For the gay marriage debate, 2009 was transitional instead of transformative, but the year was historic nonetheless. To mangle Churchill, it was not the end, nor even the beginning of the end, but it was at least the beginning of the middle.
This is an issue on which the fundamentals of public opinion change glacially. Support for same-sex marriage is rising, but only by about a percentage point or so a year. Essentially, a third of the public supports gay marriage, another third or so supports civil unions instead, and the remaining third opposes any kind of legal status for same-sex couples.
Although public-opinion fundamentals didn't change in 2009; the politics of gay marriage did. Here are the ways the year marked a shift to what a storyteller might call the "long middle."
The preemptive strikes on both sides have failed. Early on, conservatives feared that courts would impose same-sex marriage nationally by fiat. They responded with an attempt to ban gay marriage nationally by constitutional amendment. But the federal courts kept their distance, and the amendment was rebuffed.
As the year ends, it is clear that neither side can knock the other off the field. Gay marriage is firmly established in five states (with the District of Columbia's likely to follow suit), but it is banned, often by constitutional amendment, in most of the others. Unless the Supreme Court shocks the country and itself by declaring gay marriage a constitutional right, the issue will take years, perhaps decades, to resolve. All-or-nothing activists will be disappointed, but the country will get the time it needs to make up its mind.
Legislators are taking over from judges. For years, the only way same-sex marriage seemed possible was by court order. But with state venues for pro-gay-marriage lawsuits having just about dried up, the fight has moved from the lower courts to the political branches, much as the civil rights struggle did in the 1960s. Now, as then, legislative victories afford the movement more momentum and popular legitimacy than judicial ones ever could.
Opponents were fond of arguing that the gay-marriage movement was not just wrongheaded but antidemocratic. But in 2009, gay marriage was passed by the legislatures and signed into law in Maine and New Hampshire, and it was enacted by a veto-overriding majority in Vermont. Nothing undemocratic about that.
Same-sex marriage has been mainstreamed. In its first decade or so on the national stage, gay marriage was a fringe idea, the property of the political far left. No longer. Gay marriage may still be losing at the ballot box, but in Maine in 2009, as in California in 2008, the margins have grown tight. With its establishment last spring in Iowa, same-sex marriage has penetrated the heartland, by court order but with little backlash. Many Democrats have come to see support for gay unions as a political plus. Increasingly, it is the opponents who are playing cultural defense, insisting that they are the ones who are being marginalized and stigmatized.
There's a backlash against the backlash. The most important trend of 2009 began Nov. 4, 2008, when California voters passed Proposition 8, revoking gay marriage in their state. Until then, the preponderance of passion lay with opponents. After Prop. 8, however, many heterosexuals embraced gay marriage, taking ownership of an issue that they have come to view as the next great civil rights battle.
For same-sex marriage advocates, the emergence of a dedicated core of straight supporters is a sea change. There is now comparable energy and commitment on both sides.
It was just such passion, indeed, that led two of the country's most distinguished lawyers - Theodore Olson, a Republican, and David Boies, a Democrat - to join hands across party lines in 2009 and file a lawsuit asking the federal courts to overturn California's Proposition 8. The case is a long shot legally, but the fact that it has attracted such solidly mainstream legal talent is one more sign that the same-sex marriage issue has come of age.
21 Comments for “The Year of Going Mainstream”
posted by BobN on
Some fool dangled a lot of money in front of Mssrs. Olsen and Boies.
Don’t kid yourself that they did it because they care so much.
posted by Jorge on
Eh. I do think we’re limping a long a little faster than before.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Same-sex marriage really is a very glacial sort of issue. But it is moving much faster than it had been, no mistake about that. Of course we have also lost some ground that will be difficult to reclaim.
As I’ve noted before, elsewhere, by the time we win on same-sex marriage, the anti-homosexual movement in this country will have already lost on nearly every other anti-homosexual issue they’ve been hoping for. They’ve practically conceded most of these already and are focusing with precision on this one â a sort of line in the sand for them.
