I knew I was going to have to quote this again at some point in the near future. It came up during the mid-term elections. It came up during the 2008 elections. It always comes up. A rift starts within the liberal demographic, among people who believe in most of the same things, but who approach voting very differently. In the comments on this post and this post, I’m having to explain the very real consequences of protest-voting for non-viable third parties or not voting at all, if that opens the door for one of the ideologues the GOP is running for president. Amanda Marcotte is over at Pandagon having to explain to some of her readers that, yes, elections actually do have consequences, yes it does matter which party is in power, especially when it comes to Supreme Court appointments, and yes, Roe is in danger. Right now!
Has the Democratic party or President Obama done everything we’ve wanted and tied it up with a bow for us? Heavens, no. Has he been perfect in every way? No. I can give you a list of things about the Obama administration that have pissed me off. However! This is the American political system, for the foreseeable future:
We have exactly two viable parties. One is a centrist party dotted with a few true progressives here and there. The other one has been taken over by far right ideologues with no regard for the future of this country, no regard for minorities, no regard for the widening gap between the haves and the have nots, and a neo-conservative foreign policy worldview that has done great damage over the past decade, at home and abroad. We do not have a parliamentary system where lesser parties actually have a voice when they lose.
We also still face a lot of problems in this country, and none of us can afford to be single-issue voters. The actual meaning of liberalism is that we vote and support that which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people in this country. And we have to work with the system we have, rather than the one we might wish we had.
So, in that spirit, I will again quote from what is perhaps my favorite blog post ever, written by TBogg, in response to a dead-end Nader voter in 2008:
Let me see if I can explain it this way:
Every year in Happy Gumdrop Fairy-Tale Land all of the sprites and elves and woodland creatures gather together to pick the Rainbow Sunshine Queen. Everyone is there: the Lollipop Guild, the Star-Twinkle Toddlers, the Sparkly Unicorns, the Cookie Baking Apple-cheeked Grandmothers, the Fluffy Bunny Bund, the Rumbly-Tumbly Pupperoos, the Snowflake Princesses, the Baby Duckies All-In-A-Row, the Laughing Babies, and the Dykes on Bikes. They have a big picnic with cupcakes and gumdrops and pudding pops, stopping only to cast their votes by throwing Magic Wishing Rocks into the Well of Laughter, Comity, and Good Intentions. Afterward they spend the rest of the night dancing and singing and waving glow sticks until dawn when they tumble sleepy-eyed into beds made of the purest and whitest goose down where they dream of angels and clouds of spun sugar.
You don’t live there.
Grow the fuck up.
I will bring that quote out as many times as I feel like between now and the 2012 election, because it sums it up so simply.
We lost the House for myriad reasons in 2010, but let me tell you something: when the Obama administration announced it would no longer be defending DOMA in court, the Republican-led House jumped up and down and said “We will!” Guess what the Democrats, who I’m quite sure are awful, terrible, secretly homophobic, and whatever else is mixed into the fever dream these days, would have done in that situation? Nothing. They would have said, “Cool, let’s go do something else.” When Teabaggers swept across the country and took over state legislatures from coast to coast, what did they do? They immediately started screwing with unions, women’s reproductive rights and everything else. Elections. Have. Consequences.
So, please, vote however you need to vote as we move toward the 2012 election. But please, please, please: vote based on the system we actually have, rather than the one we might wish to have.
Evan wrote:
“As in: My equality doesn’t come at the price of everybody else’s destruction.”
Agreed. What about all of the innocent people still being killed in our wars? Is there ANYTHING that will cause you to speak out against Obama. ANYTHING AT ALL?
Tim is right. If Obama really plans to come back in favor of marriage equality in his second term, this certainly was NOT what he should be saying now.
Evan,
So this is a “hysterical yammering fest”? I’m just asking you why you ALWAYS support Obama? Can’t you right anything taking him to task?
And in fact if he was for marriage equality he should have kept his trap shut. Either Obama and his advisors are idiots and don’t understand what state’s rights entail or he truly believes it and we are totally screwed. Either way is frightening.
At Truth Wins Out we are adamantly opposed to Barack Obama’s opinion on marriage. We have stated so repeatedly. We believe he ought to “evolve” and take some leadership on this issue.
Tim W, I’m not sure what you mean by, “Is there ANYTHING that will cause you to speak out against Obama. ANYTHING AT ALL?”
