Some progressive activists fear that liberalism today is too concerned with social issues like gay marriage instead of focusing on income redistribution and expanding government, Washington Post reporter Alec MacGillis writes:
If the country is becoming more liberal on accepting minority rights, why is the left having such a hard time making progress on its bread-and-butter issues of class and economics, which were once its central, animating concerns? Why is liberalism half-dead, half-alive? …
Helping push the marriage vote were billionaire financiers who have spent heavily to elect Republicans and block Democratic efforts to regulate Wall Street. And the hero of the vote, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, has garnered praise from the right for balancing New York’s budget by cutting public education and public employees, instead of raising taxes on millionaires…
MacGillis quotes Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign, who says of wealthy Republicans who pressed New York GOP legislators to support gay marriage that:
he knows that the GOP donors are working to undermine other causes of the left, but he expressed no regret. “We do work very closely and in concert with folks in the progressive movement,” he said. “But we also understand there are times when we will have different stakeholders.”
Well, that’s good. But does HRC think that endorsing Obama’s re-election in June 2011 and backing all manner of liberal-left agenda items is going to open doors to working with gay-supportive Republicans? On the contrary, HRC has all but ensured that its help carries so much baggage as to make it the kiss of death for anyone who might be supportive of gay equality but isn’t on the left.
MacGillis concludes with remarks from openly gay uber-liberal Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.):
And how does Frank view the gay-marriage push provided by financiers—who will now resume trying to eviscerate the Dodd-Frank law and preserve the loophole that lets their winnings be taxed at only 15 percent?
“I know a couple hedge-fund people helped us on marriage,” he replied without hesitation. “But that’s no reason for me to back off on taxing them.”
Thanks in large part to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a coalition of liberals and gay-supportive Republicans carried the day in New York. But the “progressive” left to which many LGBT activists are aligned still puts government expansion and income redistribution at the top of its wish list, making it difficult to build and maintain a broad, national coalition of liberals, libertarians and free-market/limited govenrment conservatives in support of gay equality.
More. Columnist Robert J. Samuelson writes in the Washington Post:
We are now engaged in a messy debate over big budget deficits and the size of government. The struggle nominally pits liberals against conservatives, but this is misleading. The real debate involves reactionaries vs. radicals. Many liberals are reactionaries and many conservatives are radicals.
So why must the LGBT movement weigh in on one side or the other?
60 Comments for “Left Foot First?”
posted by Tom on
But the “progressive” left to which many LGBT activists are aligned still puts government expansion and income redistribution at the top of its wish list, making it difficult to build and maintain a broad, national coalition of liberals, libertarians and free-market/limited govenrment conservatives in support of gay equality.
Gays and lesbians come in all political stripes, as do straights.
Why is it necessary for gay and lesbian progressives, liberals, libertarians and free-market/limited government conservatives to agree on economic policy (and the defense budget, tax policies, environmental policies, and so on) in order to build a coalition in favor of marriage equality?
It seems to me, though, Stephen, that you are falling into the same logical trap that you accuse the HRC of falling into — requiring that folks supporting marriage equality be in agreement on matters in order to support marriage equality.
If conservative gays and lesbians (and straight allies) insist that gays and lesbians come to agreement on everything else as a precondition to working for “equal means equal”, we’ll never get to the goal. If gays and lesbians, for that matter, insist on coming to agreement on the reasons why gays and lesbians of different political stripes support “equal means equal”, we’ll never get to the goal, either.
My view is that gays and lesbians of all political stripes should be single-minded in pursuit of marriage equality (and other “equal means equal” issues), welcoming support from whatever political perspective that support reflects, setting aside our differences on other issues, and even setting aside the different reasons for supporting “equal means equal” among the different political perspectives.
Maybe there is a legitimate reason why the HRC’s support of marriage equality is the “kiss of death for anyone who might be supportive of gay equality but isn’t on the left“, but if it is true that no one who “isn’t on the left” will support “equal means equal” — for their own reasons, based on their own political philosophy — simply because progressive gays and lesbians do, then we are in an impossible situation.
And we will stay in an impossible situation even if every progressive were to turn into a conservative tomorrow morning, because the “I can’t support anything that anyone who doesn’t agree with me on everything supports …” mentality will preclude common purpose among conservatives of various stripes — the libertarians will insist that they can’t support marriage equality until free-market/limited government conservatives embrace the libertarian philosophy lock, stock and barrel, and vis a versus.
