Milking the Left

This is a drum I beat fairly often, but what the hey. I can't sleep due to thunderstorms.

Dan forwarded me an "action alert" e-mail from the Gay Liberation Network, a local Chicago anti-bashing organization, that starts with this:

Wednesday, March 8 – Picket against bigot and gubernatorial candidate Jim Oberweis.

Oberweis, known mainly for his dairies and ice cream shops, is a very rich, very right-wing candidate who lives in popular Illinois imagination mainly due to the most ill-advised anti-immigration campaign commercial ever conceived. The main Republican in this year's gubernatorial primary is the pro-choice, gay friendly Judy Barr Topinka, current state treasurer.

Naturally, an Oberweis must appear to fill the right-wing crazy vaccuum, advocating not only a gay marriage amendment that will never pass, but forcibly removing children from gay households. Yeah, he's fun. Don't let the madness stop you, though. His milk products are delicious.

The GLN has me when they advocate protesting an Oberweis. And yet, in that same e-mail:

Saturday, March 18 – Worldwide day of protests on the 3rd anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Whoops, you lost me. I thought the G stood for Gay, not Green. Well, that's a shame. Yet another gay rights group that forgets the entire point of their existence and tosses in with the general left-wing.

Why must gay activists do this? Are they trying to marginalize themselves? There are a lot of people who stand behind them when they speak on Oberweis, then they run off with a bunch of Kossacks and Code Pink types, and the general populace begins associating them with raving lunatics. It's tragic.

Comments

[Malcontent]

Seems like the only think they're being "liberated" from is their sanity.

[beautifulatrocities]

The IGLHRC board got caught recommending it boycott the World Pride event in Jerusalem over the 'occupation', & only backed down when it leaked out. Guess they were gonna go to Pride Weekend in Gaza

[Aatom]

It would be ironic if it weren't so pathetic. The most "inclusionary" political movement of the past 3 decades is also the most exclusionary. No dissent allowed on social/political issues. During the last Presidential election, the rainbow flag was used as a background for pro-Kerry/anti-Bush/anti-war posters. I thought, isn't it strange that I'm more of an outsider to my own community than I am to society at large? Honestly, it was the most excluded and isolated I've felt in many many years. Way to go, gay lefties!

We need to start a counter-movement. A 'big tent' approach to gay issues if you will. the anti-war left has hijacked our lobbying power and we should demand it back.

[Aatom]

lol. this is the quote that is on my Google homepage right now: "A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment."

- Willis Player

This nails is. The gay lobby acts as if we DON'T have anything at stake, and that we can afford to fritter away our resources fighting other people's battles. Which means, essentially, that they have stopped being advocates for gay rights altogether. We have a new enemy, and it is us.

[Aatom]

This nails IT, obviously.

[republic]

Here in the Detroit area, the Triangle Foundation does this exact same thing. Their leadership consistantly marches in anti-war protests, clearly representing their organization with signs and interviews. They have also decided to tackle anti-affirmative action attempts. I do not know about other states, but I do know that here in Michigan affirmatiove action does not protect or help someone based on sexual orientation.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Of course, the amusing part....nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE, on that site do you see anything about blacks making "filthy homosexual" remarks.

To build on Aatom's remark, not only are groups like this wasting our time and money on unrelated issues, but they're turning a blind eye to hate and homophobia because of from whom it's coming. This is why the gay community blew roughly five times the amount of money promoting homophobia that it did on fighting it.

[James]

Aatom,

Well maybe a place to start is for a conversation about what do we mean by gay rights and the gay community. Could it be that the concerns of a Ivy League educated lawyer may be different from the trannie working at Wal-Mart? At some point we are going to have to accept that same sex desire does not mean we all have the same agenda. There are things we can agree on of course, but outside of that we may be looking at each other across the political divide.

peace

[Aatom]

Exactly, James. Which is why it is critical to whittle down our agenda to the most efficient gay friendly platform possible, if we are to maintain any relevence in the political process. marriage, adoption, overturning anti-gay legislation, providing safety nets for the AIDS community. these are things that we should be united in fighting for. If you don't believe in gay marriage, fine, but please don't stand in the way of those of us who wish to have the right. But we can certainly weed out unnecessary dead political weight by avoiding hotbutton issues like abortion and foreign policy for god's sake. a simple recognition from our "own" that we all don't speak with one monolithic voice on every political issue would prove to me that our advocates in the non-profit community recognize the true diversity of our community, instead of simply giving lip service to a diversity that suits their purposes alone.

[Robbie]

James, I can't help but feel that's a little disingenuous, though. Certainly, there are certain issues within the gay rights movement that are about as close to universal as political issues get. Civil unions/marriage/domestic protections (take your pick), health insurance, adoption, AIDS care, meth addiction etc. There is a lot of unifying material on a lot of issues that the gay lobby hasn't conquered. Like Aatom, when I saw the anti-war announcement, I immediately thought, "Oh, so we've solved all the problems facing the gay community, have we?"

