Maybe Maine or Washington State will break the trend and affirm by popular vote the legal equality of same-sex marriages. Maybe. We'll know in a week. But if I can jump the gun, a victory in both states looks dubious.
Not unrelatedly: A new Gallup poll should be a wake-up call to the LGBT mainstream activist groups. Should, but likely won't. The key finding:
Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009 ... Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group....
Changes among political independents appear to be the main reason the percentage of conservatives has increased nationally over the past year: the 35% of independents describing their views as conservative in 2009 is up from 29% in 2008.
Last November, Obama's victory and the Democrats' sweeping gains in Congress seemed to assure the leading LGBT groups (nationally, as well as their state counterparts) that they were on the politically correct track by linking LGBT rights at the hip with a broader leftwing "progressive" big government, pro-union, Democratic Party agenda (let's leave aside, as they did, last November's simultaneous voter rollback of marriage equality in California, Arizona and Florida - their focus was on bringing out the vote for Obama, which they did, even if that meant increasing the numbers of anti-gay minority voters. But those are lessons that everyone has chosen to ignore, so let's go on).
At a time when the need to forge dialogue and, eventually perhaps, alliances with libertarian conservatives who make up a sizeable part of the "tea party" resistance has never been greater, the LGBT movement groups are still devoting themselves to being loyal foot soldiers (and fundraisers) of the left, placing all their bets on the benevolence of the president they worked so tirelessly to elect and his Democratic majorities in Congress. In one year's time, those majorities are going to be a lot smaller. The clock is ticking.
More from Gallup:
The propensity to want the government to "promote traditional values" - as opposed to "not favor any particular set of values" - rose from 48% in 2008 to 53% in 2009. Current support for promoting traditional values is the highest seen in five years.
The fact that LGBT political groups abandoned lobbying for gay equality regardless of other issues and turned themselves into adjacents of the Democratic Party plays a big role, I'd argue, in why there are virtually no politicians willing to embrace a limited government, pro-growth agenda that includes ending federal government discrimination against gays in marriage and the military. [Added: A rare exception is former two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, now preparing a long-shot 2012 Republican presidential run.]
The original Human Rights Campaign was willing to work with and occasionally endorse Republicans; today's HRC is nothing but a Democratic Party fundraising front (yes, I've said it before, but non-leftist gay people keep giving them money as if they were a gay rights organization, so I'm going to keep saying it).
The recent Equality March in Washington featured speakers from the leftwing Service Employees International Union. I'm just surprised ACORN wasn't invited to speak.
More. How partisan has HRC become? In the special congressional election in New York's 23rd district, a pro-gay marriage liberal Republican who supports most of HRC's "progressive" agenda is up against a liberal, pro-Obama Democrat who opposes gay marriage, and a limited government but anti-gay-equality conservative. HRC's position: no endorsement (in fact, no mention of the race on their website).
10 Comments for “Why We Keep Losing”
posted by TS on
I understand your resentment about wrongheaded alliance making by the leaders of our community. But I don’t think it matters too much in the outcomes of the plebiscites. Assuming voter confusion-related mistaken voting is not too high, every voter from Aristotle to the village idiot has some reason for voting as they do. And frankly, I don’t think contact with either side of the hype machine is going to influence that outcome. If I’m a libertarian conservative, I’m not going to go into the ballot box thinking “because gay marriage is morally neutral, it would be tyranny for government to prohibit it… BUT WAIT… I hate those dang homosexual activists. They should be on our side, but instead, they always work for democrats! Now’s my chance to get even; I’l vote against them mwahahah!”
This is what I’m saying won’t happen. There are times when the opinion of Aristotle is worth more than the village idiot. If Aristotle has influence in government, he should instruct them to take action on a certain policy, carefully explaining why it’s a good idea, and ignoring those who don’t understand. No plebiscites!
posted by TrulyScrumptious on
“Why are there virtually no politicians willing to embrace a limited government, pro-growth agenda that also includes ending federal government discrimination against gays in marriage and the military? A big reason, I’d argue, is that the big LGBT groups abandoned the idea of lobbying for gay equality regardless of other issues.”
For the LGBT community, everything is always about them. Their rights, feelings, situations, circumstances always takes precedent over everything else.
For that politician you probably hope to find-its a two way street. That kind of politician is probably not going to be found in the Democrat party but more like a Republican in a purple district. LGBT groups march in lock step with organizations at the left to far left of the political spectrum. When a center-right politician does anything remotely pro LGBT, its ignored or ridiculed, LGBT doesn’t contribute money to his campaigns, never endorses him, to them he does not exist.
Why should that politician do anything for the LGBT community, they have not done anything for him/her?
posted by esurience on
The propensity to want the government to “promote traditional values” ? as opposed to “not favor any particular set of values” ? rose from 48% in 2008 to 53% in 2009. Current support for promoting traditional values is the highest seen in five years.
I’m unsure what to read into that statistic. The question doesn’t doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, and if it was posed the way you’re saying, it’s a false dichotomy. I know “traditional values” is a (partly) a code word for “anti-gay” — but the opposite of traditional values is not “no values.”
I don’t have a problem with the government promoting certain “values” — it just depends on what you mean by values. If you mean things which have no objective benefit to society but simply conform to some dogma, then no — I don’t support that. But values don’t have to be subjective. There are certain things that you might consider to be a “value,” but other people would consider it to just be good social policy.
