Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 52 members and 1470 guests online.
|
A gay's-eye view of Inauguration 2009
An Irish-American atheist, a French-Canadian photographer, and a black gay guy got in a car... Surprisingly, this is not the start to a bad joke, it’s the makeup of the car that I rode in to go see the Inauguration of President Barack Obama on Tuesday. After watching the concert on Sunday and being filled with the overwhelming desire to be there, I hopped on Craigslist to find a rideshare, tried my best to ignore every horror film I’ve ever seen and every stern warning my mother has ever given me, and 9 hours later found myself in a car heading from New York to D.C. with people I’d never met before and will likely never see again. I won’t go into some sappy diatribe about how our new prez is bringing people together, and while we weren‘t quite clasping hands and singing "We are the World" once our little journey was over (conversations between total strangers who share different political and religious beliefs can become heated … who knew?), I remember smiling to myself in the thought that this isn’t a crowd that would be rearing up to see, say, John McCain become the leader of the free world.
Dawn of a new America? Now I know that the Gay Agenda right now is to be pissed at our new President because … well, it seems like something new every day. But I must admit that I‘ve never really wavered in my support for him although I’d like to consider my support less “Obama is the best person EVAH” fanboy and more a simple belief that he knows exactly what he’s doing. I’ve never doubted for a second that he is the most gay-friendly candidate in our history, and I have no reason to believe that his politically risky support for gays (his speech that tackled homophobia in the Black Church and other issues pressing to the community on Martin Luther King Day in 2008 was particularly ballsy, and the one move I‘ve never forgotten in all of the screeching and commotion about pastor picks in the past few weeks) was anything other than genuine and sincere.
In the trenches There was something in that moment on the National Mall, with nearly 1.8 million other people, that was very broad in scope while remaining very personal. In many ways, Obama’s candidacy was about inspiring others to do better, and even with so many people crowded into the National Mall on a bitterly cold morning, I sensed a feeling of togetherness that I had never before felt within such a large group of people. There was of course the mix of races that represent our new, diverse America, but there was also diversity of religion, thought, age, and sexual orientation. I saw a rainbow flag being waved proudly along with the American flags when President Obama made his inaugural address, and I particularly enjoyed seeing an older gay couple proudly hold hands while walking around the area, with no jeers or snide remarks from the crowd, who seemed to be saving most of their vitriol for our less than beloved President #43. I traveled alone for most of the trip, and got to talk to so many people who were different in so many ways, yet linked by their shared support of our new president.
Yeah, there were a lot of people. As I write this, I feel overwhelmingly grateful for having gotten the chance to attend. I am eternally glad that I went, but was also glad when it was over. It was a cold, exhausting, physically demanding day that started very early in the morning and wasn’t without its headaches in trying to navigate a new city. With all that said, I would’ve dealt with even more people, even colder temperatures, and anything else that was thrown at me just to say that I was there when America inaugurated its first African-American president. I think that thing in the air was American Pride, and it is a feeling that is so new that I’m sure some of us can’t even articulate it. It was something that was drilled into me during my 4 1/2 year stint in the Army, but I never truly felt it in my bones until that point. We are not yet, nor will we ever be perfect, but what our country has always possessed is the capacity to grow, to learn from our mistakes, and to remake our country, shaped by progressive values. Maybe this is when we start to realize the promise that seemed to be stripped of us for the past 8 years. This is the moment that will make gay marriage legal for me someday, that will give me the rights to adopt children if I so choose, and that will forever silence those who doubt what I can do due to the color of my skin. I could see some version of this shaped by a million individual struggles playing out in the eyes of those who had traveled for so long and braved the elements to see this historic Inauguration. When it was over, everyone seemed to freeze as though they couldn’t believe it, but it was true. We had fulfilled our promise and made a bold choice to lead the country in a new direction. Now, it’s his time to lead and our time to get to work. Yes, we will. Submitted by on Fri, 2009-01-23 09:02. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
I'm so jealous, Rob! It would have been
I could not disagree more
