I’m not a big “L” Libertarian Party guy, but I think LP Chairman Mark Hinkle put it very well in his outreach message to disenchanted gay voters:
“Exit polls indicate that Democrats get over 70% of LGBT votes in federal elections. Those voters must really love the Democrats’ rhetoric, because they certainly aren’t seeing any action.
“President Obama and the Democrats had almost a year of complete control of the federal government: the Presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate. They could have repealed ‘don’t ask don’t tell.’ They could have gotten rid of the Defense of Marriage Act. But they didn’t do either of those things.”
Would a Republican-controlled Congress have “done any of those things”? Not on your life. But what if the Democratic leadership had been willing to negotiate support for any of these initiatives with GOP moderates in exchange for things they would want (tort reform, for instance). But there was no will to go there.
25 Comments for “What Comes from Being Taken for Granted”
posted by Carl on
“But what if the Democratic leadership had been willing to negotiate support for any of these initiatives with GOP moderates in exchange for things they would want (tort reform, for instance).”
What GOP moderates? The handful who rarely actually buck their party and are probably scared of upcoming primary challenges?
They would have no reason to negotiate anything because they know that opposing anything and everything from Democrats gets them electoral results and also pleases their base. If they want tort reform they can just sit and wait for when Republicans take over Congress again, or come close. Or when Democrats cave on tort reform as they cave on so many issues.
The GOP has no reason to support any type of DADT repeal or any law which is seen as in any way sympathetic towards gays. Their base would lash out, and they would lose money and support. They would rather just barely pretend to tolerate us, or actively campaign against us. It doesn’t matter how nicely they are asked.
posted by Alex on
There are strategic and an ideological approaches. Ideologically no BGLT person should vote for most candidates of either major party. That’ll show ’em.
Strategically, vote for the candidates that will at screw us most gently.
posted by Jorge on
Would a Republican-controlled Congress have “done any of those things”? Not on your life.
Why should they? Nobody gives any money to them. They passed major legislation on behalf of lower income and minority communities in the form of No Child Left Behind, they regularly champion school choice, and what thanks do they get? Best to turn off the money faucet on the progressives instead.
posted by John on
So essentially this isn’t about what’s in the best interests of the country or even about providing legislative relief to a particular group. Nope, it’s all about extortion and bribes with the GOP.
Sounds rather like the DNC but are you sure that’s the line you want to take?
posted by Carl on
“Best to turn off the money faucet on the progressives instead.”
Basic support of gay rights doesn’t have to be progressive. In other countries it’s just a common sense position.
I don’t think it involves lack of support or money. The GOP many years ago, at least 30 or more, built a coalition with groups who generally see homosexuality as an abomination. That has helped get them elected many times over the years. Why tinker with success?
posted by Amicus on
Let’s not do ‘hypotheticals’. Why not demand the moderate Republican Senators (*cough*) to show us what amendments are ‘the price’ for their principle?
If it is expanding the scope of the Federal Government, like making a special Federal crime out of assaulting someone in uniform, then I suspect it could be accommodated. (Yes, that’s a true story).
posted by Lori Heine on
“Why tinker with success?”
Because it is increasingly less successful a strategy than it has been, and demographically it will be an increasing loser as time goes by.
Right-wing leading lights like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter are at least beginning to understand this. Coulter still can’t help saying dumb things about us sometimes (it may be a form of Tourette’s), but she risked a lot to address Homocon. The savvier among these people know how to read the signs.
posted by Houndentenor on
You might want to retract that now that we know what she said at Homocon.
posted by Carl on
“Because it is increasingly less successful a strategy than it has been, and demographically it will be an increasing loser as time goes by.”
Yes, but some analysts have said for years that the GOP being perceived as racist or anti-immigrant by some would also hurt their chances, yet they are likely to have a big showing this year in races throughout the country.
I think that a lot of Republican politicians and consultants and advisers feel that their base is very strongly opposed to homosexuality and that either stoking that or placating it is a way to get their continued support. They also assume that a lot of voters do not care enough about gays to be upset with the GOP over this. Or that a lot of casual voters will be impressed by this “traditional values” view and will go along.
And generally they have been proven right.
posted by Jorge on
Basic support of gay rights doesn’t have to be progressive. In other countries it’s just a common sense position.
Really? I thought in most other countries it was a progressive position that passed because progressives are in a larger majority than in this country. Anyway that wasn’t really my point.
Because it is increasingly less successful a strategy than it has been, and demographically it will be an increasing loser as time goes by.
Right-wing leading lights like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter are at least beginning to understand this.
