Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a "faggot"

[BonosSaint]

Yeah, I know. I always hope for better against all evidence, I guess. I know better.

 

[yolland]

I do understand the reaction, but I don't think "I vote for it even though it's of no self-interest to me" is the same as saying "I vote for it even though I think it's against my interests."

 

[Ormus]

Let me see if I get this right. Not being a big fan of the Democrats by any means....but if the gays get the full equal rights they are entitled to, a ton of them will then abandon many of the rest of us in our own struggles now that they got theirs.
That's troubling. I understand that mostly monolithic blocks vote in their own self-interest. But as a matter of self-interest, why would I continue to vote for pro-gay candidates and issues (which I have always done) when it is of no personal self-interest to me other than it is right, when many gays are then going to align themselves with a party that traditionally fucks my interests?
I will continue my voting pattern because I think it is right, but part of me is rightly disillusioned and a little bit disgusted.

My argument was predicated on the Democrats maintaining their status quo and Republicans having a hypothetical "change of heart," not so differently from when they went from being viciously anti-civil rights in the 1960s to being supportive of them in the 1970s.

My whole point, I guess, is that the Democratic Party cannot merely "assume" support from gay people forever, if their idea of being "supportive" is saying that they'll support gay rights on one hand and passing anti-gay legislation (like Clinton's signing of the "Defense of Marriage Act") on the other hand.

Right now? I don't know what the Democratic Party has done to deserve my support currently. Their support for us has been lukewarm to cold lately, and I don't like it. I don't like it when the most reliably and overwhelmingly Democratic state in the nation--Massachusetts--can still have a "Defense of Marriage Act" have serious consideration. Granted, I will accept that the last time around, their hands were tied with that petition, but the fact that a state legislature with over 3/4 Democrats can have prior votes on such narrow terms is problematic for me. And, obviously, the climate fares much worse in the rest of the nation.

The Republican Party, obviously, disgusts the hell out of me, but I find it problematic that Giuliani, out of all the presidential candidates in both parties, appears the most "gay friendly." Granted, I'm fully expecting him to sell out to appeal to the conservative wing of his own party, but the Democratic candidates are already completely worthless on this subject.

You pose the question as to why you should vote for gay-friendly candidates if you believe that they'll fuck you over once they get their rights. Well, I'll pose this question:

Why should I vote for candidates that support your interests when they have none of my interests at heart?

Repealing estate taxes would indirectly help me out a lot more than tax breaks for "working families"--since, after all, gay people can't form "families." They're just cohabiting strangers in the eyes of the law, which means that the surviving "stranger" gets hit with a massive inheritance tax regardless of how wealthy they are.

 

[BonosSaint]

Yolland, I understand that distinction. What began as I vote for it even though it is of no-self interest to me becomes I should be aware that many of those for whose interests I vote may then turn around and vote against my interest. A small, but uneasy shift in emphasis. Doesn't change my vote, but changes my perception. I'm warier.

I support, but not blindly.

 

[anitram]

Why should I vote for candidates that support your interests when they have none of my interests at heart?

Because maybe you realize that they support interests and policies that are best for the society at large?

I've alternately been a poor student and somebody quite comfortable financially, able to travel around the world, had a pretty good investment portfolio, etc. Both those times I voted for the party (not the same one) which I thought had the best policies for the province or country as a whole, not for what party offered incentives that helped my ass and nobody else's.

 

[Ormus]

Unfortunately that type of reaction seems to be typical, no matter the group. Once you fit in with the "big boys" you don't give a flying fuck about those you used to be with. I think a part of it that people want to join the big party (I don't mean politically, although in this case that's what it is) they've been missing out on. I also think there might be a bit of a feeling that unless they join the "top" group they will be easier to push back down where they used to be.

Right. So once you support a party, you have to always support them out of "gratitude"? I can imagine that being abused by political parties.

Ideally, elections should be a competition of ideas, with the party with the best ideas winning. In reality, thanks to this inane "culture war," all we get is a monolithic pissing match on both sides, and both parties get a free pass on actually coming up with new ideas.

