Once Again, How Gay Activists Can Learn from the Right
Yesterday, on the plane from Cincinnati to LAX, I finally had a chance to read National Review’s “Renewal” (dated December 1) issue. I believe it was their first number published after the election.
As I read the various articles where leading conservative pundits and other columnists addressed the reasons for the GOP defeat and prospects for rebuilding, I wondered if the Advocate — or any leading gay publication for that matter — would devote an entire issue to introspection, criticism of the gay movement and its media and political strategy.
Of course it wouldn’t.
In the regular e-mails I receive from the various gay organizations, I read more anger at the “Yes” campaign than criticism of the “No” campaign. They can’t get over the alleged dishonesty of the proponents of the proposition.
Well, we proponents of John McCain have ample evidence of the dishonesty of the Obama campaign. Indeed, a few of the commentators in that National Review issue mention how the Democrat misrepresented his Republican rival’s position in a number of ads. Unlike the gay organizations, none dwelled on the deceptive ads. They focused on where our side went wrong.
Once again, gay activists have something to learn from conservatives.
41 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
In the regular e-mails I receive from the various gay organizations, I read more anger at the “Yes†campaign than criticism of the “No†campaign. They can’t get over the alleged dishonesty of the proponents of the proposition.
Which consisted of, supposedly, the “Yes” campaign saying that people of faith would be targeted, that gays would use the court system to try to punish those of different opinions, and that gays would commit acts of vandalism and violence.
Dishonest? No. Supremely prescient? Yes.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 2, 2008 @ 3:35 pm - December 2, 2008
NDT, I kind of agree. While the “Yes on 8″ campaign ads were florid, they touched on certain kernels of truth: that gay activists are lawsuit-happy and, too often, out to punish those who disagree with them, especially the religious. And it’s to the gay community’s discredit that those kernels of truth were/are true.
But GPW, the gays you’re talking don’t feel they’ve lost. At least not deep down. They’re leftists. Their guy for President won. And, he will be re-making the judiciary toward ever greater left-gay-activism. And that’s what Gay Left activists care about most. They’re going, “Those evil conservatives beat us again, but Obama and the federal judiciary will reverse them over time, haha!”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 2, 2008 @ 4:24 pm - December 2, 2008
My problem with the analogy is that if Republicans have learned nothing else from this election it should be that the left (and the mainstream media) is the enemy and we had better learn from this and develop strategies which go beyond simply rethinking the message if we hope to be successful.
With regard to gay marriage advocates I think you are right though. I’m very sympathetic - though a tad conflicted - about gay marriage but have yet to find a satisfactorily compelling argument from the pro side and couching the issue in terms of rights and a sense of entitlement arouses my middle finger. This is not a point/counterpoint argument where the “truth” will produce a winner but an issue where the burden to change peoples’ minds rests entirely on the pro-marriage side.
Comment by Eephus — December 2, 2008 @ 4:48 pm - December 2, 2008
You’re assuming, of course, that gay activists want to learn. I’m not even sure anymore that they really want to win.
Comment by Rob — December 2, 2008 @ 7:05 pm - December 2, 2008
With regard to gay marriage advocates I think you are right though. I’m very sympathetic - though a tad conflicted - about gay marriage but have yet to find a satisfactorily compelling argument from the pro side and couching the issue in terms of rights and a sense of entitlement arouses my middle finger. This is not a point/counterpoint argument where the “truth†will produce a winner but an issue where the burden to change peoples’ minds rests entirely on the pro-marriage side.
IIRC, California said that they expected Prop 8 to cost between $5 million and $10 million in lost revenue. I’m not sure if they meant the state itself, or the state government - but either way, it’s not chump change.
Here in Cincinnati, the major push behind the successful 2004 campaign to repeal anti-anti-discrimination provisions in the city charter was financial. Cinci found itself at a major competitive disadvantage in bringing companies to the city and keeping them here because they were not a gay friendly city. The city chamber of commerce puts losses at ~40 million just from lost convention bookings. Apparently, Cinci companies also had a hard time getting qualified employees, and that’s why they backed gay rights measures here in substantial numbers. It really was one of the least divisive gay rights campaigns out there.