I’m totally blind to any corrections the right is making and lessons it is learning even with the Tea Party movement. The left is so much more broken in comparison, and most of what the Tea Party is doing seems more like fixing the country… but they’re breaking more things that are good about the right than they’re fixing things that are wrong with it.
posted by Bobby on
“I’m totally blind to any corrections the right is making and lessons it is learning even with the Tea Party movement. The left is so much more broken in comparison, and most of what the Tea Party is doing seems more like fixing the country… but they’re breaking more things that are good about the right than they’re fixing things that are wrong with it.”
—What exactly is the Tea Party breaking? They’re voting for new candidates rather than career politicians, they’re opposing massive government spending and pork, they hate marxism and socialism, they are proud of being Americans, what the hell is wrong with that?
Real change in Washington is not going to come from voting for safe candidates. If Nevadans re-elect Reid how exactly is that going to help Nevada or America?
Congress needs people that want to drain the swamp, not those who keep filling it up.
posted by Carl on
“What exactly is the Tea Party breaking? They’re voting for new candidates rather than career politicians, they’re opposing massive government spending and pork, they hate marxism and socialism, they are proud of being Americans, what the hell is wrong with that?”
I’m never sure what proud of being Americans means. A lot of conservatives seem to think America is going through serious problems thanks to Obama and they don’t recognize the country anymore. That’s an understandable view. But when liberals said the same when President Bush was in office, they were told that they hated America. So does that mean they actually didn’t hate America, they were just being proud Americans?
The problem with some Tea Party candidates is they seem to just get through based on who they aren’t more than who they are. I don’t see how Christine O’Donnell espouses change America needs.
posted by Bobby on
“I’m never sure what proud of being Americans means. A lot of conservatives seem to think America is going through serious problems thanks to Obama and they don’t recognize the country anymore. That’s an understandable view. But when liberals said the same when President Bush was in office, they were told that they hated America. So does that mean they actually didn’t hate America, they were just being proud Americans?”
—Interesting, well, I don’t think liberals are really proud of being American.
http://www.dailyillini.com/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/2010/09/15/block-i-chant-portrays-neither-patriotism-nor-remembrance
Why else would Obama call himself a global citizen? Why does Lennon sing “imagine there’s no borders?” Leftism is internationalist in nature, that’s why they refer to “illegal aliens” as “migrant workers” and in some cases want to get them the right to vote. Either way, I don’t think most leftists feel comfortable with nationalism. In the book “Infidel” Ayaan describes that her joy at becoming a Dutch citizen wasn’t shared by her Dutch friends who saw nothing special about their Dutch nationality.
Leftists also love videos like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE
It’s about Americans being stupid, of course, I could get a camera and find stupid Brits and film them, but I have better things to doo with my time.
“The problem with some Tea Party candidates is they seem to just get through based on who they aren’t more than who they are. I don’t see how Christine O’Donnell espouses change America needs.”
—You don’t think balancing the budget and cutting spending is the change America needs? You can disagree on everything else she spouses, but I assure you that the Democrat and RINO republicans believe spending is the way to reach prosperity.
posted by Jorge on
—What exactly is the Tea Party breaking?
Compassion for the less fortunate and a desire for fairness and justice for all people.
posted by Lori Heine on
“And generally they have been proven right.”
Well, either integrity means something in America or it doesn’t. If most people are content to go on voting like children who cower under their beds in a puddle of piss, then in another thirty or forty years we will no longer have a country.
It really is that simple.
posted by Bobby on
“Compassion for the less fortunate and a desire for fairness and justice for all people.”
—Compassion for the less fortunate exists at the private level. If you’re homeless you’re more likely to be fed by Christian groups and Hunters for the Homeless (they donate venison, elk, deer, etc) than by PETA or some liberal group.
There are also groups where all their members promise to take care of their healthcare needs collectively. So, if I need an appendectomy the bill is divided among a thousand, maybe more members.
Christians often tithe 10% of their income for charity.
The tea party does support justice and fairness, including the prosecution of black panthers who intimidated white voters, a prosecution that was dropped by Obama’s injustice department inspite of video evidence and testimony.
What the tea party does not support is socialism, unlike Obama, we don’t go around saying “at some point you have made enough money” and unlike Buffet we want lower taxes for all rather than higher taxes for the rich.
If Buffet has money to blow he can volunteer to overpay his taxes, the IRS has a form for that. Or he could buy new factories, develop new products, perhaps take over GM, fire the unions and rehire the workers at lower salaries. Of course, Buffet is a stupid socialist who doesn’t appreciate the wealth private enterprise has allowed him to earn.
posted by Jorge on
—Compassion for the less fortunate exists at the private level. If you’re homeless you’re more likely to be fed by Christian groups and Hunters for the Homeless (they donate venison, elk, deer, etc) than by PETA or some liberal group.
That’s all well and nice, but that has little to do with what the Tea Party stands for.
Christians often tithe 10% of their income for charity.
That has far more to do with the religious right than with the Tea Party.