I’m glad it is fashionable now to criticize Obama. However, Truth Wins Out was criticizing Obama before it was cool to do so. We were the ones who moved the Donnie McClurkin debacle to the mainstream press — and got hammered by Obama apparatchiks for doing so. Thus, we find it highly amusing to be asked questions about our alleged unflinching support for the president’s decisions and policies.
That said, we also pay attention to the world as it is — not how we imagine it to be. We own televisions — and sometimes we turn them on. On one such occasion I saw the recent Republican debate. I compared these extremists to Obama and the choice was abundantly clear that Obama would be a better choice for the LGBT community.
I find some people so obsessed with the president that they miss the big picture. If Obama was re-elected and did not a single thing, not one accomplishment, for the LGBT community, we would still be in great shape. States would pass laws, courts would rule in our favor and public opinion polls would continue to rise one or two percent a year. That would mean a 5-10 percent jump in acceptance in four years. The fight, in essence, would basically be over with support for marriage equality approaching 60%.
The only way to screw this up is for Obama to lose to a Michele Bachmann or some other nut — that will bash us for four years and work to pass a constitutional amendment.
So, while it is important to hold Obama accountable, he is only one piece of the puzzle. Progress should be our goal, not getting validated by one man. Let’s keep our eye on the ball and not get distracted by this Obama obsession.
Unless, you think President Romney or Pawlenty would do a better job…
Wayne,
That was a thoughtful and well-presented response. I will continue to demand (both here and elsewhere) that Obama be held accountable when he doesn’t deliver on his promise, and it is reassuring to hear that you are willing to do the same.
We should hold him accountable. But, we should also do so in the context of comparing his record to that of his opponents. The last thing we need to do is confuse the casual LGBT voter and have them think Obama is no better than Romney/Bachmann — and choose not to vote. This would be an unmitigated disaster for the LGBT community and threaten our progress.
We can win equality without Obama’s full support (although it would be nice to have it). However, we can’t win equality with a virulently anti-gay Republican President using the power of his or her office to gay bash for four years.
Wayne,
You contributed a quote to me that was not mine. But I do go back again to what I have said in other threads if the best you got is the fear of a Republican president then you are doing nothing to motivate me. If all you can do is defend the president is well it could be worse that is not a motivator. Most things this president has done has been merely window dressing for our community. Most can be overturned easily. DADT the president tried to delay it coming to a vote until this year. He has shown little leadership. But he is there to shill for the bucks and votes the only power we hold over him.
Tim W.
I apologize if I attributed the wrong quote to you.
You know, Tim, you dismiss fear as if it doesn’t matter. As a Jewish person, I grew up with people who had tattoos on their arms from the concentration camps. Throughout history evil people and sick ideologies have taken hold of societies. There have been severe human rights set-backs.
Your casual dismissal of fear is cavalier, in my view, and an invitation for potential disaster.
America has never really had an anti-gay president. We’ve had presidents who have harmed us for political purposes, most notably Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. However, we have not had a gay-hating president like a Michele Bachmann or a Pat Buchanan. We don’t know what that would mean for our future.
As much as you don’t appreciate Obama’s record, you have not shown me one iota of evidence that suggests that we would be better off without him. Nor have you articulated why we should not be terribly fearful of a Republican president, given the current batch of candidates. You also write as if you have some form of secret leverage to prod the president into immediate, sweeping changes.
Please share this leverage point with us. Because, all you appear to have in the rhetorical holster is the prospect of the LGBT vote not showing up or funding Obama’s campaign…which could bring us a rabidly anti-gay Republican president.
And exactly how will that help LGBT equality? I’d like for you to share your vision of what the community should do in regards to the presidential race.
Wayne, THANK YOU, as someone trained as a historian (not how I make my living, but two of my degrees) your last post says it all.
We DO have a lot to fear from some of these other potential Presidents. Way, way to much so to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Or the realistic.
Wayne, thank you for your last posts. You said what I would have liked to have said.
I’ve been hearing so much mocking of Michelle Bachmann–which I approve of, she’s completely mockish, but there is that horrible thought. What if she is nominated by the Republicans–that would mean there would be chance she could be elected–look how close McCain came, and other Presidents have been elected without even a majority vote. It’s a terrifying notion. And most of the other candidates are just as bad or worse.