We’re pushing them on that line, and making other wins in the process. We’ve already won in 5 states now and the District Of Columbia. And we’ve won recognition of civil unions, and ‘all but marriage’ in Washington. Granted, we have already lost any possibility of same-sex marriage in some 30 states. And then there is California and Maine, which are particularly vexing situations…
But there is hope. People’s attitudes are changing as they are exposed to homosexuals and same-sex couples, and are forced to grapple with the unfairness of denying equality to homosexuals and same-sex couples. They are finding it increasingly difficult to justify such blatant discrimination.
Of course, there are socially conservative forces in this country which are pushing back, and trying very hard to get social conservatives elected, primarily through the Republican party but also via the Conservative party. Whereas there used to be some moderates in the Republican party, the numbers are dwindling as moderates are pushed out in place of right-wing social conservatives who are more than willing to legislate against us and use us as a scapegoat for society’s ills as they have done so many times before.
We have to keep this in mind in regards to upcoming elections. There is a massive anti-incumbent sentiment among folks these days. Rightly so. And with all the faux populism that is taking place among conservatives these days which the Republican party is trying to tie itself to, this coupled with the liberal wing of the Democratic party attempting to overreach and the Democrats overall increasingly showing themselves incapable of getting good, centrist results that will help the country… 2010 is likely to see a significant number of socially conservative Republicans elected to some key positions.
Regardless where some of the folks are on on the ideological spectrum, this spells disaster for homosexual-equality efforts. 2010 could be a game-changer for us. And with President Barack Obama not investing much effort in homosexual equality issues yet… We could soon lose most chances to achieve real results.
I don’t expect the gas chambers to fire up any time soon like they may do in Uganda, but equality for us may freeze for a decade or more, depending on how 2010 and 2012 go…
Maybe we can turn this populist, anti-incumbent rage to our advantage and elect some independent candidates with real courage and conviction for some of our causes.
Ultimately, I think true equality for us is never going to come piecemeal like this. What we need is for sexual-orientation to be protected the same as race, gender, etc. That’s my take on it.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Don’t kid yourself that they did it because they care so much.”
Who CARES how much they care? And why the hell should anyone have to?
Anyone who isn’t our enemy is at least potentially our friend. And anyone who works for us is doing us some potential good. If we’ll slobber over every Left-winger who even goes through the hollowest motions of being for us, why must we subject Republicans or conservatives to a test, or peer into their eyes, like Boy Bush, to see if we can read their souls?
That is childish. It’s the infantilizing effect of statist politics. Everybody is on everybody else’s lap, gazing into their eyes, breathing in their faces, feeling their pain.
Ugh. How about we return to our senses, start voting for libertarian candidates and begin behaving like rational adults?
posted by Bobby on
I just hope embarassing things like this don’t set us back.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32538379&postID=1151646004673034805
posted by BobN on
Why does it matter if they care? Because if they care they might be doing the right thing for the right reason or, heck, even the wrong thing for the right reason. I see no evidence that they’ve given much thought to the risks of this lawsuit.
And why do you think I’m dumping on “conservatives”? Boies is as liberal as they get. As far as I’m concerned, both he and Olsen are jackasses, regardless of party affiliation. Heck, considering their backgrounds, Boies is the bigger idiot.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âAnyone who isn’t our enemy is at least potentially our friend.â ~ Lori Heine
Yes, and sometimes the enemy is among us.
I think we should subject all of them, to a test, Lori.
In spite of what some around her might want to mislead you about, I haven’t been a single-issue voter until recently.
For me, voting largely based on homosexual issues shifted somewhat after 2004 when many Republicans pushed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Which, it must not be forgotten, was largely a political stunt just so they could get a higher conservative turn out and get elected. This happened in my own state.
What I’ve seen since 2004 has pushed me over the top. While I don’t look at homosexual issues alone, of course, it really has become my chief concern because there are very organized and merciless forces aligning against us. Just look at CA and MA. And we’ve put up with the back of the bus long enough.