I want to emphasize that I despise both political parties in this country right now. I think they're wholly lacking in ideas and leadership, and they've gotten away with passing around unqualified "image" candidates for way too long. We're too busy looking for someone who "looks presidential," rather than asking what ideas that they have in the future. The fact that the Democrats are salivating over whether we could have a "woman president" or a "black president" is precisely what's wrong with politics today. I'm solely interested in the person with the best ideas, not the person with the most attractive demographic.

I look forward to the day when I don't have to choose between the party that hates me and the one who merely tolerates me. I love the fact that U.K. politics, for instance, has gone beyond that, where (correct me if I'm wrong) both the main Labour Party and the Tories are both gay friendly. It would seem like such a luxury for me, if I could choose between the Democratic Party and Republican Party, based on the party with the best ideas, rather than which party I must choose, due to my unchangeable demographic in the "culture wars."

 

[Ormus]

Because maybe you realize that they support interests and policies that are best for the society at large?

That would be a good argument, except that I think that neither party here has interests or policies that are best for society. I'm not particularly thrilled with either party's platform currently.

That's where I start envying countries like Canada that have more than two parties to choose from.

 

[BonosSaint]

You pose the question as to why you should vote for gay-friendly candidates if you believe that they'll fuck you over once they get their rights. Well, I'll pose this question:

Why should I vote for candidates that support your interests when they have none of my interests at heart?

QUOTE]


You're incorrect as to what my self-interests are. I have no self-interest in family-friendly laws. I have no family. I will never have one. I have employee rights issues. I have women issues. I have age issues. I have human issues as do you. They're different from yours but not so far off. I recognize how gays have been fucked.

I understand your contempt for the Democrats. I don't see them as champions. I see them on the whole as opportunists, talking a talk they have no real intention of walking. But I see them as the lesser of two evils. You'll find that consistent in my posts. I switched my registration to "No party" because of my own contempt. I'd rather more choices. I'd rather more freedom in who can afford to run. I don't have them right now.

You have no reason to vote for my interests. I'll take your rationales with a grain of salt since you don't know fucking jack about me, nor did you even bother to ask what my self-interests
were. You assumed wrong. I expected better if you want better.

 

[indra]

Right. So once you support a party, you have to always support them out of "gratitude"?

I didn't say that. The groups I noted people would abandon as they moved "up" in the world are groups of people -- not political parties.

 

[Irvine511]

I think I read somewhere that around 25% of voters identifying as homosexual, voted for Bush in 2004.

it was more like 17%.

it's also statistically nearly impossible to go below 10%, for whatever that's worth.

it's also possible that there are many gay Mary Cheney's out there, those who believe in the Republican platform -- or just want a tax break -- who vote Republican, and there might be many more who would vote Republican if they hadn't made hating gays politically safe for some Christians.

whether i think this is good or bad is irrelevant; i think Melon is right, people ultimately vote what is in their interests first. we might not do this, we might not like it when people do, but i don't think we can expect gays to be saintly -- in the way that we can't expect, say, blacks to be saintly -- simply because they've been oppressed. in fact, many gay people, because they've been dicked over by both parties, are more libertarian in viewpoint, and the libertarian has traditionally (though certainly not any more) found a more accomodating viewpoint on the right with the Republicans. this has changed, dramatically, thanks to Bush and the proscriptive Christianism he/they think is best for everybody, but in the 1980s, if you thought government was the enemy, and many gays do, then you probably voted for Reagan.

is your average gay more sympathetic to any and all civil rights causes due to a shared history of oppression? absolutely. but we can't expect all gays to feel this way.

some gays are assholes.

 

[Ormus]

You're incorrect as to what my self-interests are.

Well, before we go any further here, I never pretended to know what your interests were. I was speaking in generalities. After all, the Democratic Party likes to talk about things like tax cuts for "working families," which tends to imply that those who are forced to file "single" on their tax return are going to be left out.

