Are we reconsidering our plans with the results of Tuesday's elections?
This was asked by a columnist from The Seattle Times yesterday. The answer is no, and I had never even considered the question until he emailed me. Would we go through with this ordeal if our motivations could turn with the results of an election?
The Democrats do not represent me. They play it safe and try not to take a stand on anything. They like to scare liberals with the boogey (sp?) man and say, hey, we're not as bad as those guys. And for that I'm supposed to be excited?
Again, yes, I believe they are the lesser of two evils. But notice that they're still an evil. And together they conspire with the Republicans to keep other parties and other voices out. They limit the public forum, they limit our electoral choices, and have the nerve to claim a name that shares the same root with democracy. And they're not even a real second party -- they're a "lite" version of the other one. Same bad taste, only half the corruption and bigotry! Over and over again, the Democrats have let the Rs control the conversation, define the terms.
And where is the vision? What does the Democratic Party stand for? Can they make a statement with strength, without pandering? Examples: the war in Iraq, the Orwellian "Patriot Act", equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Remember, it was President Clinton who signed the "Defense of Marriage Act." And while folks argue that he "had to" because a veto would have been overturned, it would have been a stand. And what exactly did signing it do for him or the Democrats? And candidate Kerry, instead of saying he believes the government should respect and support ALL families, instead tried to walk the fence and say that marriage is between a man and a woman only. He did this, of course, because he "had to" -- to win the election. How'd that work out? So many Ds are worthy of some kind of entertainment award for tap dancing in discussing their views on the war in Iraq. (Exhibit A: Maria Cantwell, Senator for the State of Washington)
The Rs, for their part, have allowed the religious zealots (The Stranger calls them the "American Taliban") to take over their party. There's a place in public argument to say we should be reserved in foreign policy, careful in taxation and spending, limited in government involvement. Is that what the Rs are today? I don't think so. Where do small c conservatives go? Some Rs made a deal with the devil to gain power. I do believe there are Rs who are disgusted -- but where do they go? (My answer: vote Libertarian, there's no excuse for voting R and I offer no forgiveness. As long as they can count on your vote, they will not change. Take your business elsewhere.)
Anyway, here's the column that Danny Westneat of The Seattle Times wrote after speaking with me. For the most part, I think it represents the conversation we had and, more importantly, doesn't put words in my mouth that I disagree with. I do wish that he had mentioned that I am married and that my husband and I are in this together.
The Democrats do not represent me. They play it safe and try not to take a stand on anything. They like to scare liberals with the boogey (sp?) man and say, hey, we're not as bad as those guys. And for that I'm supposed to be excited?
Again, yes, I believe they are the lesser of two evils. But notice that they're still an evil. And together they conspire with the Republicans to keep other parties and other voices out. They limit the public forum, they limit our electoral choices, and have the nerve to claim a name that shares the same root with democracy. And they're not even a real second party -- they're a "lite" version of the other one. Same bad taste, only half the corruption and bigotry! Over and over again, the Democrats have let the Rs control the conversation, define the terms.
And where is the vision? What does the Democratic Party stand for? Can they make a statement with strength, without pandering? Examples: the war in Iraq, the Orwellian "Patriot Act", equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Remember, it was President Clinton who signed the "Defense of Marriage Act." And while folks argue that he "had to" because a veto would have been overturned, it would have been a stand. And what exactly did signing it do for him or the Democrats? And candidate Kerry, instead of saying he believes the government should respect and support ALL families, instead tried to walk the fence and say that marriage is between a man and a woman only. He did this, of course, because he "had to" -- to win the election. How'd that work out? So many Ds are worthy of some kind of entertainment award for tap dancing in discussing their views on the war in Iraq. (Exhibit A: Maria Cantwell, Senator for the State of Washington)
The Rs, for their part, have allowed the religious zealots (The Stranger calls them the "American Taliban") to take over their party. There's a place in public argument to say we should be reserved in foreign policy, careful in taxation and spending, limited in government involvement. Is that what the Rs are today? I don't think so. Where do small c conservatives go? Some Rs made a deal with the devil to gain power. I do believe there are Rs who are disgusted -- but where do they go? (My answer: vote Libertarian, there's no excuse for voting R and I offer no forgiveness. As long as they can count on your vote, they will not change. Take your business elsewhere.)
Anyway, here's the column that Danny Westneat of The Seattle Times wrote after speaking with me. For the most part, I think it represents the conversation we had and, more importantly, doesn't put words in my mouth that I disagree with. I do wish that he had mentioned that I am married and that my husband and I are in this together.
posted by Daniel wbc at 1:50 PM
5 Comments:
Great post Daniel. I could not agree more. It's also good that you also talked to the reporter. It's empowering to have your voice heard.
We all must be rare people to be going through the process to leave.
People actually asked me if we were moving back!!! They were half-kidding, but only half.
It gets tiring explaining over and over again. At this point I don't bother. Anyone who's still asking me can't really be interested in the answer, or they'd already know.
I'm glad you got your story out there a little bit, although I'm also sorry the reporter (or possibly his editor, you never know) omitted that important piece.
Congrats! While, on a personal level, I fully agree regarding the lack of mention of your husband, etc., there is the possibility that readers will take the "characterization" more seriously without that to "distract" them.
I don't mean "distract" because of overt homophobia, but that the general comments, etc. won't be dismissed with an "Oh, it's all about *that* wave of the hand."
Again, congratulations!
Daniel,
Well Done!!
After reading it, I put a link on our blog to it, as yours was not able to improved upon.
Thanks!
Very well said Daniel. I feel the same way, Democrats or Republicans, always like to play it safe, for their own sake.
Post a Comment
<< Home