Also, when we look at gay organizations that stray into broader politics, they're always on the left. They always go towards the left-wing. I would be willing to bet I, or conservatives, or gay Republicans could get into gay rights with a narrow focus on gay issues. We don't exactly have problems with LCR types trying to subsume gay rights into the pro-life movement. And even then, the LCR is intended to be an organization with partisan purposes. It's always always the Left that has to bring in the extraneous crap.

Look at GLN. They're an "anti-bashing" network, formed after a series of attacks in Chicago's Boystown. Ok, so, community vigilance, awareness, maybe some hate crimes laws, discrimination activism.

How does that dovetail into the war in Iraq? If I gave these people $100, and I found out they were spending funds on a Code Pink parade, I'd be pissed.

It shouldn't be a massive chore to find a gay rights group solely focused on gay rights, and yet it is. What precludes them from sticking to the issue they claim to represent? I'm sorry, but if you look at, say, NARAL's website, you won't find anti-war anything on their front page.

Gay groups are like this lil puppy in the liberal living room, bouncing from group to group, tail awaggin'. "Just love me!" We should have a little self-respect for ourselves.

[Aatom]

no, it's more like the slutty bitch (i'm speaking dogs, naturally) who wants to sleep with everyone in the room except for her date.

[James]

Robbie,

I'm not sure how my comment is disingenuous. I think there needs to be a conversation about gay rights because there are assumptions we make when we use the phrase. Now I'm a proud lefty and will critique the gay left when we turn our ideology into a fabric for the "whole community," but I think a conversation about gay rights and how to achieve them is in order.

peace

[Jake]

"Why must gay activists do this? Are they trying to marginalize themselves? [... T]he general populace begins associating them with raving lunatics. It's tragic."
Wait, you mean the general populace that agrees with them about the stupidity of the Iraq War?

Yes, we do need a narrow agenda that we can commonly agree upon. But when you say "Yet another gay rights group that [...] tosses in with the general left-wing" you're being disingenuous. They're joining the majority of people in the US (who don't always have the best track record, but hey). Protests are a huge waste of resources and time. But people still do them for some weird reason. Who knows...

[Robbie]

James - I meant disingenuous in that we may all have separate agendas outside of gay rights, but the ones constantly throwing the movement offtrack are reliably on the Left. I don't think gay conservatives or gay Republicans have the same kinds of problems with getting together on gay issues that the liberal organizations do. They almost seem to have a monopoly on sowing this kind of discord.

Jake - A majority may now oppose the war in Iraq, but the parades/protests are generally a carnival of far Left causes that your average American wouldn't latch onto.

Jeff/BA - I think we covered the World Pride issue here *searches*

http://malcontent.typepad.com/malcontent/2006/02/all_the_islam_t.html

[Another Gaymer]

On the other hand . . . politics as practiced in the USA is about forming coalitions. You don't have to share the exact same views as other members of a coaltion; you just have to overlap enough to agree to work togther. All the pretty speeches and compelling arguments might make someone momentarily thoughtful, but unless that turns into actual voting power, nothing will change.

And when it comes right down to it, which is the more broadly sympathetic to implementing civil rights, the right or the left?

So go to the march on the 8th, and don't go to the one on the 18th. Support moderate Republicans who seem sympathetic to gay civil rights against whackjob Dems who want to illegalize homosexuality. Call out hypocrisy in opposition leaders when they betray their principles and constituents, and also ally leaders who fail to mention or even tacitly support real persecution abroad in foreign regimes.

But don't kid yourself in terms of where that next vote will come from that will bring you one step closer to civil equality.

[Robbie]

There are coalitions, and then there are coalitions. Gay rights groups don't kind of form coalitions with liberalish organizations. No, they go whole hog into the most odious forms of Leftism. It's troubling.

I think your point reveals how historically unaware much of the gay movement is to their position. Civil rights movements never succeed because one piece of the political spectrum comes around to a way of thinking. They only triumph when a broad section of the American public sympathizes with them. Gay marriage will never come about by having only Democrats on board. The recent gay marriage amendments should have shown activists that they need to do some serious wooing of moderates and right-of-center types at the very least.

When they throw in with the far Left, they alienate a lot of voters who they will need to get what they want. And they don't even have the Left entirely. All these years of work, all that money, all that marching, and the Democratic presidential candidate still sent them down river when he realized he had to win the red states.

Gay rights activists have to make inroads with red state America if they ever hope to succeed. These alliances with far left causes are utterly counter-productive and a total waste of time and resources.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Also, "coalitions" would mean that the groups involved keep their separate identities and agree on a single or small group of points. You can still differentiate between the groups on other points.