I believe that we â all of us who are in favor of more recognition of homosexual equality â should be supporting candidates who are with us on those issues. Regardless whether they are Republicans, Democrats or independents.
As I’ve pointed out in other threads, that tends to count most Republicans out, because most aren’t supportive of us in the slightest. And unlike ND30, who given his comments clearly doesn’t give a damn how we’re treated, I do care, I care passionately and I’ll vote accordingly.
Republican Dede Scozzafava in New York’s 23rd district was an exception to the typical anti-homosexual stance of her party, she was supportive of same-sex marriage. While the Democrat, who won, supports civil rights for homosexuals, he doesn’t support same-sex marriage. So that would have pushed me her way if I were in New York. But then we see what the party did to her…
While I am a social libertarian, I am not a fiscal libertarian. So naturally, I’m not so enamored of the Libertarian party as you seemingly are. But I can respect your wanting to support third party candidates who may not even have much a of a chance to win. I voted for Harry Browne back in 2000 because I couldn’t stand Gore or Bush. I knew damn well he wouldn’t â couldn’t win. But it was a matter of principle for me.
I’d like to see more independent candidates get elected, because personally I despise party politics. I hate the lack of principles, the voting as a party rather than voting the will of one’s constituents. But sometimes we have to err on the side of practicality; support the candidate that is most likely to win and closest to us on issues.
Most independents, unfortunately, aren’t viable. So I put the question to you, Lori, what would YOU do when confronted with a non-viable third party candidate (perhaps Libertarian), and a close election between a pro-gay Democrat vs. an anti-gay Republican?
I can tell you that if the roles were reversed and the Republican were pro-gay and the Democrat were anti-gay or indifferent to, I’d vote for the Republican.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âAnyone who isn’t our enemy is at least potentially our friend.â ~ Lori Heine
Yes, and sometimes the enemy is among us.
I think we should subject all of them, to a test, Lori.
In spite of what some around her might want to mislead you about, I haven’t been a single-issue voter until recently.
For me, voting largely based on homosexual issues shifted somewhat after 2004 when many Republicans pushed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Which, it must not be forgotten, was largely a political stunt just so they could get a higher conservative turn out and get elected. This happened in my own state.
What I’ve seen since 2004 has pushed me over the top. While I don’t look at homosexual issues alone, of course, it really has become my chief concern because there are very organized and merciless forces aligning against us. Just look at CA and MA. And we’ve put up with the back of the bus long enough.
I believe that we â all of us who are in favor of more recognition of homosexual equality â should be supporting candidates who are with us on those issues. Regardless whether they are Republicans, Democrats or independents.
As I’ve pointed out in other threads, that tends to count most Republicans out, because most aren’t supportive of us in the slightest. And unlike ND30, who given his comments clearly doesn’t give a damn how we’re treated, I do care, I care passionately and I’ll vote accordingly.
Republican Dede Scozzafava in New York’s 23rd district was an exception to the typical anti-homosexual stance of her party, she was supportive of same-sex marriage. While the Democrat, who won, supports civil rights for homosexuals, he doesn’t support same-sex marriage. So that would have pushed me her way if I were in New York. But then we see what the party did to her…
While I am a social libertarian, I am not a fiscal libertarian. So naturally, I’m not so enamored of the Libertarian party as you seemingly are. But I can respect your wanting to support third party candidates who may not even have much a of a chance to win. I voted for Harry Browne back in 2000 because I couldn’t stand Gore or Bush. I knew damn well he wouldn’t â couldn’t win. But it was a matter of principle for me.
I’d like to see more independent candidates get elected, because personally I despise party politics. I hate the lack of principles, the voting as a party rather than voting the will of one’s constituents. But sometimes we have to err on the side of practicality; support the candidate that is most likely to win and closest to us on issues.
Most independents, unfortunately, aren’t viable. So I put the question to you, Lori, what would YOU do when confronted with a non-viable third party candidate (perhaps Libertarian), and a close election between a pro-gay Democrat vs. an anti-gay Republican?