That statement did not require me having to know who you are or what your interests are, and I apologize if anything I said made you believe that I was speaking of anything except generalities.

But I see them as the lesser of two evils.

And you should have noticed that I've stated just that, albeit in different words. Chances are, in 2008, I will find myself forced to vote Democratic to avoid the greater evil.

But what a sorry state our American society is in that we have to think that way every time we vote. Don't people believe that we deserve better than this?

 

[BonosSaint]

B]Why should I vote for candidates that support your interests when they have none of my interests at heart?

You did say "your interests" which I understood as mine, not a generalization. I stand corrected. Not totally convinced, but corrected.

I understood you considered at this point, the Democrats to be the lesser of two evils (my words) And I agree with you. I've been reduced to voting against something and not for something.
I'm very tired and dismayed and cynical about this. There is not one person running right now for whom I will willingly cast a vote.

I'm not unsupportive. I just know how much support we all need.
I think you'll find for the most part, women have been supportive of gay rights. Maybe there was a kinship there. Or maybe just an inherent understanding. But women also have the history of being the supporters too often left behind once a goal was reached and their usefulness ended. I'm a little tired of us being fucking fools. So I have a sensitivity there.

 

[Ormus]

it's also possible that there are many gay Mary Cheney's out there, those who believe in the Republican platform -- or just want a tax break -- who vote Republican, and there might be many more who would vote Republican if they hadn't made hating gays politically safe for some Christians.

Here's my take on this subject. There are many people who vote Democratic or Republican for various reasons; some of them very noble, some of them out of fear, some of them out of peer pressure, some of them out of ignorance...whatever. We all have our reasons.

What I don't like, perhaps, is feeling compelled to vote for one party based on a single issue that, while being the core of who I am, is not the entirety of me. And, like any corporation, a political party is going to (d)evolve with the times. It might surprise people to know that the Progressive Era of the late 19th century and early 20th century had significant Republican support, while Woodrow Wilson loved "Birth of a Nation" so much that he thought everyone should see it (it probably helped that the film quoted him in an intertitle). "Role reversals" happen. Ideology changes. And I'd love the luxury of being able to vote based on platform, rather than which party hates me the least.

but in the 1980s, if you thought government was the enemy, and many gays do, then you probably voted for Reagan.

It's not as if the government has a great track record, considering most of our elected officials are bumbling fools. As such, I do tend to support "smaller government," but I also believe that the GOP mainly pays lip service to that idea. Our government is as large and intrusive as it has ever been!

is your average gay more sympathetic to any and all civil rights causes due to a shared history of oppression? absolutely. but we can't expect all gays to feel this way.

I certainly care about civil rights. I care about it greatly. And that's why I get so angry when I feel that the party that has traditionally held the mantle of equality is betraying our trust. Has the Democratic Party's actions matched its words? Or are they as much empty rhetoric as the GOP's supposed love of "small government"?

 

[Ormus]

I think you'll find for the most part, women have been supportive of gay rights. Maybe there was a kinship there. Or maybe just an inherent understanding. But women also have the history of being the supporters too often left behind once a goal was reached and their usefulness ended. So I have a sensitivity there.

Women's rights are one of the things that I'm a strong supporter of. Hell, I end up taking great offense when I encounter chauvinism, sexist jokes, or anything that treats women as anything less than autonomous, intelligent human beings.

If anything, we, in many ways, have a shared struggle, as many homophobic attitudes stem, as a result, of stereotypes of men's attitudes against women.

 

[BonosSaint]

Agreed. I've noticed your support of women in previous posts.
I've never had an issue with your personal support as I hope you've never had an issue with mine.

 

[Irvine511]

B]I think you'll find for the most part, women have been supportive of gay rights. Maybe there was a kinship there. Or maybe just an inherent understanding. But women also have the history of being the supporters too often left behind once a goal was reached and their usefulness ended. I'm a little tired of us being fucking fools. So I have a sensitivity there.

if this were true for everybody, wouldn't african-american churches take up the mantle of the gay marriage/rights/non-discrimination in employment?

no. if anything, many, many black churches -- and we can probably say, "black churches" in the political sense -- are still quite homophobic, Coretta Scott King aside.

and gay black men, and the women they sometimes marry, suffer the most from this homophobia.

