Everyone, and by everyone, I mean, apparently, everyone but myself and Jesse at Pandagon, is missing the point here. Voting against gay marriage, banning it, seperating a group of people, whether you believe it is a choice or an affliction, or simply a genetic happenstance is bigotry. that's it. And everyone who votes against gay marriage IS a homophobe. It's that simple.
If homosexuality is a choice...then shall we ban the marriages of couples who do not intend to have children?
If homosexuality is an affliction, should we ban the marriage of two heterosexual people who have cancer?
If homosexuality is a matter of genetics...uh...should we ban the marriage of people from red states to keep them from breeding any more bigots?
These are all cliche arguments against a subject matter in which there should be no argument. You are either a bigot, or you are not. Peoples arbitrary and baseless moralitys have no effect on what is actually right and wrong.
I've decided to change my vernacular. Those who voted against gay marriage are not homophobes. Homophobes, by definition, are usually those with homosexual tendancies who, therefore, are afraid of homosexuals. Afraid of their mere presence.
The people who vote against gay marriage are not necessarily homophobes. They are worse. They are gay-haters. Certainly, many of them are homophobes as well.
What Clinton meant was, "you need to win the election." Credit to Kerry as a human being for refusing; but it does expose Clinton's superiority as a politician. There is absolutely a difference between stating a personal position (which, I suspect, was hedging a bit) and stating a political position, and the voters knew this, which is one reason Kerry lost, and the Republicans knew this, which is why the stupid "flip-flip" bullshit worked. Everyone knew that Kerry was trying to have it both ways politically by saying he personally disapproved of gay marriage, abortion, whatthefuckever, but that politically he would not oppose it. In another time, this kind of nuanced performance of the country's own struggle with the issue might have been extremely compelling. Now, the Right has successfully managed to construct a polarized electorate, where both sides have drawn lines in the sand, which (I think) means that simplistic, absolutistism (what now passes for "conservatism") wins. Clinton knows that one response to this is just to lie convincingly. There's got to be a way to bring people down from their barricades, though, and hopefully we'll figure that out.
I don't know about that, b. Clinton's nickname was Slick Willy, after all. He didn't lie convincingly, just more comfortably. And his own straddle on "don't ask, don't tell," hurt him forevermore with gays and the left wing of the Democrats. If Kerry had made a hardline position on gay marriage something of a centerpiece, then maybe he could have been protected on the issue (but then, the cost probably would have been too high with Dems), but a late push for local bans would only alienate his base, and fail to convince anyone else. Or am I missing your point?
Everyone knew that Kerry was trying to have it both ways politically by saying he personally disapproved of gay marriage, abortion, whatthefuckever, but that politically he would not oppose it.
I think that's a legitimate reading of Kerry, and probably the more popular one, but there's another which is more charitable. A lot of people have trouble with realizing that they don't have to vote their personal opinions. I know a girl who was against abortion, but didn't believe in banning it, but voted for Bush anyway because he was against it. Kerry was trying to reach out to this crowd, reminiding them that personal beliefs shouldn't always be legislated. It's too bad he didn't do a very good job of it.
Let me suggest another reading of Clinton's advice; Kerry let everyone know he wasn't going to ban gay marriage, yet he hadn't actually promised to protect it either. Still, people were worried that he would pass a bill to legalize gay marriage. By supporting local counties/states in their right to determine for themselves whether gays ought to be married, he would demonstrate his committance to his federalist stance on the issue. By not doing so, he has probably shown that he did intend to move towards legalizing gay marriage.
The thread does seem to have wandered off into new territory (I really should just check comment threads all day and not try to work, damnit), but I'll respond anyway. I know that what I said about Kerry's position sounded uncharitable to him, but I wasn't impugning him; I was merely trying to point out that political reality means sometimes having to hold off on things that you think are right (as Clinton learned quickly), and that one way of doing that is to make the thing you *don't* believe into the "merely personal" opinion, and the thing you *do* believe, into the public policy. So you hopefully get to "have it both ways" and appeal to a larger cross-section.