I can tell you that if the roles were reversed and the Republican were pro-gay and the Democrat were anti-gay or indifferent to, I’d vote for the Republican.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Most independents, unfortunately, aren’t viable. So I put the question to you, Lori, what would YOU do when confronted with a non-viable third party candidate (perhaps Libertarian), and a close election between a pro-gay Democrat vs. an anti-gay Republican?”
I would have to know more about the two candidates to make a decision. How anti-gay is “anti-gay?” If he or she wanted to march us into the gas chambers, I would vote against him or her because this candidate would clearly be an evil person, and we’ve had too many evil people running our government already.
If he or she simply blathered the standard Republican cant about gays, while being right (in my opinion) about the need for lower taxes and less government intrusion in our lives, I would hold my nose and vote for this person anyway.
When push came to shove, if this candidate were elected and tried to use State power against us, plenty of people would be there to remind our public servant — which is what this person would be — of the campaign promises he or she had made to reduce government intrusion into citizens’ lives. If our reminder was ignored, then next time I would vote for a different candidate.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I would definitely set the bar higher than gas chambers… Anyone that even remotely uttered the sort of anti-homosexual, anti-equality fascism of ND30 would NEVER get my vote under any circumstances. As far as I’m concerned, if they aren’t at least a little bit supportive of us, then they are as good as against us.
~”When push came to shove, if this candidate were elected and tried to use State power against us, plenty of people would be there to remind our public servant — which is what this person would be — of the campaign promises he or she had made to reduce government intrusion into citizens’ lives. If our reminder was ignored, then next time I would vote for a different candidate.” ~ Lori Heine
It’s a little late, once they’re in office… I think if they have blathered the typical anti-gay rhetoric then we should take them at their word and not support them. I would expect them too. I mean, aren’t we supposed to be choosing candidates based on what they do and what they say and then holding them to account for them?
What would be ethical about it if they were grandstanding against homosexual-issues but then didn’t follow through with that once elected?
posted by Lori Heine on
“What would be ethical about it if they were grandstanding against homosexual-issues but then didn’t follow through with that once elected?”
I guess I define “homosexual issues” differently than you do. If the government is not being utilized as an intrusion into our lives, and our basic freedoms are being protected, then I’d feel I was being served by whoever was in office.
I believe government exists for only one legitimate purpose, and that is to protect our freedoms. That was the view of those who founded this country. Gay and lesbian voters have become far too susceptible to touchy-feely rhetoric from people who say the right things to us while campaigning, but then do nothing that truly benefits us once they’re elected.
I don’t think my basic interests are any different from those of any other citizen, regardless of sexual orientation. If we took the focus off of “rights” — a nebulous concept, difficult to agree upon — and returned them to freedoms, we’d be back on the solid footing upon which this country was founded.
These freedoms are the same for everybody, gay and straight, and are based not upon our differences but upon the humanity we hold in common. So long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others by force or fraud, our freedoms should be inviolate.
“Rights” talk only alienates. It even divides us within our own “community” — as has become so obvious here.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âGay and lesbian voters have become far too susceptible to touchy-feely rhetoric from people who say the right things to us while campaigning, but then do nothing that truly benefits us once they’re elected.â ~ Lori Heine
I agree. I think part of that is due to the fact that we’ve been a bit desperate for our issues to be addressed. But then I also believe that far too many of us aren’t really voting our interests â i.e. those interests that are uniquely of consequence to our minority. Hell, a lot of us don’t even vote! And we are a very small minority.
By âhomosexual issuesâ, without going into the entire list, I would say that ideally the government would treat us neutrally. We would have the same access to marriage that opposite-sex couples do. And not an alternative, version, either.
We would have the same ability to serve our country and not have to keep ‘dark secrets’ from our fellow comrades; lie about the gender of our partner back home. We couldn’t be denied employment based on our orientation or the gender of our partner.
We as individuals and same-sex couples couldn’t be denied housing like folks used to do based on race. Our homosexual orientation couldn’t be used as a disqualification in adoption, etc.
