Anyone have a fucking Advil? Because that was the sound of my head beating against the wall. I know what you're thinking: In the immortal words of Get Your War On, "You still have a wall?"
In any case, I usually greatly enjoy reading The American Prospect. It's certainly better than The New Republic and I would even say it's better than the Nation, though that's my personal opinion.
It was with a great deal of dismay, then, that I read today one of the most staggering instances of gross ignorance and stupidty I've ever read in a liberal publication, and that covers a lot of pathetic ground.
Find out what....on the flipside.
(Note, this is a month old, so if someone's been over it already, let me know and I'll delete it)
Morals of the Election
The Democrats have paid for 50 years of standing on principle.
By Paul Starr
Issue Date: 12.06.04
What has the past half-century of our history achieved if not a moral transformation? Equal rights and respect for black people have been a moral cause. So, too, have equality for women and open acceptance of gays. Liberals have advocated each of these causes, often turning to the courts when elected leaders were slow to respond. Insofar as politicians have welcomed and supported these movements, they have chiefly been Democrats. And the Democratic Party has paid for its principles from one decade to the next, losing support in the South, among men, and among those with more traditional beliefs.
So far, so good I suppose, although the phrase "respect for black people" set off alarm bells in my head. The only thing worse would have been "colored folks."
If that was the only thing, though, I could have easily overlooked that. Things went on to get much, much worse, however...
The campaign for same-sex marriage was to 2004 what the Nader campaign was to 2000. Although they worked their effects in different way -- Ralph Nader diverted support from the Democratic nominee, while the gay-marriage issue brought out the Republican vote -- both were the product of groups on the left that have little interest in majoritarian politics.
And here we go: Because people on the left actually care about things like reforming the broken two party system and crazy things like equal rights for human beings, we don't care about democracy. Or, since you're a long winded colunist, "Majoritarian politics."
Hey fucko, did you ever read anything Jefferson, et al wrote about the tyranny of the majority? A democracy is not and should never be absolutist.
The gay movement thought it could win from judges what the electorate overwhelmingly opposes. In a decision that was bad law and worse politics, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court set the issue in motion. Then local officials cocooned in San Francisco and other liberal areas contributed to the countermobilization that resulted in 11 states passing constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. If the gay-marriage movement were only self-defeating, its significance would have been limited. But the damage was wider.
This shit is appearing a liberal publication? WTF, over? I don't even know where to begin.
First of all, "the gay movement"? Is that like "the homosexual agenda" I hear Pat Robertson talk about so much?
Secondly, is it a bad thing to try and win from judges things like basic civil rights they are entitled to as citizens of this Republic? See my earlier point about the tyranny of a majority
As for the snide comments about the Massachusetts Supreme Court and San Francisco, I'll give them all the consideration they are entitled to: Fuck you, Paul Starr.
The Democrats' prospects for regaining a congressional majority are dismal. The party has lost not just the Deep South but also such border states as Tennessee and West Virginia, not to mention the Mountain States and the Plains.
...
Judicial entrenchment will be the next step. Given the likely vacancies on the Supreme Court, conservatives may well get the additional votes to undo not just affirmative action and Roe v. Wade but also a long line of precedents regarding governmental powers. Goodbye to a good deal of labor and environmental regulation... These groups -- and liberals generally -- will have no other way forward except the rebuilding of a political majority.
Ignoring his moronic glossing over the important gains Democrats are making in the Mountain West, he does have somewhat of a point here. Things certainly are bleak right now. Surely, however, he has a solution to propose, one that will undoubtedly solve our problems and show us the light.
But here we come to a contradiction. Many of us have expected that the opportunity for a new Democratic majority lay in the growing Hispanic vote, which Bill Clinton and Al Gore won by nearly 2-to-1 margins. This year Hispanics turned out in much higher numbers, but, according to exit polls, the share voting for Bush rose to 44 percent after a Republican campaign in Spanish-language media emphasizing opposition to same-sex marriage. Unless Democrats draw sharp lines on such issues, they're not going to get the kinds of numbers they need from Hispanics.
Most liberals don't want to hear the message that these voters and others in the red states are sending. But in a democracy, you can only make so many enemies until you can no longer do any good for the people who depend on you. Liberals need to decide what is central to the great moral achievements of the past half-century -- and what isn't. Going down to perpetual defeat isn't a moral choice.
...not the solution I was hoping for. "Screw morality! Realpolitik is the way to go! Bow to the whims of that reprehensible part of the country that's filled with sputtering, irrational hatred.
How are Democrats supposed to "draw sharp lines" on same-sex marriage when we're apparently supposed to agree with the wingnuts?
You're damn right I don't want to hear the message the majority of red staters are sending because that message is ugly, evil, and wrong. If people like Paul Starr had been listened to in the 50's and 60's, God only knows when or if the Civil Rights Act would have ever become a reality.
I agree you have to pick your battles. You can't take a black and white, hardline stance on everything. Our government is founded on compromise. But there are some things that are non-negotiable, and equal rights for all is one of those things.
He's right that being defeated consistently is bad. He's right that something has to be done. But his solution--"Sell out and become Republicans"--could not be more wrong.
We've been over this a thousand times before. Everyone knows Harry Truman's famous quote about the people always voting for a Republican if you give them two Republicans to choose from. I daresay few here would argue we need to "move rightward."
But articles like this appearing in one of the most significant liberal journals is disturbing and disheartening. Would you ever see this article's equivalent in The Weekly Standard or National Review? Magazines and journals like The Nation and The American Prospect can be a perfect place where new liberal thinkers who will develop the ideas that will lead us forward can mature and grow. This kind of foolishness needs to be cut out completely.
Update: Oops, forgot a link to the whole story. There we go