I wish I shared your optimism. I wanted to like the guy. But given Obama's long-standing history of homophobia even prior to Rick Warren (see http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/01/14/gene_robinson/ for details) and the fact that he chose Warren to deliver his invocation knowing that Warren's "AIDS ministries" in Africa are little more than front groups to fund the murder of LGBT people (see http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20238941&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=585504&rfi=6 ), and the Gene Robinson "oversight", forgive me if I am cynical & underwhelmed by the fact that he posted a bunch of promises to the LGBT community on his website. What amazes me is how easily the LGBT community is manipulated by such symbolic acts. If you pay attention to SUBSTANCE over mere symbolism and rhetoric, then it is quite clear Obama has little love for the LGBT community. As far as other forms of "change" Obama intends to deliver, I think Michael Albert summed it up quite nicely:
"Those who expected, hoped, or even just prayed against all odds for real change, should be either impatiently waiting on a miracle contrary to all accumulating evidence, or gearing up for struggle. And as long as the first stance leads promptly to the second stance, it doesn't really matter much which of those two mindsets people are now in....What would be horribly bad, in other words, is if people were to put Obama loyalty above reason and passionate desire. What would be horribly bad is if people were to reel in their hopes and reel in their aims and desires, so as to keep smiling about and celebrating Obama despite his not delivering. Discounting our own hopes, dreams, and insights to remain on a bandwagon with no worthy destination will produce only incredible poverty of mind and spirit. It will be wickedly contrary to attaining change."- Michael Albert
I think you were a little quick to dismiss the concerns of many LGBT people who have presented some rather compelling reasons for their anger at & distrust of Obama. I encourage you to check out the following site which digs deeper into the issues many LGBT people have with Obama that are more complex than what is being conveyed by the simplistic and reductionist coverage the matter receives in the media: http://pinkpantherangryqueer.blogspot.com/
I wept on election night when Obama won, even though I had long been wary of him. As a Latino person with a black nephew and many phenotypically black relatives, I can relate to the outpouring of joy. The symbolic nature of his presidency will always make me smile even if he turns out to be a monumental disappointment (which he already has, at least in my view).
Okay, now everyone please try not to be too cruel. Since Obama won the election, I feel like I've been living in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I am about as politically "progressive" as they come, yet when I make even the mildest criticism of Obama to other liberals and progressives (even to people who are generally pretty well-informed and level-headed), they fly off the handle as though I'd just urinated on their dying grandmother. I have never seen anything like this in my life, and it's getting a little too Orwellian for comfort. And, just to make sure none of you try to hunt me down and kill me for being a heretic, I actually volunteered for Obama's campaign and i voted for him.
Thank you for the links,
There are quite a few snatched bodies and Democratic Plants at AfterElton, don't let anyone fool you. But this isn't a politics blog even though politics are discussed.
Obama has come a long way since his speech at Ebeneezer Baptist Church a year ago when he needed the gay vote in order to get elected. He is now reaching out to the far right in our stead, embracing our most strident enemies. The reach is so far that when obama clasps right hands with Warren he lets go of his left, no politician is Elastic Man. That can only mean that gay people lose out. Most are watching what his right hand is doing and ignoring the left. Like explaining a magic trick, it's considered rude to point that out.
The downside of the Internet Age
Almalik - Don't worry, I have no intention of being cruel! I don't play that way, and you sound like a genuine person with both a brain and a heart. But your post almost screams out for a reply, so I'll oblige.
First off, your comment about feeling "Orwellian" is interesting. I don't know how much you've read AfterElton up until now, but after the Warren thing was announced the overwhelming majority of posters here were strongly anti-Obama. It saddened me that so many were completely writing Obama off, were saying he was no better than McCain would have been, about how Obama hadn't done anything for the gay community, etc. It seemed otherworldly and yes, Orwellian, to me that those reactions were being so universally expressed even though Obama was not president and had no chance to actually "do" anything at all as yet.
But on to what I mean by the heading of this post. It has been said that the internet allows a glorious new age where everyone can be a "journalist" and everyone can have his voice be heard. That's all well and good, but the downside is that it is MUCH more difficult to know what represents fact, what represents mere opinion or outlook, and what represents outright lies and manipulation. Further, there are absolutely no standards whatever for the "citizen press". No need for double sourcing (or even single sourcing), no actual proof needed, no referencing of facts and where they were obtained, etc. At least with the traditional media there were standards of that type, even if imperfect, and journalists caught violating those standards would be fired. But now people often don't distinguish between, on the one hand, blogs that do nothing beyond advocate for a one-sided point of view, picking and choosing "sources" only on the basis of whether they buttress that point of view, and, on the other hand, legitimate news sources that seek facts, disclose sources and facts and provide documentation.