 

[BonosSaint]

Nothing's true for everybody. I take your point. I'll let somebody else answer to that. I don't know why. I can surmise, but that is all I would be doing.

 

[Angela Harlem]

if this were true for everybody, wouldn't african-american churches take up the mantle of the gay marriage/rights/non-discrimination in employment?

no. if anything, many, many black churches -- and we can probably say, "black churches" in the political sense -- are still quite homophobic, Coretta Scott King aside.

and gay black men, and the women they sometimes marry, suffer the most from this homophobia.

I'd guess there is a generally closer relationship between gender and sexuality than there is between race and sexuality.

 

[Irvine511]

I'd guess there is a generally closer relationship between gender and sexuality than there is between race and sexuality.

i take the point, but i think this underscores the point that the commonality of oppression does not good allies make.

take The Left. at least in the US -- and i would imagine, to a lesser extend, in Australia, since, to my knowledge, there hasn't been a credible economic Lefitst movement like you get in the most socialist nations of Euroe -- it's a patchwork of different marginalized groups who might share a common understanding of an oppressor, but not much else. just going to a protest rally here in DC you see a cornucopia of nearly competing different interest groups who sort of agree that something out there is "bad" -- in this case, W -- but have very little else to agree upon.

(yes, there are economic leftists in the US, but the core of the Left are different social groups, african-americans, gays, jews, etc.)

 

[Irvine511]

Nothing's true for everybody. I take your point. I'll let somebody else answer to that. I don't know why. I can surmise, but that is all I would be doing.

btw, i wish it were true, and i wish that we'd see our common humanity through a shared history of suffering, but it doesn't seem to always play out that way, sadly.

i also think that one of the reasons why gay men have so many straight female allies is simply because gay men and straight females are culturally compatible, in a broad, stereotypical sense. many straight girls who spend at least a few years in an urban area wind up with at least one or two gay male friends, and the #1 factor that influences how one understands issues like marriage equality is actually knowing a gay person.

which is why this is all kind of funny coming from Ann Coulter. i bet you dollars to donuts she has a bunch of gay male friends -- she certainly looks, acts, and dresses like a stereotypical "fag hag," if not a downright pre-op transsexual, what with her bikini-esque black cocktail dresses, expensively colored hair, whiter-than-white teeth, and i'm sure fabulous NYC apartment.

 

[Angela Harlem]

yeah, point taken, irvine.

gee, all this accepting each other's points?? where is the usual fym ranting gone? this is too civil!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

This is even more offensive than what Coulter said at that convention.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/04/newt-blames-the-victims-of-katrina/

Newt Gingrich, (speaking at CPAC) blamed the residents of New Orleans' 9th Ward for a "failure of citizenship," by being "so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn't get out of the way of a hurricane."

And he called for a "deep investigation" into this "failure of citizenship."

Here's the full quote:

"How can you have the mess we have in New Orleans, and not have had deep investigations of the federal government, the state government, the city government, and the failure of citizenship in the Ninth Ward, where 22,000 people were so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn't get out of the way of a hurricane."

 

[Irvine511]

i don't even know how to react to that.

did he say the same thing about the white people in St. Bernard Parish?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well he singled out Ninth Ward, so I doubt it..I guess we'd have to read the rest of the speech

That convention sounds like such an enlightened experience.

 

[CTU2fan]

Newt Gingrich? Who the hell rattled his cage? Jeez, can Rush be far behind? We need all the "caricatures of conservatism" to pop off.

Ya Irvine, our (American) Left kind of sucks. We're anything but unified, and it's a pity. I'm sure the right loves that disorganization too. While the idea of uniting against a common oppressor sounds nice, historically it just hasn't happened. Seems pretty stupid to me, but it is what it is I suppose.