Considering that, for the most part, none of this is true for us depending on where you live. It certainly isn’t applied evenly across the country, not even close, the government would have to be proactive about establishing these sorts of things. Neutral is better than negative, granted, but neutral is not enough. That just keeps us where we are, and where we are is no where near equal.
I don’t know whether you call these ârightsâ or âfreedomsâ, it really just seems like semantics, to me. It’s a ârightâ when you’re fighting to achieve such things that your minority is being denied; it’s a âfreedomâ when you have the ability to exercise them.
Ultimately we are a community. We are treated differently, excluded, marginalized, demonized. Even here…
There is really no getting around that. We can just go with the flow and wait for everyone to get around to figuring out that maybe we’re worthy, or we can get organized as a community and agitate for change as so many civil rights movements have before us.
I choose the latter. I think we all should. I think we need every one of us we can get, in fact. But alas, some of us, like you-know-who, are a lost cause.
posted by Lori Heine on
Actually, both sides demonize those they find it convenient to scapegoat. The liberal friend with whom I had dinner last night was all over “the rich” like stink on a monkey.
For the Left, the Evil Rich are — as always — the bogeyman of choice. I tried, with great patience, to explain to my friend that when powerful interests on the Left (and yes, they have as many of them as the Right does) try to push our buttons with all-purpose condemnations of “the rich,” they are actually trying to get into our pockets.
“The rich” never end up paying the price for this. Ordinarily, working-class Americans like you and me are the ones who pay. Yet all too many of us, especially at a scary time like this, are willing to hand power over to those who claim they’ll skin “the rich” on our behalf.
What behalf?
I warned my friend that she, unemployed, on food stamps and nearing sixty, needs to stop falling for that crap and start realizing that these supposedly benevolent people she trusts so much are actually damaging her chances to ever find a decent job again.
We need to get conservatives to recognize the parallels in the manipulations they are so prone to fall for.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I understand your points, and “the rich” is applied to generally.
Still, I’d love to see the skinning of those who have ruined this country through so-called “free markets”, “free-trade”, deregulation, irresponsible money-generating schemes, fleecing the poor and middle-class, the Wall Street types who while nearly collapsing the world economy think themselves so important that they should be paid in an hour what minimum wage people earn in a year, and of course those who then go on to become government officials who are entrusted to then design new policies making all this easier and more legal…
And I don’t think we should decline holding such persons accountable due to the blackmailing threat, ‘they’ll simply make the rest of us pay more’.
You say the government can’t be trusted to accomplish this. Maybe so, but someone has to do it. And if the government doesn’t and this continues, I think you may find us undergoing a modern day French Revolution in the near future. And I mean this quite seriously.
Such a thing would not be a good outcome at all as such populist uprisings, while initially righteous and seemingly necessary, tends to lead to things like â brownshirts and then the Nazi regime. But that’s where we are headed if someone doesn’t rein in the strangle hold that the super-rich, the corporations, and the congressional-military-industrial complex has over this country.
The people are not going to stand for this plutocracy much longer.
posted by Lori Heine on
DragonScorpion, I can certainly understand your frustration — in fact, I share it. The problem is that WE DO NOT HAVE A GENUINE FREE MARKET in this country. Haven’t had for many, many years. People tend to blame the “free market” or “deregulation” for things that have nothing to do with deregulation.
I’m probably arguing more with my dinnertime friend than with you, so please don’t take this personally. I still can’t believe some of the things she said last night. And on New Year’s Eve, I will be going through it all again! Perhaps I’m merely rehearsing it here with you…
The answer isn’t pitchforks and torches, in some modern equivalent of the French Revolution.
In a genuine free market, executives who screw up their companies are not paid fat bonuses. They are FIRED. No one tries to claim they are so valuable they must be retained at all costs, because if they screw up their companies they’re not that valuable. Bad managers are given the boot, and good riddance to them.