I have a friend who has certain points of view for which he proselytizes. He occasionally sends me internet stories that "prove" his point of view. In the early days of this I would be intrigued because I'd encounter new ideas and things contrary to what I thought was true. But invariably when I did more research I'd discover the sources were bogus, or were mere opinions spouted by people doing their own proselytizing, or, even worse, twisting facts to fit their point of view.
Unfortunately, your entire post consists of exactly that sort of thing, even while presenting itself as fact. To be blunt, using full-fledged debating principles, I could literally rip every single aspect of your post to shreds. But I'll give just a few examples to make my point.
1. Your reference to Obama's "long-standing history of homophobia" genuinely intrigued me. I had not heard of anything that would fit a blanket description like that, but perhaps I had been missing something that was glossed over in the traditional media. So I went to your link to Salon.com. But that was simply an editorial by Nancy Goldstein that dealt ONLY with the Warren controversy and one other incident. That's it. That's the "long-standing history of homophobia". And what was the other incident? Well, during the South Carolina primary, Obama joined a concert tour to reach black voters. The tour included a guy in the ex-gay movement who believes you can "pray away the gay". (For what it's worth, Obama added a gay pastor to the tour to pray before the concerts.) So that's the entirety of the proof you present to make the case for Obama's "long-standing history of homophobia".
2. You refer to Warren's Aids programs in Africa as "little more than front groups to fund the murder of LGBT people". You say that in a way implying you think they were set up specifically for that purpose. I am TOTALLY no fan of Rick Warren, but again, the article you link to as proof says no such thing. Yes, Warren is completely wrong about abstinence education being a solution of any kind. But apart from that sort of thing, the article is mainly an attempt to say that Warren is personally responsible for all the views and actions of anyone he's enlisted as an ally in his anti-Aids efforts. Some of those things generate my interest as to how deep the connections indeed are, and what some of those actions are, but this article does not go beyond tenuous connections or innuendo. You also state that Obama knew that Warren's programs were intended as "front groups to fund the murder of LGBT people". That's simply an unsupported contention in every way.
3. Here is a quote from your post: "The symbolic nature of his presidency will always make me smile even if he turns out to be a monumental disappointment (which he already has, at least in my view)." You're calling him a monumental disappointment after four days as president. Think about that for a moment. Maybe we should wait and see what he does about "Don't ask, don't tell", and all the other items he's listed as goals on the White House website.
4. You quote Michael Albert at length. I agree completely that it would be totally wrong to put blind loyalty to Obama or to the "idea" of Obama ahead of reason and reality. But you're using that idea and the rest of the quote to make the case that Obama hasn't and won't deliver, and we've all got our heads in the clouds so we're not seeing it. Since sources matter, who is Michael Albert? I read the entire article from which you quoted, and looked into Mr. Albert. He's a lifelong far left liberal who believes in the total abolition of the market system. I think it's pretty likely that someone like that isn't likely to be satisfied by whatever Obama accomplishes. And he's not a journalist in any way, he's just a blogger with a point of view and the writing ability to express that point of view, as far out of the mainstream as it may be.
5. You link to a site that "digs deeper into the issues many LGBT people have with Obama that are more complex than what is being conveyed by the simplistic and reductionist coverage" of the mainstream media. Again, sources matter. This source is, guess what!, a blog whose creator describes himself or herself thusly: "An angry fag spewing venom about Obama's lies and the rabid "progressive" Obamamaniacal breeders who have the audacity to chide us for being angry over the Rick Warren incident. This is also a plea to the LGBT community to wake the fuck up, ditch the HRC's self-serving assimilationist agenda, & fight for REAL change. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." I don't think I have to analyze that one any further.
Finally, here is the insidious nature of this sort of thing. You reference blogs and even diatribes by prejudiced folks, and construct from that your own post. Then AE readers read that, take it as truth, and pass it on to others as truth. Before long there are many people who believe that Obama is a lifelong homophobe. But where ultimately do all those beliefs of all those people come from? Unsupported editorializing and truth-twisting on blogs by biased people with a point of view.
I want to stress that I am in no way attacking you. But I firmly believe that facts matter. And the facts don't back up the point your post is making. This is by far the longest post I've ever made, but I thought it important to have the full story. I am in no way an Obama apologist, even though some here may think that. But I believe in action much more than symbolism, and four days as president simply says nothing about what Obama will do for the gay community.