Personally I don't give a rat's ass what Ann Coulter has to say, other than to mock her when she makes herself look particularly stupid (like now). The Gingrich stuff is more bothersome, only because the man was a Congressman. The guy really has no clue. Of course, since his remarks weren't explicitly racist no one will notice - they were blantantly classist, but that's OK because we don't have class in America, right? Or we just have a middle class...riiiiiiight.

 

[Irvine511]

Ya Irvine, our (American) Left kind of sucks. We're anything but unified, and it's a pity. I'm sure the right loves that disorganization too. While the idea of uniting against a common oppressor sounds nice, historically it just hasn't happened. Seems pretty stupid to me, but it is what it is I suppose.

i almost think that there's not even agreement on what or who the "oppressor" is, it's just the sense of having been oppressed, and with very good reason (from racist housing codes to the not-as-of-yet Non-Discrimination in Employment act to $.73 for every dollar a man earns).

and it's sloppy thinking to blame the Straight White Christian Male, since he didn't choose to be Straight or White or Christian (usually) or Male, but i do think it's advantageous to point out how the Straight White Christian Male is advantaged in ways that others are not, white at the same time realizing that he, too, is also oppressed by sexism, or racism, or whatever.

and now i feel like i'm taking my undergraduate cultural studies courses again.

 

[anitram]

Ya Irvine, our (American) Left kind of sucks. We're anything but unified, and it's a pity. I'm sure the right loves that disorganization too. While the idea of uniting against a common oppressor sounds nice, historically it just hasn't happened. Seems pretty stupid to me, but it is what it is I suppose.

The problem is that you (Americans) don't have a political left to speak of. The Democrats are not a left-leaning party by anyone's standards except maybe those of people somewhere in the middle of Texas. And there is no viable third party. The Greens are not a left-leaning party, in any sense of the word, really. People assume they are because of their environmental positions but no Green party platform is leftist in essence.

You have good leftist organizations and grassroots movements and I think they are picking up steam more and more lately, but that hasn't really translated into the political sphere quite yet.

 

[Irvine511]

The problem is that you (Americans) don't have a political left to speak of. The Democrats are not a left-leaning party by anyone's standards except maybe those of people somewhere in the middle of Texas. And there is no viable third party. The Greens are not a left-leaning party, in any sense of the word, really. People assume they are because of their environmental positions but no Green party platform is leftist in essence.

You have good leftist organizations and grassroots movements and I think they are picking up steam more and more lately, but that hasn't really translated into the political sphere quite yet.

when you speak of being genuinlely Left, in comparison to the rest of the world, i think it's due to not having a true economic Leftist platform in the US. there is no desire for socialism in the US -- let alone communism, as you'll get in countries like France -- for a variety of complex reasons, not least of which is that everyone in the US thinks they can be rich, as well as the fact that the US hasn't had the same history of working class exploitation as you have had in Europe.

or, at least that history hasn't been as inherited as it is seems to have been in Europe, based on my experience. Amtrak employes don't schedule their strikes for August like they do in Paris. farmers don't park their tractors on the DC Beltway and block the traffic in order to shut down the city so they can demand more farm subsidies like they do in Brussels. thse all seem like populist Leftism at work. these things almost became comical to me as an American living in Europe, the expectation that strikes = better pay, that you're automatically exploited because you're working class, but that was due to culture more than anything else.

that said, i do think the American left does a good job at articulating racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. these things are well fleshed out and debated endlessly in the media, and results in a rather sophisticated understanding of DIY identity, whereas there's little to no actual debate on economics. everyone hates taxes, it's just how much do you actually hate taxes that becomes the debate.

 

[anitram]

These are all good points.

But then how do you explain a country like Canada - where we do have some socialist-leaning initiatives like universal health care and subsidized universities? We have had a much more similar history to the US in terms of worker exploitation and immigrants arriving here thinking they can get rich, yet we haven't rejected economic social policies in the same way.