What’s going on in this country is that government plutocrats and big corporate plutocrats are in league with one another. Huge, bloated, inefficient, corrupt giganto-corporations don’t survive long in genuine free markets, because competition with better-run businesses would weed them out.
The big lie, being perpetuated by both Left and Right, is that big business and big government are enemies. In actuality, they’re the best of friends. Each hand washes the other. To throw in one more merry metaphor, they’re two peas in a pod.
posted by Amicus on
A hopeful but perhaps a bit rosy assessment.
I just lost another long post on this website, so I’ll shorthand.
Our opponents’ pre-emption hasn’t failed. It was a slowdown tactic, not intended to be definitive, pun intended.
They have a strategy, even if it is ugly. Ours…is evolving, still.
“let the people vote”, if it is successful, implies a long, long middle.
The danger of a status quo centered on ‘civil union’ is everpresent. So is the political convenience of saying, “Hitherto, but no further”, i.e. we’ll do all, but not marriage for you. The convenience of voting or citing “personal beliefs” still has force.
It is not clear yet whether a ‘long middle’, a long time in the wilderness, so to speak, will radicalize or harmonize the struggle. One can imagine the worst or the best, still.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Don’t worry, Lori, I’m not taking any of this personally at all. And likewise, I’m sure.
I agree that there has been, and there still is a collusion between government plutocrats and big corporate plutocrats. However, I do not believe this is an automatic consequence of government regulation. My understanding is, one of the most systemic monopolies we’ve seen was Standard Oil. And this was in an era of much less regulation than what we’ve seen as of late.
In that instance, I believe it was a lack of involvement by government to keep the corporation in check. What may have begun as smarter business practices than competitors, lead to the acquisition of more and more control over industries and markets until it was so pervasive that the government literally had to step in and bust them up.
I believe Wal-Mart is doing something very similar. And should be broken up as well.
Right now insurance companies have, and have had, and will continue to have exception from antitrust suits. The very same used to bust up Standard Oil or Ma Bell. And this doesn’t make insurance more efficient, or more accountable or more honest.
Among other things, inherent in the principle of government having a degree of authority over commerce or regulation of markets or even dictating fair practices in employment and housing, or the safety of work environments, food, and other products â is that government can and should be neutral and can and should be accountable.
Now it is not always like this in practice. In fact, there has been far too little accountability in government and little neutrality. This is a huge problem. I believe the private sector’s ability to move former CEO’s into official government positions and the influence of money on politics are both the biggest culprits for this lack of accountability, the corruption and the failures by government to accomplish what it is designed and entrusted to accomplish.
A massive problem which needs to be tackled. And it would help if we could get certain groups, like many libertarians, to stop arguing that financial campaign contributions constitute âfree speechâ.
I believe that, unfortunately, it isn’t the companies which provide the best service and products which become the most successful, it is the companies that are best at screwing their competitors and in the end their customers once they have enough control over a markets that competition is really no longer an issue.
Letting the markets run wild and free and the laws of nature will sort of take its course all sound like a lovely idea, but I don’t think it is a particularly practical one.
But government doesn’t have all the answers either. I think balance is a very important key in all of this. And to one degree or another, from one side to the other, we haven’t seen real balance between government and the private sector for a long time.
And this is where, no offense intended, I think pro-government liberals and anti-government libertarians tend to get too wrapped up into ideology to formulate a realistic sort of approach.
Ultimately, I believe that we need more regulation right now, but smart regulation.
I await your reply, but I think I’ll let this be my last post on this particular topic here. It’s significantly off subject. But interesting. Good luck with your dinner date! Remind her that some of those rich fat cats are holding important government positions right now…
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âI just lost another long post on this website, so I’ll shorthand.â ~ Amicus
Ouch. You, too, eh? That just frosts me. After about the third time I started using a word processor â just in case.
I think you hit upon some things there. While in some ways we seem more focused than ever, like CA and MA were wake up calls. In another sense it still seems like we’re very complacent. It’s almost as if we’re waiting for inevitability, assuming that most heterosexuals will push for us and we’ll get some real recognition. And that’s something that we can’t afford to count on.