It seems to me that you guys living inside the Beltline could profit from the example of small-town America, or at least come out of Washington and visit once in a while to see how America works on the ground. In small towns, we work together on community projects we mutually support despite fundamental disagreement on just about everything else.
We don’t have the luxury of doing otherwise. Most of the time, anyway, we simply set aside our differences and work together on the things we agree upon, and then fight like cats and dogs over the issues that divide us at another time.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Tom, it’s funny to watch you and your fellow bigots whine about “coming together” while you endorse, support, and advocate for the Democrat Party of Wisconsin and its call to “punch a Republican”.
And it’s even funnier when one considers how you support and endorse the bigot gays like GLAAD who call gay and lesbian conservatives and Republicans “Jewish Nazis”, “kapos”, “Uncle Toms”, and whatnot.
Anyone who sees a violent bigot like yourself who calls for attacking and harming people based on their political party and who compares them to Nazis and traitors recognizes right away that you and any party that would support you should be ignored.
posted by Jimmy on
You are practically hysterical.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, Jimmy; I would save that for people like the Democrat Party of Wisconsin for which Tom works, who aside from this call for physical violence, has also been caught threatening to murder Republican legislators and their families and bomb public places.
posted by Doug on
I see no proof on that link that Tom sent those emails.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course not. The assertion wasn’t that Tom sent them himself, it was that he supports and endorses the people who did.
posted by Jimmy on
Where does it say this was sent by anybody affiliated with the Wisconsin Democratic Party? Seriously weak.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I thought you might do a bit more research, but suit yourself.
posted by Jimmy on
“Of the 78 actions made public, about 30 were directed at Democrats, a few less at Walker and other Republicans, with the balance made up of vague or implied threats against no specific target, or concerns over demonstrators.”
You know, and I am looking, but I don’t see where any member of the state Democratic party is identified as a sender. I see a lot of unsubstantiated comments, which is typical, but that’s about it.
posted by Tom on
This is a good example of Dan not bothering to follow his own links.
If he had bothered to do even minimal checking, he would have discovered that the Wisconsin State Journal reported that the 78 closed cases involved 15 threats against Governor Walker, 30 threats targeting Democratic senators, 12 threats against Republican senators and state representatives, and 21 threats naming Capitol protesters, police, the tea party, Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz, Dane County Board Chairman Scott McDonell and others.
With respect to the open cases (I think that there are 29), as far as I know nothing has been reported as to about who was threatened or who did the threatening, with one exception.
That exception is the e-mail that Dan to which Dan originally linked. According to news reports, Katherine Windels, 26, of Cross Plains, Wisconsin, admitted to sending the e-mail, and was been subsequently charged. According to one news report, Windels was the subject of a police investigation several months earlier involving text messages, an investigation that ended with the police telling her to cease any contact with the person she was texting. How that plays into the story, I don’t know. She will have her day in court.
None of the reported threat cases have been tied to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin or any officers or staff of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, as far as I know. Nor, as far as I know, have any been tied to the Republican Party of Wisconsin or any officers or staff of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. I think that it is highly unlikely that any of the open cases will be tied to either party, but I suppose that it is possible.
Feelings ran high in February and March in Wisconsin, and it isn’t a surprise (or shouldn’t be) that a number of people went over the edge. The Capital was the focus of demonstrations over the course of many weeks, with as many as 100,000 protestors present from the two sides in a single day. Arrests were few — fewer during the entire period than is typical at a single UW football game. None of the arrests were for anything serious. To my mind, the relatively small number of incidents that arose from the controversy is a testament to the common sense of Wisconsinites.
So much for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin fulminating violence and death threats.
More generally, though, Dan’s posts often contain false allegations, bad facts, and faulty logic.
Dan’s common logical fallacies are:
(1) [N] said [X]. You and [N] both members of [Y] group. Therefore, you [say/endorse/agree with] [X].
(2) You oppose [X]. You haven’t said that you oppose [Y]. Therefore, you [say/endorse/agree with] [Y].
(3) [N] [said/did] [X]. [N] is a member of [Y] group. Therefore, all members of [Y] group [say/do] [X].
That kind of thinking that earns an “F” in Logic 101.