The downside of your longest opine
1) You strive to marginalize the entire internet. The sad fact is that traditional news gathering organizations, like Fox News and the organizations you hale as 'fact checkers', have been the enemy of the gay rights struggle because of their biased coverage of our issues presented as fact and the internet has produced blogs that have served the very necessary purpose of allowing people access to all sorts of information that traditional organizations, Like the Democratic party, would rather you didn't know.
2. As long as we only embrace the corporate sponsored news speak, we ignore the mountains of critical thought and intellectual research that is often ignored or twisted to fit the needs of greedy advertisers.
3. As usual, you brandish the "L" word as if it were a nasty thing to be a liberal, that is unless you are trying to prove that Obama is Liberal. So what is it? Is being liberal a good thing or a bad thing, or just rhetoric you should manipulate to get elected?
.Liberal
As usual, I am totally uncomprehending of where you get your interpretations. As I've said before, I don't do internet debates, so I'm done after this, but I have an additional point to make that I didn't make previously, and while I'm at it I'll reply to a couple things you said.
1. Being liberal is a good thing. I am a liberal, and always have been. In fact, some consider me a radical. The reason you don't see that is because I also believe in facts, in backing up my opinions with something real, in trying to see all sides of issues, in common sense, etc.
2. You completely misinterpreted me when you say I try to marginalize the entire internet. Absolutely not, and a fair minded reading of my post could never lead someone to that conclusion. What I said was that there is a downside to the internet, which is that speculations, twistings, and downright lies can be stated as fact, without any sourcing or proof or even logic. So a reader has to be extra vigilant about what he's reading and what he believes. For example, if you believe the 9-11 attacks were an inside job by the government, where it blew up the buildings itself, and the Pentagon attack was a bomb, with no plane involved, well you can find a HUGE number of blogs devoted to that, with links to other blogs, and all sorts of "proof" presented. A gullible reader would be utterly convinced that the contentions were true.
4. Opinions are not in any way the same things as facts. But blogged opinions are used all the time as factual buttressing of an opinion, as Almalik did. If blogged opinions count as proof for one's own blogged opinions, then we've reached a sorry state.
5. The new perspective I wanted to add is this. You're an extreme far left thinker. I'm a left-leaning thinker. John McCain is a right-leaning thinker. Ann Coulter is an extreme far right thinker. The people on both extremes have always puzzled me in the following sense. I thought of this when looking at the Pink Panther site that Almalik linked to. The creator of that site passionately thinks that his viewpoints are the only valid ones, and anyone to the right of him is screwed up and wrong, and perhaps needs to be convinced at the point of a gun. But why should anyone think that he's right about anything? Is he more intelligent than most everyone else? Is he much more educated and well-read than others? Are his powers of logic and persuasion so obvious that we should all agree? Why exactly should ANYONE think that his opinions have any merit whatever? If they do have merit, then they will gain traction in the "marketplace of ideas". But if he can't convince others beyond a tiny fringe, then again I ask: why should anyone think there is merit there?
I've said before I'm a bit of a history buff. Go back to the radical left movement of the 60s, the Weather Underground and groups like that. They were convinced only they were right, and that there ideas were so important that they had to use violence to get them across. But if their ideas couldn't stand up in the marketplace of ideas, then they were doomed to failure. And fail they did. If your ideas have merit, then they will gain traction; if not, they won't.
At the end of the day, I believe in facts and ideas. Opinions mean nothing, unless they have genuine facts and solid ideas backing them up.
Another Farewell performance?
D.,
This is like what? The 5th time you refuse to partake in an internet debate, yet decide in this one instance you will. Look dude, nobody is enforcing a "no debating" rule and you don't earn any points from me by whining about it before you indulge yourself.
1. You are suggesting that Liberals don't believe in facts, like you do? Interesting, Mr. Radical.
2. Your point about the inaccuracy of the internet is a generalization and completely moot as there is a downside to every presentation of news data, history and etc. By suggesting that the internet in and of itself is special without quantifying that, you are damning the medium and not the message or it's misuse. For your information much of recorded history is nothing more than "speculations, twistings, and downright lies ... stated as fact, without any sourcing or proof or even logic." I could say the same thing about several "news" programs. What's your point?
3. Skip three because we can't count.
4. I know what opinions are, defining it is pedantic. Almalik also presented links to sites that formed opinions from facts. Some facts that are rarely reported.
