"It is true, and thus the question of whether it is sad or happy has no meaning whatever."
Bernhard Schlink

Science is best when discussed: leave your thoughts and ideas in the comments!!

Friday, September 03, 2004


I wasn't going to blog about the RNC convention. I wasn't going to give it that much credit. However, that was before I read this brilliant bit over on AlterNet. It would have been effective, had Mr. Bearman not chickened out at the end. He sets it up perfectly: the Log Cabin and pro-choice Republicans are desperately trying to 'take back' their party, they want inclusion in a club that only wants their votes, and yet they think that they can gain more power by surrendering the only power they have: those votes. He sets all this up, but fails to follow through with the kicker: that these people are at best, naive, and, at worst, out of their fucking minds.

It's like the Nader people (interestingly, in the same sense but the exact opposite way): they want to have an alternative voice in American politics, bully for them I agree it's be a good thing. But they fail to understand that they have no power when they vote for non-viable candidates: there is no partial representation in America. If your candidate loses, he has No Voice. At all. None. Zip. Zilch. It's as if you never voted.

The only way that any of the Greens' (or whatever Nader is this week) agenda, some of which is quite good, gets accomplished is by holding those votes hostage in a real sense (as Mr. Bearman suggested to Jennifer Stockman), by saying, we'll vote for you and help you win (in a real sense: this is a tight election; or in an organizational sense: we can GOTV) if you bring our issues to the table. If not, then we'll stay home. Quid. Pro. Quo.

It boggles my mind how so many otherwise thoughtful, intelligent (and certainly well-meaning) people (gays, pro-choicers, etc.) can withstand the dissonance of supporting a party that ignores all the issues that brought you to the table in the first place (economics, personal responsibility, etc.) and makes its entire platform about hate, and hating *them* (these gays, pro-choicers, etc.) specifically.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Gay Republicans make me sneeze and break out in hives. I'm allergic to oxymorons.
But this is not how it should be, and I would love to see a Republican party that was indeed a "Big Tent." I still wouldn't be likely to vote for them, but I would also not dismiss the possibility out of hand. And that would be good for America.

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?