Dan also tosses around hyperbole (“bigots”, “haters”, “Nazi”, “whining”, “screaming” and so on), makes exagerated characterizations (“… gays and lesbians are irrational, violent people who intend to use riots, massive property destruction, and murder if they do not get their way …”), draws irrational (in my view) connections (for example, in response to a recent comment by Houdentenor, “… you scream about teen suicide and try to blame religious people when you’re out sickening, maiming, disabling, and killing an entire generation of teenagers …”, linking to a 2008 article about the increase in HIV infection among NYC teenagers, suggesting that Houdentenor is somehow responsible for teen HIV infection rates), and offers up batshit crazy comments from someone or other in a discussion thread as examples of mainstream gay/lesbian thinking.
I’ve read enough of Dan’s comments over the years to know that he almost always attacks; he seldom responds with substance. I’ve also concluded that whatever is going on with Dan, it’s too late to nip it in the bud.
At one time, Stephen Miller used to link to posts on Dan’s blog with approval. Dan’s blog posts are calmer than his comments on IGF, but I haven’t noticed Stephen doing that for four or five years.
For my part, I almost always let Dan’s comments speak for themselves, and let it go at that … I don’t see any point in trying to engage him, because exchanges with Dan just go round and round, going nowhere.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This is a good example of Dan not bothering to follow his own links.
Or an excellent example of being aware of how Tom, as a typical Obama Party operative, tries to omit information.
For example, the fact that his Obama Party tried desperately to block the prosecution of the Obama Party operative who sent the email, to the point that the FBI had to admonish them for stonewalling. They even refused to arrest or incarcerate her after she admitted to the charges.
Again, the hypocrisy is hilarious; can one imagine the outcry from gays and lesbians like Tom if a Republican Distric Attorney had stonewalled charges and arrests against someone who had admitted that they made death threats against gays and lesbians, threatened to bomb public places, and threatened to kill their families — and especially given a previous record of violence? Tom and his ilk would be demanding punishment for the Republican Party, as they repeatedly have in the past — but when it’s their Obama Party and its supporters making the death threats, they support and endorse it and try to protect the person from consequences.
Hypocrisy. Typical for gays and lesbians like Tom.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So much for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin fulminating violence and death threats.
Of course they did.
After all, didn’t Tom and his fellow gays and lesbians, like at Box Turtle Bulletin, scream that Sarah Palin and Republicans were “fulminating violence and death threats” and that she was responsible for Gabrielle Giffords’s shooting, even though the shooter had nothing to do with her or the Republican Party?
Certainly Tom would hold his own Obama Party responsible for their supporters committing acts of violence and death threats using the same logic, especially since he holds Sarah Palin and Republicans responsible for the actions of people who have nothing to do with them.
But as we see, he doesn’t. Therefore, he’s a hypocrite.
Again, typical for gays and lesbians like Tom. Nothing but amoral, unprincipled hypocrites.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And last, but certainly not least:
So much for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin fulminating violence and death threats.
Let’s revisit what started this whole discussion, shall we?
That tweet involves a person exhorting people to, quote, “Punch a Republican”.
That tweet was made by Graeme Zielinski, who, according to his Twitter profile, is “WisDems communications director”, confirmed on the Democrat Party of Wisconsin website.
But as is to be expected of a paid political operative of the Obama Party, Tom sees nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with this statement.
Now let us consider how Tom, GLAAD, HRC, NGLTF, and the rest of the gay and lesbian community would react if the communications director of an organization had tweeted that someone should celebrate by “punching an LGBT person”.
Especially given that the gay and lesbian community shrieked that words were equivalent to violence in all of the latest celebrity “slur” hysteria. I seem to recall demands for public apologies, condemnations, and resignations.
Again, hypocrisy. Think Tom is going to condemn Graeme Zielinski’s rhetoric? Think Tom is going to state that his words were inappropriate? Think Tom is going to demand a public apology?
Of course not. Tom is the co-chair of the LGBT caucus of the Wisconsin Obama Party, and is thus certainly not going to go against the will of his Obama Party massas. Tom doesn’t have any principles or values other than being a good Obama Party puppet, and will support and endorse anything like the good plantation gay that he is.
Again, nothing but hypocrisy. Pure hypocrisy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And here’s the link for Tom blaming Sarah Palin for the Giffords shooting.
posted by Tom on
Well, Dan, I’ll say this for you: When you set out to prove my point for me, you do a workmanlike job of proving it.
posted by Tom on
And, oh, by the way Dan, just to make sure that a lie repeated often enough doesn’t become a “fact” in your head, I am not “a paid political operative” of the DPW.