Our perceptions of opinion and fact often change. You may not been around in the early 80s when many of the "facts" being reported were in favor of the Apartheid in South Africa. And
radicalsmoderates, such as your self, were describing any oppression to the regime as "opinion."5. Believe me, you haven't got a clue what I am thinking. Nor could you know why the creator of the Pink Panther site created it. (This is the first time I've ever seen that site, btw.) I feel like it's inclusion to Almalik's post was spurious and it's unfortunate for his argument that he neglected to explain why he included it, as it seems to be the source of your main argument. But other sites he linked do offer verifiable facts and links to further commentary (rather than espousing it as truth.)
For instance salon.com
Why Gene Robinson is too little, too late
does God do what he does because it is the right thing, or is it the right thing because God does it?
Praying For Realignment
from Fred Clarkson
Progressive Accountability for Democrats
You seem to believe that a fact is not genuine unless you approve of it, and that an idea isn't solid unless it supports Obama. Interesting radical take on the world you opine.
Just to be pedantic
Seanb
Re: point 5. If you consider yourself left-leaning while others consider you radical, one of you has got it all wrong regarding the meanings of words. Also, to suggest that the post you were answering represented 'extreme far left' thinking struck me as a bit over the top. I re-read the post a couple fo times eager to find a hint of Trotskyism, or perhaps a nuance of Stalinism, hopeful of a flash of marxist-lenninism and frankly prepared to settle for a just a soupcon of 1960s eurocommunism. Oh how my hopes were dashed. Perhaps the punctuation used had been nationalised by the state and then distributed through some socialist education programme. But of 'extreme far left' thinking there was none. Perhaps another day. Sigh
Pedantic
LOL! That was a terrific line about the punctuation being nationalised and redistributed!
There's nothing wrong with being pedantic, but it's more useful when combined with an accurate reading of what you're being pedantic about. Perhaps someone has taken some of your perceptive abilities and given them to a poor sot without any (and unwilling to work for them!). Sorry for the gibe, but I couldn't resist. I say that, though, for two reasons:
1. I was not referring to the original post as extreme far left. Rather, what I said was that Nukely is an extreme far left guy, based on the tenor of his previous posts. I don't know enough about the original poster to make that assessment.
2. There's no inconsistency to me calling myself left-leaning while others consider me radical. Those terms have no absolute meaning. Rather, they depend completely on the perceptions and beliefs of the person using them. For example, to me John McCain is very clearly a conservative. But to many other conservatives he is a liberal. To me and most others Obama is a liberal. To Nukely he's "well to the right of center", to quote him from an earlier post.
Also, I'll expand just a tad about myself to make myself more clear. I'd call myself "leftist" rather than "left-leaning" except that there are certain issues I'm way to the left (to the point of being radical), but other issues where I'm closer to the center. As two examples, I'm for fully nationalised health care and I believe in the basic philosophy of PETA, both of which would be considered radical by a majority of citizens. On the other hand, while I consider the Iraq invasion one of the worst foreign policy decisions ever, I favor a gradual, considered pull-out rather than an immediate one.
Feel free to gibe
if it makes you happy because it doesn't bother me.
Ummm.. I've read Mr Nukely's posts over time and perhaps I've missed the one in which he implored the proletariat poofters of AfterElton to storm the Logo Winter Palace and overthrow the fat plutocrats and their propagandist overseer lackies (sorry Mr Jensen, but you're the kind of man Leon Trotsky warned his mum about!). Nor have I seen any post in which Nukely has rallied the lavender masses to sieze the means of human (re)production to make everyone equally gay. But like I say, I haven't been paying attention as much as I should. On your recommendation that this is the kind of thing Nukely is advocating, it'll spice up the discussion boards no end when I spot his manifestos.
Let's face it, you're calling him an 'extreme far left' thinker because it's a nice phrase to throw around. Then someone picks you up on it and places it in some kind of global philosophical context and it just looks a wee bit silly.
Obviously, your history buff-ness doesn't stretch as far as the history of words. Radical, as I'm sure you now recall, comes from the Latin for root (radic). A root can't lean left or right. It can grow down and it can grow from side to side, and it can grow upwards to sprout and possibly bloom - but it can't lean. So you can't be left-leaning and radical at the same time. You only get to be left leaning as an outgrowth of a radical idea.