Problem is, gay groups don't form coalitions, as Robbie pointed out; they merge whole-hog into the other group and lose their separate identity.

Case in point: abortion.

Witness the gay oligarchy arguing that it's perfectly OK for someone to support the FMA because she supports abortion.

Witness the gay organizations arguing that unlimited abortion and gay rights are the same thing.

Witness the gay media repeating the same message -- unlimited abortion and gay rights are the same thing.

Then look at the poll statistics, which show that a vast majority of Americans SUPPORT parental notification and some limitations on abortions.

Add the worship of Louis Farrakhan, breathless support of the Cindy Sheehan moonbats, and screaming "homophobia" because Brokeback Mountain didn't win enough Oscars, and it should be obvious how far out of the American mainstream gays have deliberately pushed ourselves. And yet it still surprises us that over half of Americans consider homosexuality "immoral" and strong majorities repeatedly vote for stripping gays of rights.

And you know why we do it? This sort of statement:

But don't kid yourself in terms of where that next vote will come from that will bring you one step closer to civil equality.

This is why, Another Gaymer, the gay community is politically and socially impotent; the left and the Democratic Party know full well that gays are completely and totally incapable of criticizing them. They talk a good fight, but when it comes right down to it, Dems can endorse stripping gays of rights, or call them "filthy", and gays will still pump them millions of dollars and undying support based on rationalization and the hope that something "might" happen in the future.

[Aatom]

"They talk a good fight, but when it comes right down to it, Dems can endorse stripping gays of rights, or call them "filthy", and gays will still pump them millions of dollars and undying support based on rationalization and the hope that something "might" happen in the future."

bingo. the Dems strategy to keep gay voters has always been to dangle feelgood talking points once in a while, and then point a giant finger at the big bad GOP (which does play the devil to their advocate rather well) to keep us distracted. All the while doing nothing to make life better for gay Americans. And when directly confronted, they retreat into family values rhetoric and then give us a big wink and say "but you know we just HAVE to say that stuff, right?" No political courage, just doublespeak to whomever they happen to be talking to at the time.

So just where and when is this "next vote that will bring us one step closer to civil equality" exactly? the only votes that have mattered recently have shoved us further and further into the closet, with little to no resistance from the Dems, and the two biggest losses we have sustained in recent history, Don't Ask Don't Tell and the DOMA, were both signed into law by Bill Clinton.

[Aatom]

p.s. not that I don't LOVE Malcovision, and I have no doubt that's a where a sizeable percentage of your traffic comes from now, but I miss seeing more political/cultural posts like this one. Look at me, complaining about YOU not posting enough for a change. ;)

[republic]

I always love to read your posts North Dallas Thirty. You seem to get it exactly.

[Robbie]

Yeah, I keep meaning to do more political posts, but work has been insane the past month or so. Malcovision isn't too bad, as I can record things into the editor and chop them up as I do my paperwork at night. But, argumentative things require actual reading and writing, and ehhhh, I'm usually too tired to get around to it. As it is, I have two books I need to review and post about that I still haven't read. I get a few pages in, and I fall asleep.

Nothing against the books, it's just how little sleep I'm getting these days.

[Tommy]

I don't understand why you would complain about gay rights groups forming coalitions with "left-leaning" causes. If it matters to you, form your own gay rights group and form coalitions with "right-leaning" causes. And then you and the gay-lefties can coalate together. Sounds like a fun time.

[Seattle]

Tommy: The problem is that the "work" done by those gay rights groups who are in bed with lefties is detrimental. It's setting back the cause of progress on gay rights issues, as various commenters have documented above.

[Tommy]

Seattle: OK Thanks for the generalization.

[Scott]

You guys don't get it! Everything is all related to everything else. It's like the PETA founder's favorite maxim: A boy is a pig is a rat is a dog. Kill a rat, and you might as well kill a boy. Bomb an Iraqi insurgent, and you're bombing a Gay hairdresser (or poor Lesbian softball player) in, say, Oklahoma. That's the logical modus operandi which runs our bizarro world today. Coalition-building, which used to mean disparate groups working together on common interests, now means "support my agenda 100%, and I'll support yours 100%--and don't think of expecting anything less".

I used to be quite involved in one national GLBTQXYZ organization, but I stopped attending their national conferences a few years ago when I realized that they were basically gatherings for the urban ultra-left and they could care less about me, a white boy from a rural Red State, or even any of my female persons-of-color fellow citizenry. To borrow from a song, if I had a million dollars (okay, maybe $50 million), I'd start a national Gay organization that was truly national (not just coastal or urban), and truly grassroots and tuned into the pulse of Middle America, not just the throbbing boners of The Castro and Chelsea. Aatom is right: a big tent approach is something that's sorely needed. I, too, feel more alone in my own non-community than in society at large.