Yeah, Clinton's whole "slick Willie" thing (and the impeachment) was directed precisely at this idea that he was a very smooth liar. Which again, I don't indict him for (I like the man). He projects sincerity, he has a lot of charisma, and I think he did lie convincingly in the sense that people felt that the *substance* of the lie was somehow fundamentally true (e.g., the idea that "anyone would lie about having an affair, that's irrelevant"--even while we knew he was technically lying, we didn't feel it was a substantive lie, a lie that mattered. And most Americans did, in fact, feel this way). When Kerry "lies," i.e. says that which is politically feasable, it *feels* dishonest. Arguably, when Bush lies, it doesn't *feel* as dishonest, because he seems to actually believe the lies himself. So people think, weirdly, that he is "more honest" than Kerry, notwithstanding the empirical facts--as exit polls show.
Yes, it makes sense. My main point was just that Kerry is, in fact, a politician of some principal, contrary to portrayals of him. (Portrayals which many Democrats believe too, I think).
As for the advice; I know way back in the day, I recommended that Democrats punt on gay marriage (and got a lot of heat for it), so I agree there, but, as you say, Kerry wasn't the guy to pull it off. It just wouldn't have been credible for him to try to pull a Clinton. Does that make him a flawed candidate? Odd if the answer is yes, eh?
Second, on the substance, I'm ashamed to say that I'm one of the folks who's apparently too simple-minded to grasp the distinction that some people here in the comments are drawing between the personal and the public in this case.
The only question on the table in the gay marriage debate is one of governmental action -- either the state will issue a licence or it won't. So, when a candidate says that he is opposed to gay marriage, he's not simply expressing some sort of a personal feeling; he is, by definition, saying that the state should deny marriage licenses to gay couples. Right?
Or am I missing something?
PS: Please don't say that what I'm missing is the moral dimension. I'm sympathetic to the idea of gay marriage, and would not vote to ban it. (Plebiscites on minority rights should scare the bejesus out of everyone.) My only point is that Kerry should have taken an intellectually coherent position on the question, and that Clinton's advice was, in that context at least, correct.
I would bet some money on the idea that Kerry and Dean, in their heart of hearts, support gay marriage. I don't think Dean did back in 1998, but I think he's come around.
This is the sad position of the Dems: too decent to totally sell out what they believe in, but too scared to say what they really believe in.
Which do you think bothered John Kerry and John Edwards more? Bush's remark that we probably can't win the war on terror, or Abu Ghraib? Which did they talk more about?
This is my biggest problem with politicians as a rule: not that they're corrupt--most aren't. Not that they care only about their re-election instead of the country's interests--most don't; it's just too easy for them to convince themselves that the most important thing they can do for the country is ensure their own re-election. My problem is that, for people who are always singing the praises of America and the American people, they have almost no faith in us. Not in our intelligence, and not in our decency. The Republicans lie like crazy, divide us, appeal to our worst instincts, make transparently stupid arguments. The Democrats lie a little, appeal to self-interest and vague platitudes, and take positions they don't believe in because they're convinced that if people knew what they really believed they'd never be elected. Never mind that people might be convinced. Never mind that people might respect courage even if they don't agree with you.
Oh, it won't work everywhere. I frankly don't know what to do about the South and the Plains states. But Richard Morrison came a lot closer to knocking off Tom DeLay than I ever would have guessed. Stan Matsunaka came closer to beating Musgrave than I ever would have guessed. Russ Feingold made votes on the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and various other issues that most Democrats assumed were suicidal, and he won in a walk in a state where Kerry almost lost.
In some ways the Democratic party is getting the electorate it deserves.
Holy crap that's sick-making.
Posted by Merkin | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 7:40 AM
Everyone, and by everyone, I mean, apparently, everyone but myself and Jesse at Pandagon, is missing the point here. Voting against gay marriage, banning it, seperating a group of people, whether you believe it is a choice or an affliction, or simply a genetic happenstance is bigotry. that's it. And everyone who votes against gay marriage IS a homophobe. It's that simple.
If homosexuality is a choice...then shall we ban the marriages of couples who do not intend to have children?
If homosexuality is an affliction, should we ban the marriage of two heterosexual people who have cancer?
If homosexuality is a matter of genetics...uh...should we ban the marriage of people from red states to keep them from breeding any more bigots?
These are all cliche arguments against a subject matter in which there should be no argument. You are either a bigot, or you are not. Peoples arbitrary and baseless moralitys have no effect on what is actually right and wrong.
Posted by CowboyCody | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 9:17 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 9:22 AM
I've decided to change my vernacular. Those who voted against gay marriage are not homophobes. Homophobes, by definition, are usually those with homosexual tendancies who, therefore, are afraid of homosexuals. Afraid of their mere presence.
