait? How many more lives are we willing to assign to second-class citizenship? That is exactly what “patience” is advocating.
posted by TS on
Oh, look! A fellow contemporary federalist! Something that I would point out about Stephen’s second written paragraph is that it calls my attention to the potential conflict between pragmatics and the principles of wanting a revitalized federalism. “So, can we really afford to wait? How many more lives are we willing to assign to second-class citizenship? That is exactly what ‘patience’ is advocating.” There’s going to be a lot of waiting with our way too. Some people in conservative states may well end up waiting forever. The federal solution may well produce results faster than the states. But do we give up our principled view of how government should be, because it would have that bad impact on our lives? Asking myself this question has caused me to refine my view of how the new federalism should work. My solution, in case you care, is insuring freedom of political migration.
And congrats, Mr Link, on the exquisitely crafted quote: “There are two critical state elections about our relationships, and the President’s ambivalence about our relationships will be a factor in both of them.”
posted by tristram on
It’s not Obama, it’s the ‘lgbt community’ that threw Maine and Washington state under the proverbial bus. The premise of The March was a rejection of efforts to bring about change at the state level, and the effect of The March has been to drain lgbt energy, focus and funds from those two critical battles.
As the christianist right knows well, the coming referendums are not about equal marriage or partnership rights, they are about maintaining the line that lgbt people are inferior and evil, and any claims we have to equality or dignity are invariably rejected by the majority of our fellow citizens.
posted by David Link on
Tristram, I don’t think I agree that the premise of the march was a rejection of state efforts at equality. It has certainly turned out to be an unfortunate distraction for these two critically important elections, though. I read this morning there was a parallel march Sunday in Washington state, which is a good thing. However, our folks running the Approve Referendum 71 campaign there still don’t have the money to put ads on television. They really need help from across the country, and we should all be getting the word out. Again, I think they have more tangible benefits to lose than the folks in Maine do. While I do not want to pit these two states against one another, I am afraid Washington is being obscured in our attention by Maine.