Do the economic arguments apply to granting marriage? Not yet, though they probably will as the chunk of pro-gay hets gets larger and the number of married or could be married gay couples grows. But it would be interesting so see what kind of wealth multiplier marriage and the capital investments (houses, cars, and the like) it brings gives, and what kind of economic losses states and society are incurring by not assisting the formation of stable long term gay relationships (whatever we decide to call them).
Comment by Rob — December 2, 2008 @ 7:22 pm - December 2, 2008
“it should be that the left (and the mainstream media) is the enemy”
Yup, makes total sense to consider fellow American citizens as the “enemy” because their views are different. We all want the same thing for this country so stop your ignorant hostile talk and try to be part of the solution. Get over the fact that your party lost. Yes analyze why, but at least be honest. The Repub candidates overall were just as nasty, vindictive and underhanded as the ones you so love to hate. It’s disgusting to see this kind of talk all along the political spectrum. From what I see on various blogs it would be best if the gay marriage advocates and others do everything in their power NOT to learn anything from “conservatives”. There is enough hate on the left no need for them to absorb more from the right.
Comment by Dave — December 2, 2008 @ 8:37 pm - December 2, 2008
Filter, GPW.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 2, 2008 @ 9:33 pm - December 2, 2008
You can provide examples, of course?
Sooo…wallowing in victimhood and blaming everybody else is the way to go, eh?
You get my vote for asinine comment of the day!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 3, 2008 @ 12:46 am - December 3, 2008
Dave, I love how your rant has nothing to do with GP’s post and is just one giant exercise in subject-changing and canards.
TGC has done a fine job, so I’ll just address one point:
No, we don’t!!
- Some of us want America to go in a direction of greater freedom. Others, like yourself and Obama I would take it, want America to go in a direction of ever-increasing regimentation.
- Some of us want America and its ideals to flourish in the world, for example, in crushing the Islamist terrorists. Many others want to stick their head in the sand while it all goes down the toilet. Some (on the Left) have even proclaimed openly their wish to see America defeated. Some have explicitly sided with the terrorists.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2008 @ 10:52 am - December 3, 2008
Is there a link where we can read some of the more salient points? Or can it easily be summed up as a rehash of the National Journal’s 2006 “renewal” cheerleading? From which they said the following:
I’m not sure such Waiting For Godot like historical projections really constitute introspection. But perhaps the third times the charm.
Comment by Erik — December 3, 2008 @ 12:04 pm - December 3, 2008
Here is a good read at Rolling Stone: SAMESEX SETBACK
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/24603325/samesex_setback
Comment by rusty — December 3, 2008 @ 1:10 pm - December 3, 2008
Fear not, Anti-Prop 8 Peoples, Margaret Cho has made a musical about your plight.
Surely, this will win over hearts and minds.
Comment by V the K — December 3, 2008 @ 1:17 pm - December 3, 2008
rusty, before I go there… What makes it “good”, exactly?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2008 @ 2:00 pm - December 3, 2008
I particularly like the last paragraph.
but the views expressed by the writer Dickson hits several key points
but here is the last paragraph:
“The speed at which this issue is moving is unprecedented in my personal political experience,” says Bill Carrick, a prominent Democratic consultant who worked on the presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. “Support for gay marriage has moved so far, in such a short period of time, that I think we’re going to look back at Prop 8 as an aberration. History is headed in a very pro-gay-marriage direction, and it probably is going to happen in a much shorter time than anybody imagines.”
But then the interesting piece is what happened when Guerriero took the reins there was such a change. It took someone like Guerriero to take control and become instrumental. Guerriero is working for Tim Gill and the Gill Action Fund will become a power house.
Dickinson also points out:
And then something extraordinary happened. “Once the progressive community was told, ‘We’re in the fight of our lives, and we’re losing,’ they just responded,” says Guerriero. “No one can say people didn’t wake up.” Volunteers from Google and eBay built a Website for online donations; money started flooding in at a clip of up to $1 million a day. By Election Day, the once-poor No campaign had outraised the Yes side by $2 million.
Sometimes you have to learn how to lose at checkers before you can win.
Comment by rusty — December 3, 2008 @ 2:22 pm - December 3, 2008
From a search: Here is Peter LaBarbera, President of AFT, expressing concerns about GILL and his new hit team: following an Advocate article on the two conservative leaders who are working with GILL
Guerriero, former leader of the Log Cabin Republicans and onetime candidate for lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, and Smith, a political consultant and former employee of Karl Rove, want LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered] people to understand their strategy for winning equal rights — a targeted approach to developing what they call “fair-minded majorities†in state legislatures across the country.