The people who vote against gay marriage are not necessarily homophobes. They are worse. They are gay-haters. Certainly, many of them are homophobes as well.
Posted by CowboyCody | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 9:27 AM
What Clinton meant was, "you need to win the election." Credit to Kerry as a human being for refusing; but it does expose Clinton's superiority as a politician. There is absolutely a difference between stating a personal position (which, I suspect, was hedging a bit) and stating a political position, and the voters knew this, which is one reason Kerry lost, and the Republicans knew this, which is why the stupid "flip-flip" bullshit worked. Everyone knew that Kerry was trying to have it both ways politically by saying he personally disapproved of gay marriage, abortion, whatthefuckever, but that politically he would not oppose it. In another time, this kind of nuanced performance of the country's own struggle with the issue might have been extremely compelling. Now, the Right has successfully managed to construct a polarized electorate, where both sides have drawn lines in the sand, which (I think) means that simplistic, absolutistism (what now passes for "conservatism") wins. Clinton knows that one response to this is just to lie convincingly. There's got to be a way to bring people down from their barricades, though, and hopefully we'll figure that out.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 9:30 AM
I don't know about that, b. Clinton's nickname was Slick Willy, after all. He didn't lie convincingly, just more comfortably. And his own straddle on "don't ask, don't tell," hurt him forevermore with gays and the left wing of the Democrats. If Kerry had made a hardline position on gay marriage something of a centerpiece, then maybe he could have been protected on the issue (but then, the cost probably would have been too high with Dems), but a late push for local bans would only alienate his base, and fail to convince anyone else. Or am I missing your point?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 9:44 AM
Everyone knew that Kerry was trying to have it both ways politically by saying he personally disapproved of gay marriage, abortion, whatthefuckever, but that politically he would not oppose it.
I think that's a legitimate reading of Kerry, and probably the more popular one, but there's another which is more charitable. A lot of people have trouble with realizing that they don't have to vote their personal opinions. I know a girl who was against abortion, but didn't believe in banning it, but voted for Bush anyway because he was against it. Kerry was trying to reach out to this crowd, reminiding them that personal beliefs shouldn't always be legislated. It's too bad he didn't do a very good job of it.
Let me suggest another reading of Clinton's advice; Kerry let everyone know he wasn't going to ban gay marriage, yet he hadn't actually promised to protect it either. Still, people were worried that he would pass a bill to legalize gay marriage. By supporting local counties/states in their right to determine for themselves whether gays ought to be married, he would demonstrate his committance to his federalist stance on the issue. By not doing so, he has probably shown that he did intend to move towards legalizing gay marriage.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 10:30 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 11:11 AM
Which raises a question I've never heard adequately answered: What is the most subtle distinction ever made?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 11:14 AM
Funny, I was just thinking that. I couldn't come up with a good candidate.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 11:19 AM
What is the most subtle distinction ever made?
"I love you, but I'm not in love with you." The divorce that followed wasn't so subtle, though.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 11:20 AM
What is the most subtle distinction ever made?
I don't know how to insert characters, but I assure you it's in French phonation. Or What is Metaphysics?, between the nothing and the no-thing.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 11:47 AM
My co-blogger Froz once had a child ask him, "Is that a real clown or a pretend clown?"
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 11:49 AM
Not quite sure if this fits, or if it's even subtle, but it's one of my favorite quotes that's as truthful as it is paradoxical...
"...there are two kinds of people in the world. Those who believe there are only two kinds of people, and those who are smart enough to know better."
- Tom Robbins, (I forget which book, I think either "Cowgirls" or "Still life")
Posted by beedee | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 12:51 PM
Not quite sure if this fits, or if it's even subtle, but it's one of my favorite quotes that's as truthful as it is paradoxical...
"...there are two kinds of people in the world. Those who believe there are only two kinds of people, and those who are smart enough to know better."
- Tom Robbins, (I forget which book, I think either "Cowgirls" or "Still life")
Posted by beedee | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 12:52 PM
The thread does seem to have wandered off into new territory (I really should just check comment threads all day and not try to work, damnit), but I'll respond anyway. I know that what I said about Kerry's position sounded uncharitable to him, but I wasn't impugning him; I was merely trying to point out that political reality means sometimes having to hold off on things that you think are right (as Clinton learned quickly), and that one way of doing that is to make the thing you *don't* believe into the "merely personal" opinion, and the thing you *do* believe, into the public policy. So you hopefully get to "have it both ways" and appeal to a larger cross-section.