I am Co-Chair of the LGBT Caucus of the DPW for a four-year term ending in 2013, but I am a volunteer in that role, as I am as Vice Chair of my county party. So you can take the “paid political operative” whopper off your rant list. I’ve never been paid a single cent for any of the political work I’ve done over the last forty years.
In addition to keeping an extensive filing system, you seem to do a lot of Googling. How do you find the time to do all that and still hold down a job? I don’t have time for that kind of crap, and I’m retired.
posted by Houndentenor on
The only times I have ever heard the terms “income redistribution” and “expanding government” were from the right. Liberals don’t think in those terms. Perhaps socialists do. Do I even know any actual socialists? I doubt it. These are strawmen of the right. You can’t be taken seriously while throwing about such terminology.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Funny, we have Obama Party leadership explicitly saying that the goal of their legislation such as Obamacare are to redistribute income.
posted by Wilberforce on
Actually, the terms income redistribution and expanding government are falsehoods of the right. They mean something totally different to those who use them. Income redistribution means taxes on rich people, who don’t want to pay their share. Taxes on working people are just fine. Expanding government refers to government that serves the general public. The huge nanny state that serves rich people is also fine.
And the complaint here, that liberals must support nut job republican economic policy before republicans will support gay rights, is more double speak.
All such themes are products of a selfishness so off the scale that it can twist meanings like taffy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Income redistribution means taxes on rich people, who don’t want to pay their share.
Of course, this is coming from the Obama Party shills like Wilberforce, who already are not paying their “fair share”.
And that doesn’t even include the known tax cheats like John Kerry, Charles Rangel, Hilda Solis, Kathleen Sebelius, Tom Daschle, Timmy Geithner, and others.
Pure hypocrisy. The Barack Obama Party, fully endorsed and completely supported by HRC, NGLTF, and the vast and overwhelming majority of gay and lesbian organizations and gay and lesbian people, shriek that other people are being “selfish” while they themselves evade taxes and refuse to pay.
posted by Jimmy on
Greed is not good and the corruption it spawns is bipartisan.
So, what else is new?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, it’s not bipartisan, Jimmy; you fully support and endorse Obama Party members and gays and lesbians doing it, even as they hypocritically shriek that others are not paying their “fair share”.
We understand. You just don’t have the balls to tell off gay and lesbian criminals. After all, you have to support them, right?
posted by Jimmy on
You have zero understanding of what or who I support or endorse.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
On the contrary, Jimmy; I understand perfectly.
Gays and lesbians are gays and lesbians first, and law-abiding, taxpaying citizens second.
You’re not even capable of holding a gay or lesbian person responsible for their behavior. The AIDS epidemic proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
posted by Jimmy on
“You’re not even capable of holding a gay or lesbian person responsible for their behavior.”
I never needed to do that. Reality took care of it, and I imagine those that you feel had something coming, got just that. Same for those who stubbornly lit one more cigarette. Lung cancer? Meh…eff ’em. They deserved it.
You are one piece of work.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And of course, what does Wilberforce and the rest of the gay and lesbian community demand that taxes be raised on working people to do?
To provide casino money for gays and lesbians on welfare to gamble.
Isn’t that interesting? Wilberforce believes that real working people who make more money than he does aren’t paying their “fair share” – even though he and his fellow Obama Party gays and lesbians dodge and refuse to pay their own taxes — and need to have their money confiscated so that Wilberforce and his fellow welfare gays can have gambling money for casinos.
It’s hilarious. In the gay and lesbian world, they don’t have to pay their taxes, they can demand that other people fork over their hard-earned cash for them to gamble, and then they can scream how “selfish” you are if you don’t do it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Or we could look and see that Obama Party voters explicitly and overwhelmingly state that they believe the government should redistribute wealth.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And let’s not forget how Obama himself explicitly stated that he wants to redistribute income from those who earn it to those who don’t.
What this really boils down to is that Obama Party members, especially gays and lesbians like Houndentenor, believe that anyone who makes more money than they do doesn’t deserve it and should have their wealth “redistributed” so Houndentenor and his fellow gays and lesbians don’t have to work or actually earn anything.
posted by Houndentenor on
I have never said or implied or even thought anything like that.
I have been working since I was 16 years old so I don’t know what you base your assumption on.
posted by Jimmy on
It’s based on the fact that he is a presumptuous a**.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No worries. Wilberforce’s diatribe about how the rich are all selfish and evil, don’t deserve their money, and should have it forcibly confiscated provided an excellent illustration, and is quite indicative of the mentality and thought of the Obama Party and the gay and lesbian community.
posted by Jorge on
“If the country is becoming more liberal on accepting minority rights, why is the left having such a hard time making progress on its bread-and-butter issues of class and economics, which were once its central, animating concerns?”