And when it comes to articulating those other issues - your left (if you're referring to the Dems?) has been pathetic in my eyes as far as gay rights are concerned. Even our Conservatives in Canada, as a party are more progressive on the issue! Half of the Dems running for office don't want to talk about abortion or are pro-life. This isn't even a topic in our political discourse in Canada anymore. It's seen as settled, and that's it. Decriminalization of marijuana is another example. Having clean injection sites for drug addicts is another. And I think we'll see the issue of human euthanasia come up again here and I do believe within the next decade or so, our Supreme Court will overrule its previous decisions on the matter. So even on the non-economic issues, I think your political left (ie. Dems) are pretty lame.

 

[Irvine511]

But then how do you explain a country like Canada - where we do have some socialist-leaning initiatives like universal health care and subsidized universities? We have had a much more similar history to the US in terms of worker exploitation and immigrants arriving here thinking they can get rich, yet we haven't rejected economic social policies in the same way.

i'm not sure -- and i was wondering this as well. i suppose there are small differences in the US and Canada that might amount to larger differences when played out. i would say that the US spends much more on the military than Canada does, and, bluntly, this benefits the average Canadian much more as the government can afford to pay for things like subsidized universities and universal health care since Canada doesn't have to pay to defend it's coasts. but that only explains so much; it's the history of class warfare/struggle/proletariat vs. bourgeoise that simply hasn't played out as dramatically in the US as it has, certainly in Europe, and am i to assume in Canada as well?

i think one other difference is one of overall national mission. and i say this since i'm certainly no expert in all things Canada -- one of my best friend's mother is Canadian, have been several times and think all is lovely, drank a whole lot in Scotland with Canadians -- but an American who lived in Toronto for 15 years once told me that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is quite different from "Peace, Order, and Good Government." ultimately, in the US, whether right or wrong, taxes and government programs are seen as anathema to liberty. that's the mantra. that government is a necessary evil at best, and a shackle on the foot of human liberty at worst. i'm sure these attitudes have historical roots that one would need several dissertations to trace, but i do think there is a difference in overall philosophy that perhaps manifests itself in different attitudes towards universal health care.

And when it comes to articulating those other issues - your left (if you're referring to the Dems?) has been pathetic in my eyes as far as gay rights are concerned. Even our Conservatives in Canada, as a party are more progressive on the issue! Half of the Dems running for office don't want to talk about abortion or are pro-life. This isn't even a topic in our political discourse in Canada anymore. It's seen as settled, and that's it. Decriminalization of marijuana is another example. Having clean injection sites for drug addicts is another. And I think we'll see the issue of human euthanasia come up again here and I do believe within the next decade or so, our Supreme Court will overrule its previous decisions on the matter. So even on the non-economic issues, I think your political left (ie. Dems) are pretty lame.

one word: Christianity.

seriously. not all Christians, not all forms of Christianity, but the political influence of the church on American life cannot be underestimated, and i'm sure it looks positively medieval to many on the outside. (and i will say that the success of religion in the US is due to the generally positive historical relationship the US has had with religion, certainly in comparison to Europe, but that's another book to be written).

i also think we have to look at populations. as i've said before, there are more Californians than Canadians. it's far easier to get 30m people to agree on something than it is for 300m, and 300m people from all corners of the globe living in wildly different areas (despite the surface of homogenization, where homogenization is actually a celebration of difference, because i might be from DC and 80s is from Texas but i bet we both like hamburgers) and enough space to surround yourself with people who think, look, talk, and believe just like you do. not that there aren't wide open spaces in Canada, but it doesn't seem to my casual observer's eye that there is as much of an urban/rural divide in Canada, or, the population of urban Canada dwarfs the population of rural Canada. not so in the US.

that said, i think the US is actually quite good at dealing with race and with successfully assimilating our immigrants. the gay thing ... eh, give it time. there are fewer more pro-gay places than a major north american city, it's just that Kansas has some catching up to do.

but this is all very interesting. thanks for the discussion.

and, ultimately, i think this is a question that you're far more positioned to answer than i: why is Canada one of the most progressive nations on earth?