Why I won’t be voting for Obama November 14, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, News and politics, bigotry.trackback
Because of rhetoric like this:
The events of the last several weeks are not the occasion that I would have chosen to discuss America’s divisions on civil rights and my own deep commitment to African American equality. Now that the issue is before us, however, I do not intend to run away from it. These events have provided an important opportunity for us to confront a difficult fact: There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their Black brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community.
Shocking, of course. While Obama claims to want to build bridges and bring people together, it’s hard to imagine how he can write off bigotry as a mere difference of opinion between “good, decent, moral people.” Should it matter that I changed the references in the above quote to ones of race, not of gender and sexuality? At the height of the civil rights movement, such rhetoric would have been correctly seen as appeasement: can you imagine Dr King writing off discrimination so easily? Let’s compare King’s response to the people who opposed the methods of the civil rights movement:
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
And that was his criticism of those who supported equality, but were timid about it. Meanwhile, Obama would reach out to those who favor continued discrimination by listening to what they have to say. There’s nothing wrong with listening, of course, but Obama can’t have it both ways: he can’t argue that civil rights are a moral imperative and then gloss over the bigotry of those who won’t accept GLBT people as members of the community.
Maybe I would feel differently if Obama’s response to all this hadn’t been so belated, if it hadn’t failed to mention McClurkin at all, and if it made the case for why equality is a necessity, rather than merely pushing for a conversation with those who would deny others basic civil rights. Perhaps if I could envision the productive debate Obama imagines, I might feel differently. But what could one say?
Obama: We need to accept LGBT people into our communities.
Some Bigot: No, as a decent, moral person I don’t approve of their lifestyle and so cannot support equal rights for them.
Obama: . . .
I simply don’t believe this kind of appeasement is acceptable, and if this is the kind of leadership Obama shows on issues of civil liberties, I simply can’t support him for President.
[h/t Pam's House Blend.]
If not build bridges to bigots, who hold on to harmful but ingrained beliefs, what shall we do about them?
We can fight bigotry, but does that have to mean fight people who are bigots? Fighting an ideology sounds like a war of ideas. Fighting people who have that ideology sounds like a regular war.
Fight racism, fight racist actions and policies, but as for racists: try to reform them, convince them, or just bug them until they get tired of arguing and give up.
I don’t like racists and bigots and you don’t like them. But as long as we’re having a civilization, our weapons are words and ideas. To use these weapons requires speaking to the enemy.
Jason,
I don’t disagree, but what Obama said–which didn’t even bother to condemn bigotry–isn’t, in my view, an acceptable response to it. He didn’t have to say “people who are opposed to equality are terrible” but he could have actually condemned such evil ideas.
He has been very clear all along that he does condemn such ideas. Again, he distinguishes between condemning the ideas and the people who have them.
I haven’t recognized this distinction enough myself, in my own anger over racism. I’ve let my emotions lead me to make categorical statements about people who have bigoted beliefs. Barack Obama’s way is the correct one however: the way of peaceful struggle for a more just society.
I haven’t heard of many people who have done the community work he’s done. Community organizing of the type Barack Obama did for years is civil rights in action. Perhaps it was during this work, meeting huge numbers of people with diverse histories, when he learned that basically decent people can have some shocking beliefs. If you meet enough people, that’s what you learn.
Simply because he didn’t re-state his civil rights pedigree in a given paragraph does nothing to counteract his previous stated beliefs in civil rights and against racism.
Jason: Here is the paragraph that follows the paragraph posted above:
Again, imagine how that would sound if he were talking about equal rights for racial minorities instead. I think Evil Bender makes a very good point above: Obama can’t say he’s in favor of full equality for GLBT citizens on one hand and willing to listen to those who oppose that equality on the other. He’s going to lose one group or the other, if not both.
Basically, you’re using arguments similar to the ones King argued against in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” quoted above. “Sit down, be nice, and wait your turn” doesn’t work so well when you’re talking about civil rights.
Lizard Queen,
I get what you’re saying but I don’t think I’m making the argument that Dr. King rebutted, I’m making the argument that Dr. King made.
I wouldn’t say that anyone should just be nice and wait their turn for civil rights.
Who said be nice to bigots, or allow them to control things? Engaging with an ideological opponent is a vigorous thing.
Usually, it’s too strenuous for me: I don’t like to argue with bigots. But I hope the president is willing to take the rhetorical fight to them, because they exist in appalling numbers, and they’re taking too damn long to talk themselves out of the crazy stuff they believe in.
Discussion with an ideological opponent is not selling out. To debate, you have to talk and even pause for the other side to talk. It doesn’t mean you give up, or agree, or sell out what you believe. And without having the debate, repeatedly, we won’t change a thing.