Obviously, with the clarifications you've provided, it's clear that within some areas of American political thought you can call yourself left-leaning and in others you can call yourself radical. In other areas of American political thought your ideas will be regarded as common-sensical or right wing or even dangerously anarchic. Like you said, it comes down to perceptions. But for those perceptions to have any value, they have to be put in context. For example, in most Western countries, a form of nationalised medicine isn't regarded as radical, or even particularly left-leaning. Even solidly right-wing parties will fight elections on the basis that they are the best guardians of a nationalised health service. Similarly, a couple of years ago, one of the Scandinavian countries (or it might have been Germany or Austria, I don't recall) discussed giving higher primates the same rights as human beings. That kind of serious national debate makes basic PETA philosophy look tantamount to animal hatred in some perspectives.
Context of perspective is everything. Perspective on its own is largely meaningless unless one wants to score points through name-calling (which is a noble aspect of political debate since time immemorial).
So anyway, feel free to call me a sot. But I'm sure - as a history buff - you'll appreciate the Churchillian riposte: 'In the morning I'll be sober. Whereas you'll still be ugly.' :-)
Churchillian
Yes, I do appreciate the Churchillian riposte. Perhaps tomorrow morning, when you're sober, you'll actually be able to properly understand what I've written! :)
In that vein, I have to clarify a couple of things. I didn't do ANY name-calling (unless you consider "extreme far left" an epithet - I sure don't; it's just a position on a spectrum), and certainly didn't call you a sot. Read that "sot" part of my earlier e-mail again in the morning. Feel free to shave and shower first. Then you'll see I was saying that some Trotskyite/Commie had taken some of your perceptive skills and redistributed them to SOMEONE ELSE - the sot of my reference. Darn - my witticisms are lost and forlorn if you don't actually understand them.
Mr. Nukely may not have printed his manifestos here, but that doesn't mean there's any difficulty placing him on the spectrum. He has proudly acknowledged his status in that regard a couple of times. Further, he has said there are no liberals in the U.S. Senate, that Obama and McCain's positions are relatively interchangeable, that Obama is a conservative (despite his high liberal ratings by virtually all organizations and interest groups), and many such similar things. Further yet, he's commented on enough actual issues that a manifesto is not needed. There was a VERY long back and forth debate with fellow poster Psionycx before the election that first alerted me to his basic outlook. Perhaps if we could convince him to quit complaining about everyone else, he'd have time to post his manifestos. I'd be personally interested. Though then I'd probably have to join you in the drunk tank, and then I'd be BOTH drunk and ugly.
Before resuming the drinking again tomorrow you might want to reread my posts as they regard the "radical" appellation. I did not call myself a radical. I called myself a "left-leaning" thinker, and I said that OTHERS had called me a radical. There's actually a difference between those two situations! Even if I HAD called myself both, it wouldn't be contradictory. I could certainly be left-leaning on some issues, and radical on others. Or are you one of those who thinks that a certain position on one issue requires a specific position on another issue? That a person must be all radical or all conservative or all left-leaning? Speaking of ripostes, perhaps that's the type of thinking Emerson had in mind when he said "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
Finally, thank you for so perfectly making my case about the importance of context and perception. For what it's worth, one genesis of my support for nationalized health care is its relative success in other countries. It's obviously a mainstream idea in many places. In the U.S., unfortunately, it is not, and is considered radical by many. In a similar vein, I advocate a social system very similar to that of Sweden. Again, that's a mainstream idea in Sweden and other countries, but would probably be favored by less than 5% of Americans.
I'll leave you with a final quote: "I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." - Oscar Wilde. (Yes, it's a non-sequitur in this context, but I love it!)
word
In leu of presenting a manifesto (which is on my new year's resolutions list,now.) I'd like to clarify your paraphrasing of my words.
"he has said there are no liberals in the U.S. Senate" I said that to be a liberal Senator is a different animal than a liberal citizen. (Just as you suggest that being a liberal American is different than being a liberal Norwegian)
"that Obama and McCain's positions are relatively interchangeable," I don't recall writing that. I haven't done a complete analysis of their voting record, few do. That's why you were quoting other's reports. No doubt they did vote together on several bills, something Obama has bragged about (reaching across the isle.) I did say that Obama was closer to McCain than he was to the far left. I also pointed out that in the same report (you referenced) it placed Obama as most liberal and placed McCain left of center (for the Senate). I wasn't surprised by that.
"that Obama is a conservative." I said that Obama was right of center in comparison to the full political spectrum in the US, or at least that's what I meant.
