Lesser of Two Weevils
When I read “Portly Dyke” defense of not voting for a Democratic candidate because they are insufficiently progressive on LBGT issues and some other ones, I didn’t want to respond because I, as a white male, don’t really have any issues that really directly affect my autonomy or rights to freely associate with the people I care about. But Portly’s complaints, namely that there have been racist and sexist dogwhistles from both campaigns and because they haven’t sufficiently apologized for it, sounds pretty narcissistic and lame. The way the two party system works is that because each party usually gets 50% of the electorate, there’s a whole lot of people they can’t perfectly satisfy. My own candidate, for instance, has plenty of policies that I think are dumb and lots of rhetoric I disagree with. Whenever he opens his mouth about NAFTA, I cringe. I think his patriot business plan and removing the cap on payroll taxes are pretty bad ideas. It just so happens that I agree with about 75% of his policies and that I think things like withdrawing from Iraq, getting more government money into health care, judges, abortion, getting rid of the Bush tax cuts etc etc etc are more important than whatever differences I have. And while I can’t ever understand the actual impact of candidates being so lame on LGBT issues the same way an actual queer person could, it really does seem like in this election especially, holding one’s nose is pretty crucial.
On another note, Ralph Nader announced that he’s running for president. I’ll let you figure out the relevance.
You know, I like a lot of the posts at Shakesville, but a number of the writers there (PortlyDyke, Kate Harding, and Jeff Fecke come to mind) periodically spit out things, like this, that are too dumb for words. As a gay kid, it personally offends me that PortlyDyke would sit out this election, potentially throwing it to an anti-gay reactionary like McCain who’d continue Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, and appoint anti-gay justices to the Supreme Court, instead of Barack Obama, who’s promised to sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, repeal DADT and the DOMA, and introduce federal recognition of civil unions, all because Obama allowed Donnie McClurkin to support him (I’m not even going to start on the idiocy of her claim that “periodically” is some kind of dogwhistle). PortlyDyke’s too enamored of her own petulance to see that elections have consequences, and that pisses me off.
Dylan Matthews
February 24, 2008 at 11:25 am
I think this is the electoral version of the Nixon/Kissinger ‘madman’ strategy — if the LGBT community could create a credible threat of destroying the Democratic candidate’s chances despite the fact that said destruction would be incredibly counterproductive to their own interests, they would push the Democrats to more pro-gay positions.
It’s not a strategy I find appealing when used by Nixon or people I’m on the same side as.
Quixote
February 24, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Ahem — My post was decidedly not a defense of not voting — it was about the responses I have observed from Democrats to Democrats in which I believe the focus of dissatisfaction has been misplaced — onto the voters, and off of the candidates. If you will read my post thoroughly, you’ll find that I never for a moment recommended, suggested, or endorsed sitting out the election, and I challenge you to find a single comment I have made anywhere saying that I don’t intend to vote, or that I will vote third party — you won’t find it, because I will vote, and I will vote Democrat. I simply want the right to voice my concerns now, during the primary process, without being dismissed as being shrill, petulant, and what was the other phrase? Oh yeah . . . “narcissistic and lame”.
The point of my post was that I was sick of being told by other Democrats that I was being “too picky” when I want to hold the candidates accountable to using un-principled campaign tactics — now, during the primary process. Period. We don’t HAVE a nominee yet. We have candidates. Candidates who need to earn my vote.
Example: Obama included a publicly homophobic singer at his rally. It wasn’t necessary. There are many black evangelical singers who are not publicly homophobic who would have loved to sing at his rally, I’m sure. His choice says to me: I don’t care about LGBTQ issues, cuz I don’t have to. Lovely.
Example: Clinton’s campaign included references to Obama as “kid”, and didn’t back away from the Kuomo remark immediately. Her choice says to me: I don’t care if my campaign sounds racist and belittling, cuz I don’t have to. Lovely.
If it comes down to nose-holding in November, OF COURSE I’ll vote Democratic ticket — but I want to exercise my right as a voter to scrutinize thoroughly every candidate who expects nomination during the primary process — because that’s what it’s for. I’m sick of being told I’m narcissistic, dangerous, lame, petulant, etc., for doing so.
And thanks for illustrating the problem I was was posting about so fabulously.
PortlyDyke
February 24, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I sympathize with her, really. If a candidate sent out a few signals explaining how much he or she hared hetero white guys, I can’t say I’d be in a rush to vote for them.
And there genuinely is a risk of being totally co-opted when one takes it for an assumption that any Dem is better than any Rep no matter what.
On the other hand, any Dem is usually better than any Rep, no matter what, and I’m just as sympathetic to the arguments you guys offer.
Shrug.
Mike Meginnis
February 24, 2008 at 2:40 pm
PortlyDyke,
So the point of your post then was to say “Voice your dissatisfaction now while we’re choosing a progressive representative”? Alright, but if you’re going to blame the candidates and as “a lesbian, feminist, female whose progressive values actually drive her to expect that candidates who want my vote are not going to discard the progressive ideals of liberty and justice for all just because it’s politically expedient,” what would your choices be? If both of the candidates seem to be selling out progressive values–and you aren’t someone to discard those values–then isn’t the implication that you wouldn’t vote for one (or both) of them? How else do citizens exercise their power? If they want your vote but don’t meet your standards, why would you vote for them?
paxamericana
February 24, 2008 at 7:13 pm
“Voice your dissatisfaction now while we’re choosing a progressive representative”
Yes, that was my point.
I do not, in fact, believe that either Clinton or Obama are hopeless — but I believe that we need to speak up and tell them what we expect — and I expect other Democrats not to accuse me of being “narcissistic” because I do so. The continual erosion of the public’s willingness to insist on accountability is what got us where we are. I don’t intend to shut up, and I don’t think that my issues are particularly narcissistic — because they’re not just about me.
PortlyDyke
February 24, 2008 at 8:25 pm