Nobody fights harder for a cause than those who have the most at stake. That’s us, even though it seems a lot of us don’t act like it. But we’re a very small minority. And easily mislead. Some lip-service can go a long way. We have yet to see if President Obama will live up to his promises. I didn’t join the bandwagon with Andrew Sullivan, et al. to scream bloody murder because Mr. Obama has just completely forgotten about us. I expect significant results, but I don’t expect it overnight. I keep up with politics enough to know there are political limitations. You can screw up the timing and suffer huge defeats on entire agendas.
As far as I’m concerned he’s got 3 more years to show some results. After that, all bets are off, unless he’s running against some die-hard conservative with an anti-homosexual agenda.
Perhaps several years in the wilderness would do us some good. If the decisions after CA and MA was a wake-up call for us, then I think we could use one or two more wake-up calls, though hopefully without such significant defeats. Sometimes it’s good to concentrate the mind. In the meantime, I think there are a lot of things we need to do to improve upon and mature our community.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Ultimately, I believe that we need more regulation right now, but smart regulation.”
Of course the government was in bed with Rockefeller and Standard Oil. The details are well-documented. He asked state legislators to run his competitors out of business.
A company named Tidewider Pipe Line Company threatened Standard Oil’s dominance, so Rockefeller lobbied — successfully — to have Standard Oil made a monopoly. It cornered the market on pipeline building in all states where Tidewater had been operating.
Happened all the time, and still does. It’s the story of “capitalism” in this country. The only problem is that it has nothing to do with capitalism.
There can be no such thing as “smart” regulation. There’s only unnecessary regulation. A free market would, indeed, regulate itself.
I don’t care how many times the MSM pundits gaze out of the TV screen, into our eyes, and murmur sweet words to the contrary. (“You are now getting verrry sleeeeepy….”) I refuse to be programmed by their crapola.
Think about it. If we’re not capable of taking care of ourselves and acting in our own best interests as consumers (when the State hasn’t stacked the deck against us), then how on earth could we ever hope to govern ourselves?
Reagan asked a similar question in his first inaugural speech. I don’t think anybody ever really answered him.
posted by Bobby on
Good points, Lori, but how do libertarians deal with issues like outsourcing?
“There can be no such thing as “smart” regulation. There’s only unnecessary regulation. A free market would, indeed, regulate itself.”
—What about airlines? Since deregulation service has worsened and now people are demanding a Passengers Bill of Rights to avoid fiascoes like being stuck on a tarmac for 8 hours.
In the perfect free world people would stop flying and force the airlines to provide better service, but while many people don’t fly many people only care about the cost of the ticket and are willing to go through hell just to get cheap airfare.
And while I’m a believer in supply and demand, the business world seems to be ruled by a different universe. For example, 50% of Americans are fat yet most airline seats are uncomfortable even for people who are skinny (unless they happen to be 5’2″ in which case legroom isn’t an issue). You’d think that airline seats would be getting bigger, but they’re not. And when you look at how small the first class section is, and how Business class doesn’t exist on domestic flights, you wonder what the hell is going on?
Personally, I think all airlines are following the same business model. It’s like the entire car industry got together and decided to produce only Mini Coopers.
posted by Lori Heine on
Bobby, you raise some good points. I think there are some very un-creative people running major companies right now. I think the problem, though, is that competition keeps shrinking. There are so many airlines, for example, that we grew up hearing as household names and that simply no longer exist. (I don’t know for a fact, but aren’t both TWA and Pan-Am gone now?)
Outsourcing, I think, is caused to some degree by regulations that make it so expensive to hire American workers that companies look overseas instead. In the long run, what would help those foreign workers would not be working in a call center for an American company, but starting their own companies or working for some local person who makes good. I don’t know for a fact, but I would imagine most other libertarians would likely agree with me.
I’m lucky — I work for myself, now, and I’ve promised not to lay myself off. So far I’m the best boss I’ve ever worked for.