6/6/07
On Sunday, the Democrats had their second debate, this time in New Hampshire. I didn't get a chance to catch this one, although I did see a clip where Wolf Blitzer asked Hillary Clinton if it was a mistake on Bill Clinton's part to sign the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy into law. Hillary's answer was that DADT was an important step, and so it was not a mistake. Blitzer then asked which candidates, by a show of hands, thought the time had come for DADT to be eliminated altogether, allowing gays to serve openly. All of the candidates raised their hands, with Senator Gravel blurting out "it should have been ended 20 years ago!"
Clinton's response, as well as Gravel's reaction, are a perfect example of why I have no problem supporting a mainstream candidate (Obama) over a fringe candidate (say, Gravel or Kucinich). In addition to being factually absurd (it would be pretty tough for a 14-year-old law to have been done away with 20 years ago), Gravel's response showed a complete disconnect to how politics work in America, which is odd, considering he is a former Senator. What Gravel and Kucinich, along with their supporters, along with everyone associated with the Green Party, don't understand, or at least seem not to understand, is that compromise is an important part of American politics in general, and of progressive politics in particular.
Another example is civil unions. New Jersey recently legalized civil unions for homosexual couples, and reactions in the liberal blogosphere fell into two camps. One camp celebrated the victory, another bemoaned how they were "at the back of the bus" and chided the rest of us (I count myself in the former group) for daring to celebrate what they perceived as a selling out of the gay rights cause. My answer to them is the same as Hillary's answer to the DADT question: civil unions are not the final piece of the puzzle. They are a stepping stone. Did the labor movement stop with the establishment of a weekend? Did the civil rights movement stop with the emancipation of the slaves? Did the gay rights movement stop with DADT? Of course not. But all of those are important examples of first steps that got the ball rolling. To use the back of the bus metaphor - before that legislation, gays weren't even on the bus. They were walking down the sidewalk. Now that they are on the bus, they can start making their way up front.
Happy does not mean satisfied. Of course, we're not "satisfied" with civil unions. But then again, progressives are never "satisfied". That's what progress means. Once we've won a concession, then its on to the next one. But every concession, every victory, is indeed something to celebrate, and to be happy about.
After all, when the conservatives and the progressives make a compromise, who wins? Conservatives want to keep things the way they are. Progressives want to change things. So, when a conservative says, "ok, you can have this change, but we're keeping that the way it is (for now)", or "ok, we'll change this by this much, but not by as much as you want it", it is by definition a progressive victory, because things are, in fact, changing. And once progress is made, it rarely, if ever, rolls back. Conservatives are forever ceedeing ground to us, but they fight for every inch.
Which brings us back to Obama vs. Gravel/Kucinich. Many progressives would want to know why I'm "sacrificing" my core values to back a more centerist candidate. The fact of the matter is, it's ahistorical to think the world is going to change in the blink of an eye. Change takes place over time, like the evolution of species. Think of this as the evolution of man. Kucinich and Gravel want us to wake up tomorrow with a larger frontal lobe, or infrared vision. Obama knows that improvement takes time. Does that mean we won't get everything we want, right away? Sure. But does that mean we won't get it all, eventually, if we can just be patient? Nope. Eventually, it's all going to happen. We just have to wait it out.
On Sunday, the Democrats had their second debate, this time in New Hampshire. I didn't get a chance to catch this one, although I did see a clip where Wolf Blitzer asked Hillary Clinton if it was a mistake on Bill Clinton's part to sign the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy into law. Hillary's answer was that DADT was an important step, and so it was not a mistake. Blitzer then asked which candidates, by a show of hands, thought the time had come for DADT to be eliminated altogether, allowing gays to serve openly. All of the candidates raised their hands, with Senator Gravel blurting out "it should have been ended 20 years ago!"
Clinton's response, as well as Gravel's reaction, are a perfect example of why I have no problem supporting a mainstream candidate (Obama) over a fringe candidate (say, Gravel or Kucinich). In addition to being factually absurd (it would be pretty tough for a 14-year-old law to have been done away with 20 years ago), Gravel's response showed a complete disconnect to how politics work in America, which is odd, considering he is a former Senator. What Gravel and Kucinich, along with their supporters, along with everyone associated with the Green Party, don't understand, or at least seem not to understand, is that compromise is an important part of American politics in general, and of progressive politics in particular.
Another example is civil unions. New Jersey recently legalized civil unions for homosexual couples, and reactions in the liberal blogosphere fell into two camps. One camp celebrated the victory, another bemoaned how they were "at the back of the bus" and chided the rest of us (I count myself in the former group) for daring to celebrate what they perceived as a selling out of the gay rights cause. My answer to them is the same as Hillary's answer to the DADT question: civil unions are not the final piece of the puzzle. They are a stepping stone. Did the labor movement stop with the establishment of a weekend? Did the civil rights movement stop with the emancipation of the slaves? Did the gay rights movement stop with DADT? Of course not. But all of those are important examples of first steps that got the ball rolling. To use the back of the bus metaphor - before that legislation, gays weren't even on the bus. They were walking down the sidewalk. Now that they are on the bus, they can start making their way up front.
Happy does not mean satisfied. Of course, we're not "satisfied" with civil unions. But then again, progressives are never "satisfied". That's what progress means. Once we've won a concession, then its on to the next one. But every concession, every victory, is indeed something to celebrate, and to be happy about.
After all, when the conservatives and the progressives make a compromise, who wins? Conservatives want to keep things the way they are. Progressives want to change things. So, when a conservative says, "ok, you can have this change, but we're keeping that the way it is (for now)", or "ok, we'll change this by this much, but not by as much as you want it", it is by definition a progressive victory, because things are, in fact, changing. And once progress is made, it rarely, if ever, rolls back. Conservatives are forever ceedeing ground to us, but they fight for every inch.
Which brings us back to Obama vs. Gravel/Kucinich. Many progressives would want to know why I'm "sacrificing" my core values to back a more centerist candidate. The fact of the matter is, it's ahistorical to think the world is going to change in the blink of an eye. Change takes place over time, like the evolution of species. Think of this as the evolution of man. Kucinich and Gravel want us to wake up tomorrow with a larger frontal lobe, or infrared vision. Obama knows that improvement takes time. Does that mean we won't get everything we want, right away? Sure. But does that mean we won't get it all, eventually, if we can just be patient? Nope. Eventually, it's all going to happen. We just have to wait it out.
posted by k - L - g at 5:12 AM
0 comments