It occurs to me to point out that Senator Obama has also been criticized for his willingness to talk to enemy leaders. Similar reasoning applies to foreign policy. Diplomacy isn’t weakness or making nice, diplomacy is the real tough stuff. It’s how to make changes happen.
I think all of the comments here make compelling arguments. While I disagree with Obama doing what I see as pandering to the homophobic black community, I do understand that reaching out and talking to those who fear the LGBT community is a start, albeit a small one. . Obama’s willingness to use diplomacy with regard to foreign policy has always been a major selling point with me but I am just confused with his actions regarding the LGBT community. Especially being a UCCer……Odd. Just odd.
I was ready to throw my support behind him as I simply couldn’t agree with Hillary’s moderate views on issues pertaining to foreign policy in general. I’m now looking heavily towards Edwards, but will remain largely undecided for a long time. Uhg, The Onion headline has a point: “Americans Announce they’re Dropping out of the Presidential Race”
Jason: Okay, I see what you’re saying. I guess when it comes down to it, I see this as an actions-versus-words conflict. Not talking to those who hold bigoted ideas often just results in their continuing to hold those ideas, but tamping them down, which often leads to incidents like what happened in Jena, LA. Discussion is good, negotiation is good, diplomacy is good.
The trouble with the McClurkin situation is that not only did he listen to the idealogical opposition, he gave it a starring role. He chose an “ex-gay,” someone who believes homosexuality is both sinful and a choice, to represent him. I don’t think he did it with any malicious intent. I do, however, think he’s essentially trying to be all things to all people (or all Democrats, anyway), which simply isn’t going to work.
Holy Fatman: “Americans announce they’re dropping out of the presidential race” — too true.
Oops, brain got ahead of fingers: first sentence of 2nd paragraph should read “…not only did Obama listen to the idealogical opposition…”.
I don’t think his religion makes policy for him. He’s discussed this in speeches addressing the issue, sometimes in speeches given at churches. He’s big on separation of church and state, and he’s not going to legislate his private religious practice to anyone.
He supports civil unions with full equal rights but not LGBT marriage. It is too bad that he makes the separate but equal mistake.
But check out Meet the Press. As the man said, separate is not equal. You can tell Obama sympathizes with this, possibly agrees. I’m not saying that’s reason to cheer–but in this interview and earlier, he has indicated soul-searching on the issue, previously expressing concern that those who oppose LGBT marriage now would end up on the wrong side of history.
Civil unions is not the right solution, but among other candidates he ranks high on policy and his enlightenment about LGBT issues.
Look up his record, read what he says and what legislation he has supported, dating back to his days in the state senate. Then compare to other candidates.
Nor do I think anyone here is suggesting it does. The only reference to it was Holy Fatman’s reference to the UCC, the point of which was that it leads those of us who know what the UCC is about to expect Obama to be more accepting than many other Christians would be.
As to the rest of your comment, it doesn’t address my concern regarding the disparity between what he says and what he does. (In fact, it doesn’t really sound like a response to the comments that preceded it at all.)
Lizard Queen,
Yeah, I wasn’t clear.
I was responding to the UCC comment in part, and also concluding my thoughts on the topic for now.
I didn’t respond directly to you because our comments crossed in the web–I hadn’t read your later comment at that point.
But I don’t have a lot to add to what has been said all over about the McClurkin issue. I don’t think that one event is defining when you look at Obama’s record, and the full account of what he says on LGBT issues.
My purpose in commenting here was to address the whole issue of how to deal with numerous ideological opponents and effectively fight for civil rights.
Lizard Queen:
http://www.ucccoalition.org/programs/ona.html
This will explain my comment. I am very good friends with a lot of UCCers and I believe their support for the LGBT community is outstanding. They are extremely proud that Obama is a part of their community.
The UCC church is pretty cool. a few of my friends recently married and we went to their ceremony. The preist was warm , funny and welcoming to us who were unfamiliar to the sect. It was nice to see such friendliness without evangelizing or alienation.
HolyFatman:
I really misunderstood your first comment regarding UCC. I thought you meant the opposite of what you actually did.
You know, with a collapsing economy, two wars that threaten to spill into three (or possibly four if the GOP doesn’t like Pakistan’s pick of leader), labor and environmental protections dwindling to practically nothing, a severe reduction in civil liberties, rampant cronyism, and an all time low in the world’s opinion of us, I’d say gay marriage belongs near the bottom of the list of priorities. I don’t think Obama should spend any political capital on it at all, and if he has to use weasel words (like every single politician running with the possible exceptions of guys like Kucinich and Paul who have no chance of winning) to get out of it then he probably should. Giuliani is (or at least was) all for gay marriage; sure, he wants to cancel habeus corpus and make torture legal, is hawkish as they come on foreign policy, and presided over a city-wide era of incompetence and rampant abuse, but I guess that’s a small price to pay so that Vince in the Mission District can make an honest man of his boyfriend.
