We need to talk.
Those four words strike fear into the hearts of men everywhere because they know they're not going to like what's coming next.
And undoubtedly many readers, both male and female, are not going to like this post. Indeed, friends and colleagues have told me "Don't go there, people will get upset. Don't say that, people will be offended. Don't write that, people will say you're a bigot."
But we need to have this conversation.
So go ahead, be offended, get angry, call me names. It certainly won't be the first time.
The issue that merits discussion is whether a candidate's sexual orientation or age is fair game in a political campaign. Or phrased another way, whether it is ever permissible to yield to ageism or homophobia, and if so, under what circumstances is it okay to do so.
An argument can be made that both are valid issues in certain circumstances. In a socially conservative area with an older demographic, some would argue that sexual orientation is a relevant issue. In an urban college town, some would argue that age is a legitimate issue.
But they would be wrong.
The realities are that some voters are indeed homophobic and others are youth-oriented, but caving in to the least common denominator is not productive either to the political process or to society as a whole.
Discrimination is never tolerable.
Some may be indignantly exclaiming, 'age and sexual orientation are different!" But they aren't, not really, for both ageism and homophobia stem from ignorance and fear. There may be failure to recognize the experience and wisdom that those over 50 bring to the table, or failure to realize every person is the same no matter whom they love. A college kid may be afraid an older person doesn't really understand what challenges they face and a senior citizen may be afraid one can "turn" someone gay or catch a disease. Playing on this ignorance and fear by pandering to the Archie Bunkers of the world dumbs down the electorate and distracts voters from things that really do matter, like knowledge, experience, honesty, integrity and commitment to the common good.
Now, I can almost see someone jumping up and down, crying out "but it really is an issue in our race!"
Oh, cry me a river, it's not about sexual orientation or age.
It's about a candidate who is diverting attention away from themselves.
And why? Perhaps Candidates L and M are threatened by Candidate N's resume, realizing that theirs pale in comparison. Perhaps Candidate A is hiding a career riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions and self serving acts. Perhaps Candidate B is hiding an inflated resume and the lack of a college degree or a permanent residence.
Fear. Insecurity. Desperation. Who knows - or cares?
If a candidate has so little to offer that they need to build their campaign around another candidate's age, gender, race or sexual orientation, they have absolutely no business running for office, and voters should (and likely will) firmly and resoundingly reject such a weak candidacy. The bottom line is that such blatantly irrelevant drivel spewing from a candidate or a campaign should be a signal to every intelligent person within distance that the candidate in question has nothing to contribute to the conversation - and they know it.
One Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidate for office here in Minnesota has gone so far as to make the age of one of his opponents a talking point in his campaign. Astonishingly, this is a gay man who should know better and who, I dare say, would be outraged if any of his opponents responded in like manner.
So why is this behavior acceptable?
It's not.
At least not to DFL founder Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, the architect of the Civil Rights Bill, who was vehemently and passionately opposed to discrimination in any form:
Equality means equality for all— no exceptions, no 'yes, buts', no asterisked footnotes imposing limits
What would the Happy Warrior think of this behavior by someone running under the umbrella of his beloved DFL party?
He would be ashamed of the perpetrator and would be saying so. Loudly. And he would no doubt be joined by his fellow progressive, Senator Paul Wellstone.
So why the deafening silence from our party leaders?
A truly progressive party does not allow for discrimination of any kind. We in the DFL party, the pride and joy of Hubert Humphrey and Paul Wellstone, boast of being the party of inclusion, and according to our platform "are opposed to discrimination whether it be "race, creed, religion, immigration status, sex, sexual or affectional orientation, HIV status, gender identity or expression, marital or homemaker status, disability or age."
So knock it off and stop putting lipstick on the pig.
Hubert and Paul deserve better.