Because Obama is president and we see what a wreck he’s making of it all. Sounds good to me.
posted by Houndentenor on
I suppose I should respond to this,
““… you scream about teen suicide and try to blame religious people when you’re out sickening, maiming, disabling, and killing an entire generation of teenagers …”
I rarely scream, although I do sing awfully loud (to be heard over the orchestra and all). I have never maimed, disabled or killed anyone and the worse I’ve ever given anyone is a cold. I did get mono once but that was from a woman and I didn’t pass it on to anyone.
These attacks are increasingly irrational. Once again, I must ask, what is up with ND30?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That is hilarious, given that the charge of “irrationality” is coming from a community that says we must ban any and all criticism of gay and lesbian people from society lest they all run off and kill themselves.
Especially when said community openly endorses and supports groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Authority that not only criticize, but kill gays and lesbians on sight.
Or when said community repeatedly calls for its alleged members who hold different political views to kill themselves.
That’s actually where the vast majority of conservative gays and lesbians developed their distaste for Obama Party gays and Obama Party politics; when you figure out how the Obama Party and its pet gays and lesbians encourage and support calls for gay and lesbian people and their families to kill themselves or die, you realize very quickly that the only interest the Obama Party has in gays and lesbians is as their obedient slaves, and that in fact the Obama Party and its organizations like GLAAD actually have no problem with gays being murdered or killed if they disobey the massas.
posted by BobN on
I’m a bit perplexed by this article (not really, but let’s pretend).
Miller seems suddenly concerned about creating a broad, apolitical gay-rights group that can somehow appeal to — and support — both Dems and GOP politicians. That their unbiased support will still tilt almost exclusively Dem, kind of like HRC, will somehow be irrelevant, kind of not like his problem with HRC.
This seems like a lot of trouble to go through for those precious few cases where both Dem and GOP candidate are equally pro-gay (yeah, right) where this hypothetical organization will remain neutral or support both and that most rare of case where a GOP candidate will actually be more pro-gay than the Dem (a situation in which the HRC has already shown it can handle fairly).
Anyway, the perplexing bit is that this is the same Miller who touts the importance of conservative gays to back GOP candidates who are even a teeny bit pro-gay, even when they’re in contest with a decidedly pro-gay candidate who, unfortunately it seems, also believes in a single-payer health care system, for example.
A very puzzling article.
posted by Jorge on
Very interesting, BobN. But I don’t see how what you’re saying is related to this post.
Miller seems suddenly concerned about creating a broad, apolitical gay-rights group that can somehow appeal to — and support — both Dems and GOP politicians.
I was thinking more of a grass-roots movement.
posted by Houndentenor on
I think it’s funny that our own resident HR queen has the nerve to call out other people for leeching off the hard work of others.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The hilarity is, Houndentenor, that someone like yourself who constantly complains about being discriminated against is so hostile towards the function that is front and center in protecting employees and employers from discrimination in the workplace.
Of course, it’s also the function charged with helping managers ensure that they are making business decisions based on performance and non-discriminatory work criteria instead of things like minority status, which is the last thing that the vast majority of gays and lesbians want.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t remember screaming about anything and I have rarely if ever been discriminated against for being gay, mostly because I have lived in a state where such discrimination would be illegal.
Again, I note that you are a parasite on your company and have the nerve to make the claims you do about others without knowing where and how they work.
posted by Doug on
So how much in taxes do you payNDF?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
For 2010, I paid Federal and state income taxes of approximately 29.6% of my taxable income, plus 1.45% for Medicare and 6.2% for Social Security, plus California SDI of 0.9%, for a grand total of just over 38% of my income being taken by the government.
Care to ante up?
posted by Doug on
I paid 33%, no state income tax here, but a lot higher property taxes than California.
posted by Jimmy on
33% is sexy!
posted by Jorge on
For 2010, I paid Federal and state income taxes of approximately 29.6% of my taxable income
How much of your actual gross income did that come out to?
posted by Amicus on
A propos of nothing, I’m always amazed at “libertarians” or whatever who believe that only government can redistribute income.
Fact or fiction: all corporations redistribute income upwards.
posted by Doug on
Given the fact that middle class incomes have remained essentially flay over the past 25 to 30 years and top wage earners have seen their incomes rise exponentially over the same period I’d have to say that corporations redistribute income upwards.
posted by Brian Miller on
You are aware that a corporation is a creation of government, right?