Just some more to chew on. . .
Comment by rusty — December 3, 2008 @ 3:11 pm - December 3, 2008
From Another Blog:
Comment by V the K — December 3, 2008 @ 3:40 pm - December 3, 2008
Ah. So what makes it “good” is that it said things you enjoyed hearing.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2008 @ 3:40 pm - December 3, 2008
(Not that I disagree with the bits you quoted. Just that my interest was in the criteria for an article being “good”.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2008 @ 3:42 pm - December 3, 2008
TGC, not blaming any one or playing a victim simply commenting on the blindspot y’all have about “your side”. As far as examples about the candidates, try reading something other than Free Republic and you would have all the examples you want.
ILC - the comment wasn’t meant to be about GPW’s post it was a response to an ignorant statement by one who would rather drool “the enemy” than get over it and try to make real change. And yes WE DO all want the same thing for this country, to return it (or finally make it) the country of freedom and justice for all. Keep your fracking eyes shut and continue to contribute to the growing split. All most of you care about is having your way, it has nothing to do with what is good for this country and it’s people. I repeat - the left has NOTHING to learn from the right in it’s current degraded state. When real conservatives free themselves from the extremists then perhaps there will be something worth learning.
Comment by a different Dave — December 3, 2008 @ 5:31 pm - December 3, 2008
tried to post this earlier — From an internet search: here is Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth, expressing concerns about GILL and his new hit team: following an Advocate article on the two conservative leaders who are working with GILL
Guerriero, former leader of the Log Cabin Republicans and onetime candidate for lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, and Smith, a political consultant and former employee of Karl Rove, want LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered] people to understand their strategy for winning equal rights — a targeted approach to developing what they call “fair-minded majorities†in state legislatures across the country.
. . .Just some more to chew on. . .
Comment by rusty — December 3, 2008 @ 6:05 pm - December 3, 2008
I guess all 3 of us Dave’s agree. You guys are on the losing side of history. We lost Prop 8 by only 4 points, it lost by 23 points 8 years prior. I have no doubt that it will pass next time, or the courts will strike it down. I predict in 15 years we will have full marriage equality all over the country when the US Supreme Court strikes down DOMA.
Comment by DaveA — December 3, 2008 @ 6:49 pm - December 3, 2008
[engaging adDave to English filter]
TGC, I can’t provide any links except to real loony far left blogs or long discredited claims, so you’ll just have to accept my word that it happened. After all, I’m a liberal, which means I’m caring and kind and good, and you can trust me, right?
[end adDave to English filter]
Comment by The_Livewire — December 3, 2008 @ 8:10 pm - December 3, 2008
ILC - the comment wasn’t meant to be about GPW’s post it was a response to an ignorant statement by one who would rather drool “the enemy†than get over it and try to make real change.
That’s odd; bigot Dave and the rest of the gay left are having no trouble screaming about “the enemy”. Here’s one example.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 4, 2008 @ 1:07 am - December 4, 2008
And here, and repeated and endorsed here.
Nowhere do we see bigot Dave chastising them for “ignorant hateful talk” and telling them to “get over it and be part of the solution”.
Wonder why that is? Could it be because bigot Dave is a hypocrite?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 4, 2008 @ 1:18 am - December 4, 2008
Didn’t say that you were. The gay left, however, is engaged in exactly that.
So in other words, you can’t. One might have said so in the first place and eschewed obfuscation. What’s more, I’ve read exactly 2 posts on Free Republic, the most recent being about a year and a half ago. Probably much to the chagrin of other conservative bloggers, GP is the only one I read. Hell, I don’t even read NR as much as I would like.