Yeah, Clinton's whole "slick Willie" thing (and the impeachment) was directed precisely at this idea that he was a very smooth liar. Which again, I don't indict him for (I like the man). He projects sincerity, he has a lot of charisma, and I think he did lie convincingly in the sense that people felt that the *substance* of the lie was somehow fundamentally true (e.g., the idea that "anyone would lie about having an affair, that's irrelevant"--even while we knew he was technically lying, we didn't feel it was a substantive lie, a lie that mattered. And most Americans did, in fact, feel this way). When Kerry "lies," i.e. says that which is politically feasable, it *feels* dishonest. Arguably, when Bush lies, it doesn't *feel* as dishonest, because he seems to actually believe the lies himself. So people think, weirdly, that he is "more honest" than Kerry, notwithstanding the empirical facts--as exit polls show.
Does that make sense?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 4:15 PM
Yes, it makes sense. My main point was just that Kerry is, in fact, a politician of some principal, contrary to portrayals of him. (Portrayals which many Democrats believe too, I think).
As for the advice; I know way back in the day, I recommended that Democrats punt on gay marriage (and got a lot of heat for it), so I agree there, but, as you say, Kerry wasn't the guy to pull it off. It just wouldn't have been credible for him to try to pull a Clinton. Does that make him a flawed candidate? Odd if the answer is yes, eh?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 4:26 PM
Yes, I think he has more integrity than Clinton--which is why he comes across as a liar when he's forced to equivocate.
Ironic, innit?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 5-04 8:45 PM
First, thanks for the link, Ogged.
Second, on the substance, I'm ashamed to say that I'm one of the folks who's apparently too simple-minded to grasp the distinction that some people here in the comments are drawing between the personal and the public in this case.
The only question on the table in the gay marriage debate is one of governmental action -- either the state will issue a licence or it won't. So, when a candidate says that he is opposed to gay marriage, he's not simply expressing some sort of a personal feeling; he is, by definition, saying that the state should deny marriage licenses to gay couples. Right?
Or am I missing something?
PS: Please don't say that what I'm missing is the moral dimension. I'm sympathetic to the idea of gay marriage, and would not vote to ban it. (Plebiscites on minority rights should scare the bejesus out of everyone.) My only point is that Kerry should have taken an intellectually coherent position on the question, and that Clinton's advice was, in that context at least, correct.
Posted by Jack O'Toole | Link to this comment | 11- 6-04 1:20 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 11- 6-04 9:06 AM
I would bet some money on the idea that Kerry and Dean, in their heart of hearts, support gay marriage. I don't think Dean did back in 1998, but I think he's come around.
This is the sad position of the Dems: too decent to totally sell out what they believe in, but too scared to say what they really believe in.
Which do you think bothered John Kerry and John Edwards more? Bush's remark that we probably can't win the war on terror, or Abu Ghraib? Which did they talk more about?
This is my biggest problem with politicians as a rule: not that they're corrupt--most aren't. Not that they care only about their re-election instead of the country's interests--most don't; it's just too easy for them to convince themselves that the most important thing they can do for the country is ensure their own re-election. My problem is that, for people who are always singing the praises of America and the American people, they have almost no faith in us. Not in our intelligence, and not in our decency. The Republicans lie like crazy, divide us, appeal to our worst instincts, make transparently stupid arguments. The Democrats lie a little, appeal to self-interest and vague platitudes, and take positions they don't believe in because they're convinced that if people knew what they really believed they'd never be elected. Never mind that people might be convinced. Never mind that people might respect courage even if they don't agree with you.
Oh, it won't work everywhere. I frankly don't know what to do about the South and the Plains states. But Richard Morrison came a lot closer to knocking off Tom DeLay than I ever would have guessed. Stan Matsunaka came closer to beating Musgrave than I ever would have guessed. Russ Feingold made votes on the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and various other issues that most Democrats assumed were suicidal, and he won in a walk in a state where Kerry almost lost.
In some ways the Democratic party is getting the electorate it deserves.
Posted by Katherine | Link to this comment | 11- 6-04 1:15 PM