If this gallup poll question were posed to me, the only reason I’d say “no” is because I understand that “traditional values” is generally used as a code-word. But not everyone knows that…
And this poll result doesn’t square with people’s responses to specific questions, like their view on marriage equality, or marijuana legalization. Specific questions are always better than broad ones. There’s too many way to interpret broad questions.
posted by Temple Houston on
1) “Why are there virtually no politicians willing to embrace a limited government, pro-growth agenda that includes ending federal government discrimination against gays in marriage and the military?”
Are you on drugs? You are blaming gay people and organizations for a situation that is the intentional product of the Authoritarian Movement’s takeover of the Republican Party. The demonization of Gay people is an organizing tool for that Movement and they will never let it go. Anyone who tries to buck it will be primaried. The resources necessary to fight this situation, which devloped and became entrenched over the last 30+ years, are just not available. It would be a better use of our resources to let the Republican Party wither away in a series of electoral defeats. Let the people masquerading as “conservatives” continue to run the Republican Party into the ground.
2) “A big reason, I’d argue, is that the big LGBT groups abandoned the idea of lobbying for gay equality regardless of other issues.”
Yes, I’ll concede this point to you.
3) “The original Human Rights Campaign was willing to work with and occasionally endorse Republicans; today’s HRC is nothing but a Democratic Party fundraising front (yes, I’ve said it before, but non-leftist gay people keep giving them money as if they were a gay rights organization, so I’m going to keep saying it).”
I’ll grant you the point that some of our “leaders” in the HRC have used (and still are using) it to promote themselves within the Democratic Party. But are you seriously advocating that people give their money to the Republican Party? Do you really think that would have any benefit? You appear to be hobbled by your ideology. People worked within the Democractic Party for decades to promote equality for Gay people. NOTHING EFFECTIVE WAS DONE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. The Republican Party has withdrawn itself from serious consideration by Gay people as an avenue for serious political action. Those not riding your particular hobbyhorse concluded some time ago that the Republican Party was a waste of time. Unfortunate, but true. There are many legitimate reasons to criticize the HRC and other national gay organizations, but attacking them for supporting the only political party that is open to supporting our goals is not one of them. You can criticize their priorities and tactics in dealing with the Democrats, but they don’t have the option of saying we’ll go over to the Republicans. That is just not even remotely credible.
4) “The recent Equality March in Washington featured speakers from the leftwing Service Employees International Union. I’m just surprised ACORN wasn’t invited to speak.”
I have an impression that the recent march was not something put together by HRC. Am I wrong? What’s your problem with this? They asked the SEIU to speak? Do you think they could find a congressional Republican to speak? Is that their fault? Do you think some bona fide “conservative” organization or leader would have been willing to speak? Grover Norquist? Someone from the Club for Growth? Are you telling me that they could have gotten someone who actually had standing in the Republican Party to speak in support of the goals of the march? Please, leave the “left wing” and ACORN crap to Limbaugh.
Aren’t you embarrassed by the failure of right of center gay people to do anything effective in pursuit of gay rights since Stonewall? Please tell me how many conservatives were at Stonewall.
posted by BobN on
Every time I read another one of these anti-Dem screeds on here, I wonder if the world would be any different if the usual suspects on here wrote pro-gay opinion pieces in conservative fora instead of anti-left pieces on gay websites. Just look at the list of articles by many of the contributors here. They’re LONG, really LONG. Dozens and dozens of, undoubtedly, well written articles. Virtually none of them directed at straight conservatives.
Imagine what a difference you guys could have made. Not that the conservative publications would have published you, but still…..
posted by Another Steve on
The posting is not “another one of these anti-Dem screeds,” but a critical look at the strategy of turning the LGBT movement into an auxiliary of the Democratic Party. Apparently, you’re unwilling to engage in that debate.
posted by BobN on
If anyone turned the LGBT movement into an auxiliary of the Democratic Party, the GOP did.
And there is no debate in which to engage. If it weren’t for liberal and conservative gay people working with the only political party that would listen to us for the last 40 years, most of the writers and readers of this site would still be in the closet.
posted by Another Steve on
In the special congressional election…a pro-gay marriage liberal Republican…is up against a liberal, pro-Obama Democrat who opposes gay marriage…HRC’s position: no endorsement
So, BoBN, why on earth would any Republican buck her/his party to support gay rights?
posted by BobN on
“So, BoBN, why on earth would any Republican buck her/his party to support gay rights?”
Oh, I don’t know, maybe for the same reason a few, a very few, Democrats did almost half a century ago when they bucked the entire society on our behalf. In other words, because it’s the right thing to do…
posted by TS on
With 38% reporting, rural counties behind, it appears we have lost in Maine: my guess, by half to 2/3 of the margin of our loss in Cali. May the plebes rot in hell, damned to eternal attempts at manipulation by their tiresome agitators. Really it’s not the end of the world. Maine has robust domestic partnership and all.
What always cracks me up about democracy is that somewhere between 47.5 and 49.5 % of Mainers want to live under a government that allows gay marriage. By converse, if we had won, 47.5-49.5 % of Mainers would want to live under a government that bans it. We’re talking staggering numbers of people here that didn’t support and don’t want the government they’ve got.