In fact, one cannot have the benefits of incorporation without a government charter and the payment of special fees (called “franchise tax”) directly to the government.
A corporation is largely a government-created agency that provides special liability privileges with the full backing of government force to a private party. Efforts by righties and lefties to differentiate between “government” and “corporations” have thus always struck me as laughable.
posted by Jorge on
Left to their own devices, corporations will redistribute income upwards.
What changes that? Two things: unions and government.
posted by Brian Miller on
Gawd, it’s been years since I’ve actively posted here, yet I’m not surprised to see full-of-bull Republicans shrieking at full-of-bull Democrats (and vice versa) over which collection of failed lefty/righty ideology is less wrong.
posted by Hunter on
At the risk of sounding cynical, I strongly suspect that one important reason that equality is gaining such traction across the political spectrum while “bread and butter issues” (literally) are mired down is simply that those who already own most of the country and are reaching for the rest don’t really care about equal rights but can appear virtuous by supporting them. They are fine with “income redistribution” — as long as it’s from the middle class to the rich.
The error here is in conflating the goals of the social regressives with the goals of the corporatists. The latter will throw the former to the wolves in the blink of an eye if they start to look like too much of a liability.
posted by Another Steve on
Left to their own devices, corporations will redistribute income upwards. What changes that? Two things: unions and government.
The corporate revolution parallels the explosive growth of middle class incomes. That’s simply a fact.
Unions played a constructive role in raising working class incomes at one time. But unions today more often obstruct flexibility and profitability (meaning economic growth) in favor of arcane work rules and power plays that serve the power interests of union leaders. And government worker unions rip off middle class taxpayers to provide pay and benefits to government workers far in excess of what those who pay their salaries (again, middle class taxpayers) receive. If corporations gave their workers what government workers get, they’d be as broke as local, state, and federal governments are.
posted by BobN on
No, they’d be more like European corporations, considerably less profitable but more stable.
As unionization became less and less widespread, its demands became more absurd, for example in the car industry or the postal service. This didn’t happen in other places because unions remained focused on broad issues across all industries. And let’s not forget the contribution conservatives made to this mess, i.e. the widely adopted idea that the public sector should compete with the private sector “to attract the best and brightest”. It’s pretty obvious that the real purpose behind that was to attract more Republicans to government jobs, but the result has been that relatively-low-paying-but-secure public sector jobs have become relatively-high-paying-and-secure.
posted by Doug on
With all due respect, middle incomes have been essentially flat for the past 30 years.
posted by jr on
Statistics are all over the place, depending on source (right or left). I Googled and found one academic paper that found “median income growth of individual Americans improves to 36.7% over the period from 1979 and 2007.”
posted by Jimmy on
I Googled “3-Headed Dog” and I found one. After all, I was looking for it.
posted by BobN on
I bet you won’t find “adjusted for inflation” anywhere on that source.
posted by Doug on
Try adjusting for inflation.
posted by jr. on
lies and statistics…
You could make a strong case that the lack of economic growth of the past decade is linked to excessive government spending sucking money out of private sector investments, and that excessive government regulation has reduced growth to European levels. That argument isn’t going to be settled in blog comments. Those on the left will continue to believe that government command-control will perfect society, and those on the right will continue to see counter-productive results from government policies such as the trillion-dollar stimulus to nowhere.
The bloggers main point — why must our leading LGBT organizations align themselves with the economic left — remains valid.
posted by JohnInNM on
And it has a simple answer: Because the “economic right” remains married to the “social right” which rejects LGBT organizations.
Or to put it another way… there is no reason why LGBT organizations need to favor any economic policy. However, with partisan politics as they are, the choices they have aren’t exactly fair ones. Perhaps in another ten, twenty or thirty years the choice will be a fair one. But not today.
posted by another steve on
The problem with that analysis is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy – LGBT organiations tie themselves to liberal-left coalitions and the Democratic party, so that Republicans dismiss them as part of the opposition, and nothing changes. There have been too many instances, many highlighted on this blog, where there are pro-gay Republicans who are opposed by LGBT activists, and so the foothold in the GOP remains small.
As others have noted, the NRA (National Rifle Association) avoids rightwing coalitions and endorsed Harry Reid’s re-election; outside of the liberal coasts, their endorsement is sought by Republicans and Democrats.