Take a Stand - ANY Stand

"Democrats:  Always standing up for what they later realize they should have believed in."  -Jon Stewart

It's conventional wisdom even among most progressives that putting marriage equality in the spotlight hurts us and helps the right. Setting aside for a moment the issue of whether that should matter (it being politically naive to do the right thing without figuring out first how it will poll),  I've thought for a long time it's simply not true.

Political consultant Eric Jaye things so too, and over at the Swing State Project, they are talking about why:

The thing about leadership is that, inherently, you must be a leader. Unfortunately, the poll-hacks think there is a magic formula of stances that equals victory. Total horse-shit.

.... (B)efore a voter looks at any issue, they will decide whether or not they respect the politician. Poll-driven candidates appear shallow. People respect action, people respect leaders who stand-up and fight for their values. Even if people disagree, they will still respect the politician. Cowards are the doormats of post-modern politics.

They then go on to  quote an article from political consultant Eric Jaye, who challenges Democratic candidates to stop playing word games on the issue of support for marriage equality. It's not, he says, fooling anyone, and no matter how many times they mumble and prevaricate about "marriage is between a man and a woman," no one actually believes it. They are perceived as supporting marriage equality, and why shouldn't they be? As Jaye says:

We have the honor of belonging to a party that has been on the forefront of the civil rights movement for more than 50 years. Most voters, in most states, expect us to stand for civil rights - even when these very same voters are taking a go-slow approach.

So who do we think we are fooling when we mumble finely nuanced positions on gay marriage? The truth is we are only fooling ourselves.

In describing Democratic reaction to challenge on this issue from Republican opponents, Jaye says, "By and large they ducked, with poll-crafted drivel that made them seem like typical politicians, not courageous leaders."

Courage is very appealing. Strong, principled stands can get people to vote for a candidate even when they disagree with those stands. How else, Jaye asks, could Bush have won when the majority of Americans poll as disagreeing with most of his major positions?

Or in my own words... since being lily-livered cowards and taking pathetically tortured and weak-assed stands on marriage equality didn't work too well, what if we tried, you know, doing the right thing for a change?

Read Jaye's article here.

Comments

[Kim]

I think it says a lot about a country, the way the Americans voted in this election past. Every state that was polled about gay marriage solidly voted 'Nay.' But to the man responsible for the death and torture of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children, and hundreds of the bravest US citizens, squandaring incomprehensible amounts of money on this war that has no reason, lying to the world and illegally invading another country, strong-arming the rest of the world, ruining an already shaky economy, and causing the loss of millions of jobs... to this man they said 'Yay.'

I've been told 'the grass is always greener on the other side.' Being Canadian, and your closest neighbours, I will admit, ten years ago your grass was pretty green. These days, I'll take my snow over your grass any day, thank you very much.

That's not to say that we're not having our own difficulties up here trying to legally open marriage up to any two souls who want to pay the fee and sign their names. Although we preach about our tolerance, and our 'melting pot' society, apparantly we do a better job of accepting faith, and race, than lifestyle.

But, we're getting there. We're making progress. Our politicians, much to the chagrin of the national majority, have said outright that they will study our laws, and the rights of Canadians, and make their decision on legal grounds, rather than on personal ones. Why? Because it's NOT a personal decision. Their constituents have sworn to have them booted out of office the very next election day. Most of them are holding strong, willing to give up their jobs to do what's right. Only time will tell, of course, but things are looking positive.

So, after all this ranting and carrying on, there's really only one question you need to be asking. Is re-election enough of a price that you would deny innocent people their rights as human beings?

Because really, that's what's going on here.

On a side note, I find it hilarious up here that all these overly conservative people are putting so much time and energy into preventing people they don't even know from having a licence that doesn't affect them in any way, that they're completely ignoring the fact that Canada will most likely legalize marijuana, eventually. Seems odd, doesn't it? Gay couples are tolerable yet Gay husbands and wives will unravel our moral fiber as we know it. Stoned drivers and dope sold at the corner store? Well, it's ok, as long as homosexuals can't marry.