I'm going on a tangent here, because you did ask me before to qualify the last statement. Let me use one piece of datum, even though I know you will feel compelled to dismiss it by saying that it doesn't paint the entire picture. I only hope to illustrate one part of the picture.
A recent CNN poll (Dec. 19-21) asked adults nationwide:
"Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"
Should: 44%; Should not: 53%; Unsure: 1%.
I consider this poll to be a good enough test of a center line in the political spectrum in the U.S. The results are fairly even, with the "Should Not" representing a little more than half the people. generally those who voted "Should Not" could be called right of center and those who voted "Should" would be left of center (on this issue.) Since Obama is against gay marriage, he would be right of center in regard to this poll.
Radical
OK, here's the most perfect example possible of your self-identification as a radical. Here's a forum posting you started yourself, and a very interesting post it was, generating an interesting discussion. But the point is that you clearly state where you're coming from:
http://origin.www.afterelton.com/node/15428
And from a posting of 4-11-2008:
I am neither Republican nor Democrat. But would vote for Hillary and never Obama. Like her husband, Hillary is sure to nudge the party to the right (where I believe it belongs) which will paint the Republicans into a corner, leaving them with a wider majority of supporters who are homophobic wing nuts. This will leave room for a third party on the left, like the Greens and eventually because of the radical religious policies, the Republicans will be a memory like the Whigs.
Your stated goal is to get rid of the Republicans, have the Democrats assume the right side of the spectrum, and make way for a new party that fits your viewpoints.
Seriously, I would love to read a manifesto from you where you lay out your full world view and list your positions on various issues.
What if ...
... I refused?
Then I and others at AE
Flummoxing is a kind word
I'm unlikely to pound out a personal manifesto, as much as you might like to paint me that way, the idea seems antithetical to my perception of an organic order to reality. But hey, don't let me stop you from presenting yours.
I am surprised
that you remember my posts from that far back -almost a year ago!
I would love to see the end of the Republican party and I believe that our political system is begging for a change that better represents the broad spectrum of views of the population. Note that when ever there is a large election turn out that more people vote Democrat. That suggests that the Democratics are keeping their voters away from the polls. But it might also suggest that those voters would be voting for a more left leaning candidate, but choose the lesser of two evils or just stay home instead. That fewer people vote suggests that more people believe the parties don't represent their views.
As far as my expecting a government that "fits my viewpoints", you are wrong. I merely wonder if we will ever see a government that represents the population's. I don't know if I would call that so much a "goal" as a wish. We haven't had a president (or government) who represents the Left in how long? We have had far Right Wing presidents, Reagan (who is famous for being as completely out of step with most Americans as he was universally loved by them.) and the Bushes. The Clintons are criticized for being Right of center and we might have to go back over a hundred years to find a president who represented the Left Wing of the country in the same way that our last president represented the Right.
They say the political pendulum swings. A real pendulum swings as far to the left as it swings to the right, in the US, the political pendulum is allowed to swing dramatically to the Right, but evidently we have a stop in place, preventing it from swinging too much to the Left and therefore a whole segment of the society continually goes unrepresented.
.....
Some would have you believe that radical means 'rebel rousing' and 'anarchy.' Radical means favoring a more drastic change, rather than the subtle changes you suggest are the normal course.
Here is my radical (or drastic) agenda for change. I wish to see America return to the principles projected by that great 60s Radical, Abraham Lincoln. We need to create a government "Of The People , By The People, For The People" And turn away from the government "Of The Privileged, By The Wealthy, For The Corporation." For some that may stink of pink, for me it is as true as the red, white and blue.
Memory
Actually, my memory isn't really that good. I have to confess I did a Google search to find those posts. I was looking for the long exchange with Psionycx I mentioned, but never did find that one. I wasn't on AE at the time of the April posting. I do remember the topic you posted about radicalism, but I was fairly new at the time and didn't feel comfortable getting in on that.
I'd guess our base views of society aren't as different as it might appear. But I think your perceptions about where the country is are completely wrong. The presidents of the past 50 years have reflected where the population is extremely well. The reason that we didn't elect a truly liberal Democrat between Johnson and Obama (though Clinton was actually more liberal than conservative) is simply that that's where the national consciousness has been. MANY sociological studies have shown that America is basically a center/right country, and always has been. In today's terms even Kennedy was more conservative than liberal. All polls of the public show that basic center/right situation, whether it be self-identification or positions on issues. You're seeing things based more on hope than on reality.