The Tea Party, in its stand for “common sense values” often places majoritarianism over a higher sense of what is right. The Tea Party stands not only against the welfare state, but too often against the impulse many Republicans have to use the power and authority of the federal government to treat the poor and oppressed with a lighter hand. With the rise of the Tea Party movement has also come an eagerness to use the power of the government to beat up disfavored parties, even with methods that border on violating their human rights. All this anger being stoked by the Tea Party and their allies is causing a reckless amount of collateral damage to the forces that moderate the left’s excesses.
posted by Jimmy on
Warren Buffett, the gold standard of American capitalism, can speak freely and is doing so. He’s simply saying what everyone else knows, everyone, that is, except someone so irrationally adherent to ideology that a concrete block would seem more reasonable.
Buffett on taxes:
“But– the– way the tax system has gotten tilted toward guys like me over the last 20 years is– as opposed to the middle class, you know, in my view, is a little obscene.
“But– but– at the– at the high end– and– and the people who are getting their huge incomes through capital gains and– I just– I just think that– when a country needs more income and we do, we’re only taking in 15 percent of GDP, I mean, that– that– when a country needs more income, they should get it from the people that have it.
“I think the inequities that have gone into the tax code in the last 20 or 30 years compared to the situation that existed when this country was very prosperous in 1960, 1970, 1980 and so on, I– I think it’s– I just think it’s been tilted toward the rich.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39321868
posted by Jorge on
Well, yes, except that everyone knows that when you tax the rich, everyone except Warren Buffet picks up and moves to tax havens. That’s called… capitalism!
It’s happened in New York State more times than anyone can count. It’s happened in that state that tried to raise a millionaire’s tax: they lost revenue. It’s happened during the Clinton administration when we began to see all this outsourcing. It even happens when you pass minimum wage laws. You will notice that Warren Buffet did not get challenged on his position. Had he been on Fox News, he would have been asked the question about how can he guarentee the millionaires will not pick up and leave, and then we would have seen just how smart he really is. You know what I am saying is true.
Well, they define it differently. (Laughs.) But I– I mean, I– I define it– I think we’re in a recession until real per capita GDP gets back up to where it was– before. That is not the way the National Bureau of Economic Research measures it.
Warren Buffet is a smart man.
posted by Jimmy on
“Had he been on Fox News, he would have been asked the question about how can he guarentee the millionaires will not pick up and leave, and then we would have seen just how smart he really is. You know what I am saying is true.”
Warren would probably say something to the effect of,
“all the millionaires I know, and I know a few, are all still here. Bill Gates is here. Steve Jobs is here. They haven’t left and have no plan to do so. If a few rich guys get their noses out of joint and leave the US over a few percentage points, good riddance. When such a vacuum is created, someone else will come along and fill it.”
This much I know, Buffett is a smart man, and he is right far more often than he is wrong.
posted by Houndentenor on
Where would they go? Are top tax rates are low compared to most industrialized countries and compared to tax rates in the US over the last 70 years. Did millionaires flee under Eisenhower when the top rate was 90%?
posted by Jimmy on
Probably Argentina, or Brazil, is where they would go, Houndentenor; we know South America has been a haven for fleeing fascists in the past.
posted by Bobby on
In Taiwan the corporate tax rate is 15%. If you think this has no impact, why do you think so many products say “Made in Taiwan”?
Besides, the higher the taxes the lesser the incentive to create wealth. At a 90% tax rate I’m better off closing the factory and retiring than working to pay the tax man.
posted by Jorge on
Warren would probably say something to the effect of,
“all the millionaires I know, and I know a few, are all still here. Bill Gates is here. Steve Jobs is here. They haven’t left and have no plan to do so. If a few rich guys get their noses out of joint and leave the US over a few percentage points, good riddance. When such a vacuum is created, someone else will come along and fill it.”
No, you have it exactly backwards. If rich people leave *now*, then a vacuum gets created that people will fill. Raise taxes, and the vacuum becomes the rest of the world.
Compare your hypothetical to what Bloomberg has actually said his rich friends have said, which was along the lines of “I knew I’d have to pay more, someone has to and I’ve got the money, but I never expected to be so villified.” And compare that to what Donald Trump has said. “You haven’t left.” Trump: “Not yet.”
Did millionaires flee under Eisenhower when the top rate was 90%?
Were there any other industrialized or industrializing countries in the world when Eisenhower was president? The United States was ascendant. Europe was devestated in World War II. The Soviet Union was Communist. Most other places were either a Cold War battlefield or Third World.
posted by Bobby on
The rich do leave when you screw with them, let me quote:
“Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”
One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rate”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html
It’s the same reason LeBron James took a job in Florida which has no estate income tax versus wasting millions of dollars playing for Cleveland.