Assuming he did decide to fight it though, as a politician his job is to work on policy, not morality. That is to say, he can try and shape events to where there’s no legal difference between homosexual and heterosexual unions (and good luck with that, it’s unprecedented on any large scale in history), but he can’t make people start thinking homosexuality is swell.
I personally don’t care. They can pass a petition to legalize homosexual marriage tomorrow and I’d sign it because I think the state should stay out of peoples’ lives. But no legislator is going to convince me that homosexuality is not, by definition, disordered, and they sure as hell aren’t going to convince me that there aren’t 2376 issues more deserving of emphasis.
Parallelsidewalk:
Claiming civil rights aren’t deserving of emphasis (aside from your baffling and undefended “disordered” argument) is contributing to the problem.
Let’s illustrate by changing the language of your post:
That is to say, he can try and shape events to where there’s no legal difference between single-race and mixed-race unions (and good luck with that, it’s unprecedented on any large scale in history), but he can’t make people start thinking miscegenation is swell.
Comments like yours are exactly why I’m upset at Obama over this: civil rights are too important an issue to concede to those who are (let’s charitably say) “uncomfortable” with homosexuality.
Well, sexual orientation and race simply aren’t the same thing. The reason my statement can’t be converted as you did and still make sense is that there are plenty of precedents in human history for mixed-race marriage and as I said, none on any large scale for gay marriage. However, if mixed race marriage were the issue here instead I’d still say it was not as important as everything else I mentioned. I’m sorry, but we don’t live in a country where gays are sitting at the back of the bus or going to different schools (well, unless they set that school up, as in New York), having attack dogs sic’d on them by the police, etc. We’re living in a country where gay white couples are regularly gentrifying old ethnic and working class neighborhoods, and running the original inhabitants out, which is not exactly my idea of gay apartheid. To say that Obama should cost himself what little edge he might have by throwing in behind this is, frankly, a bit nuts in my view.
I’m sorry, but we don’t live in a country where gays are sitting at the back of the bus or going to different schools (well, unless they set that school up, as in New York), having attack dogs sic’d on them by the police, etc.
Nope. We’re just living in a country where you’re only allowed to get married if they have different kinds of genitalia.
And anyway, I didn’t say “Obama isn’t pushing for gay marriage, so I can’t support him.” He’s not saying “no gay marriage.” He’s just implicitly validating those who don’t want gay people as part of the “community”–you know, segregationists.
Holy Fatman: Yup, I went to a UCC church for a while. In the end I decided church just isn’t my place, but they’re fighting the good fight, imo. :)
Parallelsidewalk: Prior to the Civil Rights movement of the 60s (and still to a certain extent today, just not legally), racial minorities were second-class citizens. Homosexuals are second-class citizens today. How is that acceptable in a country that prides itself on its dedication to liberty?
The situation between racial minorities in the 60s and gays now is not the same (as I already pointed out). Whether they’re getting treated completely fairly is a seperate issue, but what is true is that politics is the art of the possible. Personally, I don’t want the GOP junta extended another 4 years, especially by a fascist like Giuliani, because the Demos feel the need to tell every potential supporter they have that isn’t 100% gay-positive that they’re horrible people. It’s such a staggeringly bad ordering of priorities as to be frightening.
I’m a white man engaged to a Chinese woman. If we were in an exactly identical situation except anti-gay laws were replaced by anti mixed-marriage laws, I would still hold this exact same position. Especially since this isn’t even about which party will allow gay marriage (probably neither) but whether we can hold the demos to a ridiculous standard and force them to act as moral scolds instead of shaping important policy.
[...] 21, 2008 Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, Politics. trackback I’ve made no secret of my irritation with Obama over his right-leaning rhetoric, praise for “bipartisanship” that’s code for [...]
Obama is pushing to have “marriage” be a religious thing, as opposed to a legal thing.
The next step in this, of course, is to allow the religions themselves (as opposed to the government) to decide whom they’re willing to marry, and it’s an entirely appropriate step — but as an individual who is married rather than cohabitating strictly for the tax benefits and other advantages of legal recognition, it seems to me to be a much smaller step
I’ll grant you that King’s legacy says that progress must not be forced to wait — but then, to insist when dying of thirst on a full cup of water or nothing at all when half a cup is offered seems foolish, particularly if accepting that half cup paves the way to more.