And your hope that Republicans would disappear and be replaced by a new left party has been a total pipe dream, and essentially still is. There is a movement away from the Republicans to some degree as the population changes, becoming less white and more Hispanic/black/Muslim, and also as the new generation moves a bit left. It's way too early to draw any final conclusions from those trends, but they are encouraging. But even there we have to be very careful. Hispanics as a group are much more conservative than many people realize, and Obama had to work very hard to effect a shift in their voting this year. And white America remains staunchly conservative as a whole.
One reason I seem more moderate to you than I am is because I recognize these things, and therefore the reality of what's possible. I also recognize the literal NEED to make changes slowly so as to avoid disasters and undesired consequences. As we've just seen, our economy is much more fragile than anyone realized. I think you're right in your definition of radical as wanting drastic rather than gradual change. Unfortunately for you and your fellow radicals, America has NEVER embraced the idea of drastic change. Further, drastic change is genuinely dangerous because of the law of unintended consequences.
Safe and Center
Here is where we get into semantics and where the double speak of the right wing subverts the left. A public poll can not show that the public is right or left, it can only show what the opinion on the right is and what the opinion on the left is and it can show the shifting of those opinions. In 1960 interracial marriage was a far left opinion. The country was not "to the right" the opinion was held on the left. By 1964 it could be said that interracial marriage was a moderate opinion, it could be said that that opinion shifted to the left. The countries opinion changed, but we continued to have a right, left and center -that will always be a constant. By 1968 opposition to interracial marriage would be considered a far right opinion. The general opinion had shifted that far.
We need to look at those studies you refer to and their purpose otherwise we come off as part of the twisted logic on the internet that you decry. If those sociological studies are comparing the U.S to Western Europe, then obviously the U.S. is more conservative or 'center/right.' However, in and of itself, the U.S. taken by itself, can not be deemed Right or Left. There is a discernible left, center and right in this country but they have no relevance to the rest of the world when determining whether our elected officials truly represent our population. Cut a Tootsie Roll into three equal pieces, you can call one left, one right and one would be the center. Our elected officials have been to the right of public opinion for a long, long time.
The opinions of those three pieces change, as you noted with Kennedy. Nothing I have written here refutes that, but rather I have tried to explain it. I recognize the make up of the right, the new right and the changing population. Like I said before, you don't know what I think as much as you pompously presume and project it for the sake of argument.
Our economy is more fragile then who never realized? I wasn't alone in predicting the collapse of our economy over 5 years ago when I saw the number of people purchasing $250,000 condos in my neighborhood who clearly couldn't afford them. It seems the entire nation was giddy with greed and blind to what is undeniable now, after the collapse.
The United States would never have occurred if it weren't for people advocating for drastic change. From pilgrims leaving their homeland to Revolution, Emancipation, industrialization, Immigration, robber barons, expansion, WWII rationing, Urbanization, Integration and the very Internet we are using right here and now. We are perhaps one of the few nations that have embrace radical change into thier herritage and fabric, compared to France which requires an act of parliament to allow the introduction of a new word to the lexicon. What I believe made America unique and continues to make America great is that our radical changes often follow a public discourse and acts of law, but not to diminish the drastic nature of the change.
Oops!
And this whole discussion...
...makes me proud to be both American and a Democrat. American in that we are guaranteed the rights to free speech. A Democrat because the party itself and its big tent generally doesn't expect us all to toe the party line at all times.
I rather enjoy being a moderate democrat, with liberal views on some issues, conservative on others, and moderate in many more.
One belief I've held for many years is that the hijack of our government and political apparatuses by extremist points of view of either wing is a dangerous development. The "ideal" of the Greek Golden Mean sounds like a plan to me. For years we have needed the moderate voices in our nation to stand up and shout for moderation of government and of social policies, and to wrest control of our government from extremist views, philosophies, and practices.
My favorite part of this
My favorite part of this thread was the punning. Some good stuff there, guys. Also, the freaking out over Obama being president makes little sense to me (negative freaking, the positive stuff I totally understand) but Fox News would certainly agree that Obama is going to ruin America. The Daily Show had a funny segment about it just the other night (complete with wonderful commentary from Rush Limbaugh). I mean, Rick Warren and all that was extremely distasteful, but at least give the man his first hundred days before deciding what sort of president he is (although given his plans for Queer rights are more long term, that might not work so well from a purely homosexual-centric view point).
Yup