But I do know that the liberals had to invent the “kill him” claim so they could cover up the fact that Comrade Obama ran a more negative campaign. I do know that liberals had to smear anyone who wouldn’t suck Obama’s cock as a “racist”. I do know that it was the liberals who worried if he was “black enough” or because he didn’t have “slave blood”. I do know that it was liberals who ran with the “Hussein” part. I do know that it was liberals who suggested that he had to have sold drugs because he’s black. I do know that it was a liberal who dubbed him the “Magic Negro”. I do know that it was the liberals who were all consumed with the color of his skin and still are. Guess when there’s no personal character to rely on, that’s all there is left.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 4, 2008 @ 2:10 am - December 4, 2008
TGC — you’re not a freeper, there’s hope for you yet
NDT - I don’t recall where I ever said on here that the Left is any better at “reaching across the aisle”, respecting differences opinions etc. but since y’all seem to think you’re better than the Left I would expect you to act that way. Clearly many of you are unable to. And yes I have at times commented on it but I rarely visit left wing blogs so I really can’t point you to one. Sorry, but “I’m a liberal, which means I’m caring and kind and good, and you can trust me” :}
#22 Livewire - I enjoy your interpretations of my words. Someday you might get it right but that wouldn’t be as much fun.
Re: “ignorant voters” in many of the presidential races people have voted for a candidate for who/what he was but for who/what he wasn’t.
Carter won in part because he wasn’t a Republican, Reagan won because he wasn’t Carter (they could have run a dog against Carter and it would have won), Clinton won in part because of anti-Republican/Bush 1 sentiment which not only won him votes but split the traditionally Repub voters with many going third party. The Bush/Gore race was a different animal all together. Personally I would certainly classify the 2nd terms of Reagan, Clinton and Bush 2 the result of ignorant voters, but that’s just me
Comment by a different Dave — December 4, 2008 @ 9:38 pm - December 4, 2008
If you really gave a damn, you wouldn’t be a liberal. Liberals don’t care about results, only intentions.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 5, 2008 @ 3:16 am - December 5, 2008
Generalizations about a group of people are used by those who are lazy, ignorant or deliberate liars.
Comment by a different Dave — December 5, 2008 @ 9:08 am - December 5, 2008
Generalizations about a group of people are used by those who are lazy, ignorant or deliberate liars.
Like when Dave labels opponents of ghey marriage as hate-filled bigots, or conservatives as stupid and evil.
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2008 @ 9:37 am - December 5, 2008
I don’t get you people. What makes you feel like you are not entitled to marry the one you love? What makes you people feel like the majority has the right to determine your civil rights? Is it religion? What makes the majority of people who post here think they are unworthy of any recognition of their love? Do you hate liberalism so much you would so blindly support a party that seems so intolerant?
Comment by DaveA — December 5, 2008 @ 12:15 pm - December 5, 2008
Hey V, I’ve never done either one of those things. My statements have always (ok, maybe just mostly) have clearly been about specific groups of those you mention. I understand that SOME is a concept mostly lost on here but I can only be responsible for what I write, not how someone translates it.
Comment by a different Dave — December 5, 2008 @ 6:52 pm - December 5, 2008
What makes you feel like you are not entitled to marry the one you love? What makes you people feel like the majority has the right to determine your civil rights? Is it religion? What makes the majority of people who post here think they are unworthy of any recognition of their love?
Short answer: Because we realize it’s not all about us.
Longer explanation: You have confused being selfish and always demanding that you get exactly what you want with having self-worth.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 5, 2008 @ 10:53 pm - December 5, 2008
And yes I have at times commented on it but I rarely visit left wing blogs so I really can’t point you to one.
I just did point you to one.
Now put your money where your mouth is by going to that site and repeating that the persons who talked about enemies are “ignorant”, “hateful”, and “drooling”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 5, 2008 @ 10:56 pm - December 5, 2008
I don’t get you people. What makes you feel like you are not entitled to marry the one you love? What makes you people feel like the majority has the right to determine your civil rights? Is it religion? What makes the majority of people who post here think they are unworthy of any recognition of their love? Do you hate liberalism so much you would so blindly support a party that seems so intolerant?DaveA,
You dont understand rights, or marriage.
Let me explain it this way. Do you understand that while you have the freedom of speech to say whatever you please, you dont have the right to force people to listen to you, or to give you a microphone, or to approve of what you say?
I already enjoy complete freedom of association. I can spend my life with whomever I want, hold a ceremony, make legal arrangements with that person. What I dont have is the right to force others to value my relationship.
You also are under the erroneous impression that marriage has anything to do with love — from a government standpoint. It doesnt. The government doesnt recognize and subsidize heterosexual marriages because the couples are in love. Indeed, many couples marry for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with love. Do you honestly think that the institution of marriage exists — that taxpayers cough up their hard earned dollars as a sort of grand wedding present?
Society encourages and subsidizes marriage because it benefits society. Look at the black community where 70% of children are born outside of wedlock and you will see that heterosexual marriage undeniably benefits society.
And I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings, but your claims to have a “right” to belong to an institution that exists to encourage procreation within legal bonds because you are in love too, is like claiming you are entitled to recieve a tax benefit given to people who drive hybrids because, even though you drive a hummer, youre just trying to get from A to B like everyone else.
Asking society to let gays marry is asking society to change the definition and purpose of marriage. That doesnt mean it cant be done, or shouldnt be done, it simply means gays need to get over the nonsensical, ridiculous, ignorant idea that they have a “right” to be treated as though theres no significant difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality, and instead start pointing out how it would benefit society, albeit in a different way.
Comment by American Elephant — December 6, 2008 @ 3:10 am - December 6, 2008
oops, that first paragraph should be a quote.
Comment by American Elephant — December 6, 2008 @ 3:11 am - December 6, 2008
[...] Once Again, How Gay Activists Can Learn from the Right [...]
Pingback by Thought Cloud For December 6, 2008 — December 6, 2008 @ 11:09 am - December 6, 2008
#34 Amazing AE, you have posted something that I almost totally agree with. As has been stated here often (though not by me) we need to establish in people’s mind the reasons SSM would benefit society. The problem with that is in eyes of many we are an abomination, a threat to civilization, worse than terrorists. And they vote in people who think just like them (sometimes with gay support). Not likely too many of those minds are going to be change. And if NDT is right and age brings more conservative thinking, cancel the wedding party it’s never going to happen.
Question: are you also against civil unions?
You define “an institution that exists to encourage procreation within legal bonds”. Then polygamy should also be included, more women, more procreation, more children and people to raise them? Or a group marriage - multiple people of both sexes legally bound to procreate and raise their children together. Or marriages arranged specifically “to ensure the purity of the bloodlines”. Or forced marriages for girls as soon as they reach puberty, gives them a lot more years to procreate. If marriage in the eyes of the gov’t is just a license to procreate then it’s a pretty degrading institution and we should want no part of it.
Comment by a different Dave — December 6, 2008 @ 10:49 pm - December 6, 2008
So gay marriage is only about validation?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 7, 2008 @ 12:13 am - December 7, 2008
Then polygamy should also be included, more women, more procreation, more children and people to raise them? Or a group marriage - multiple people of both sexes
That’s the argument that the gay community and the ACLU are making. It surprises no one that adDave is arguing for and endorsing both.
And if you’re not, adDave, why not explain why you’re bringing them up as topics? Is it because you can’t make a relevant argument for gay marriage, so you try to tear down the value of procreation and the importance that marriage has in stabilizing society for children?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 7, 2008 @ 12:28 pm - December 7, 2008
It’s relevant because what AE and other say marriage means leaves the door open for all these things. Whether or not I believe they should be legal or not doesn’t matter (which I know you will take as a yes). I have nothing against procreation and there is nothing in my comments that implies I do so it’s just your bizarre need warp what I say that leads you to thing that.
If the point of marriage is to bring a stable environment to children the keep gays out is ludicrous. Gay couples can be just as good as hetero couples and there certainly is a great need for children to be fostered or adopted. Or is it that because many of those kids come from single parents or broken homes so they don’t deserve a stable environment?
People don’t need a license to procreate so that view of marriage is invalid. Marriage is a commitment that goes well beyond the desire to make babies and that is a valid reason to limit it to two people, what genitals they have is irrelevant.
I feel no need to make a case for gay marriage - the ones on here that constantly attack it are never going to accept what anyone else says because they are always right about everything so why waste the time.
Comment by a different Dave — December 7, 2008 @ 2:37 pm - December 7, 2008
Gay couples in California have every right other couples have except the designation of “marriage”. Since tradition has long applied religious definitions to the term Gays might do better to join conservatives in encouraging the government from sanctioning marriage all together. Marriage deserves no more recognition in secular society than baptism, or other religious confirmation any more than churches require government sanction of their traditions. Since society and individuals do require some legal recognition of household, the institution of “household” would be better defined contract law than general shifting acceptance of religious definitions. If couples want a religious household contract challenge them to be contratually obligated by the definition of marriage of their religion.
Comment by Bob — December 24, 2008 @ 11:15 am - December 24, 2008