Now that the Iowa caucuses are over, I’ve noticed posts on several of the blogs on my regular reading list with titles blaring “So-and-So for President” or “Why I’m Supporting Such-and-Such,” followed by reasons why candidate This-and-That deserves even more support. I guess it’s to be expected, now that the presidential campaign has begun in earnest.
However, I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon, for a couple of reasons. First, I’ve already declared who I’m supporting in the primaries. And, second, I already know my candidate isn’t going to get the nomination, because he doesn’t even have the support of progressives who hold the same positions he does.
I know, because a few weeks ago I sat around with some other progressives, talking about the election, the issues, and the candidates. Once we went through all the issues, someone asked the question that was hanging in the air, or at least it was in my mind. “So if he’s right on all of the issues, why isn’t Kucinich our guy?” The question got the typical response, but it left another question looming in my mind. If we aren’t voting for what we want, what are we voting for? More to the point, who are we voting for?
The reason I’m even thinking about this is because when I initially read that my candidate asked his supporters to back Obama if he didn’t make the cut-off in Iowa, I was worried that perhaps he might not last out the primary season. (Whether, or how much, that contributed to Obama’s historic Iowa Victory, I can only guess.) And that’s because the primaries are the only time I can actually vote for what I want, instead of settling for what I can get.
As gay man with a partner and a family, that comes in to very sharp focus. But as I look around I can’t help wondering why so few of us are doing he same, and why. Far be it from me to tell anyone else how to vote or who to vote for, but when buckets of gay dollars and hordes of gay volunteers touch down in Iowa, and a major gay organization appears to be deploying resources in New Hampshire, for a candidate who can’t even divorce herself from DOMA (and who may be “the least supportive” of the Democratic candidates [Via Queerty.]), I find myself wondering if the Republicans aren’t the only geniuses at persuading people to vote against their own interests.
Two major candidates have at least come out in favor of a full repeal of DOMA. That’s not support for marriage equality, but it’s a step towards removing a significant barrier to marriage equality. How, then, do we support a candidate who would leave most of that barrier in place, given the problems that “leaving it to the states” creates for our families?
The intro to Kucinich’s Advocate interview pretty much sums it up.
Let’s review: Of the seven Democratic contenders, only former Alaska senator Mike Gravel and Kucinich support gay marriage. The rest are content with federally recognized civil unions or domestic partnerships. On other important gay issues, Kucinich, like his competitors, supports a trans-inclusive employment nondiscrimination act, a federal hate-crimes law covering sexual orientation and gender identity, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” access to survivor benefits, equal tax treatment for same-sex couples, unfettered gay adoption, and funding for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment.
But let’s say you’re like the 79% of gays in the Hunter poll who don’t consider gay rights the most important issue affecting your vote. In that case it might be important to note that Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate to oppose the Iraq war from the outset, when it was political suicide to do so. He supports not-for-profit universal health care, withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreeement and World Trade Organization until all countries agree to the same environmental and human rights standards, and raising the minimum wage. He’s pro-choice and pro–medical marijuana, and he introduced impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney.
In short, he’s the candidate we’ve been asking for. So why aren’t you voting for Dennis Kucinich?
Kucinich himself provides the answers, in his responses to the interview questions. But what stood out most to me were the consequences of not voting for what we want when we have the rare chance to do so, and thus essentially vote against ourselves instead of for ourselves.
Playing it safe means forgoing marriage equality. That’s accommodating a system that’s ready to deny people fundamental human rights. To me, the minute you stop fighting for your rights is the minute you start losing your rights. That’s what’s happening in America today. The wiretapping, the eavesdropping, the government going into people’s health records and financial records. We’ve stopped fighting for our rights. The peace movement has basically given up.
…I think there’s a winner’s psychology, which the mass media propels, that promotes a false consensus. And actually it often disenfranchises people, because people keep voting against their own interests.
The one great gift the LGBT community has given to the world is personal authenticity, integrity, and the courage to be who you are in an open and uncompromised way. There’s real power there. You’re going to give that up to vote for someone because they might win and they don’t stand for marriage equality? To me, that’s antithetical to the entire movement and counterproductive to the point of being worrisome.
This is the one community that should be strong enough. If you make concessions on the issue of marriage equality, the possibility of it happening is going to diminish. The reason any gains have been made is because people were willing to go out on a limb. And you know what? That’s where the fruit is — out on the limb.
It’s the first sentence that keeps repeating in my mind. Backing down on equality, or putting it on the back burner is essentially making concessions to prejudice and discrimination, if only by allowing it to go on without a strong challenge. In that sense, there’s barely a dime’s worth of difference between an incrementalist and an accommodationist.
I understand the “win what we can win now” approach, because it’s nothing new. It’s the same gradualism that’s a part of ever civil rights debate. And, as in every other civil rights debate, the implication of gradualism is that some people will have to continue to endure injustice without remedy.
Its one thing to be an incrementalist and at least be honest about that last sentence. It’s quite another to declare that it is the right thing to do to ask others to continue to suffer injustice without remedy is the right thing to do, that they ought to be glad to do it, and that they are wrong for objecting to it.
…And for movements that are supposed to be about progress and equality, it’s a matter of of a certain degree of concession to the opposite of both.
…Power concedes nothing without demand, indeed. But what do we concede?
What do we concede? And why? We all know that, come the general election, there will be no major candidate who fully supports our equality, or at least who has the courage to do so publicly. But when we have a candidate who does support equality, we stay away in droves.
Maybe there are other reasons, on other issues, many of us are supporting other candidates who are less-than-supportive of full equality (at least in public), but looking at where things are headed, I’m reminded of a quote that echoes the question in my mind. Right now, it seems like an appropriate question for gay voters and the candidates many of us are supporting.
“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?”
Yet another quote also seems appropriate.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Only slightly more bewildering is the willingness to accept lukewarm acceptance, with enthusiasm and even gratitude.
Not to mention voting for it.
Maybe I’m to much of an idealist, but in America a right now there’s a very narrow window during which I can actually cast a vote that has my heart and my hopes in it. I know it won’t be a “winning vote,” but to pass on that opportunity would be an even bigger loss in some ways.
So, during the primaries, I’m voting for what I want. I’m voting for what I hope for. I know that come November I’ll have to settle for I can get. But I’m not going to do that until I have to.
I don’t know how many progressives are doing the same. Either they’re flocking to less progressive candidates, or there are even fewer progressives than I thought.
Honestly, Terrance, the problem for many progressives, such as myself, is that I don’t like Dennis and I don’t think he is genuine. I think he sucked as a mayor, I think his position on choice is a convenience of the moment, I think he is just as crazy as Huckabee in some of his New Age beliefs, I would never trust him to be my lawyer and represent me in court because I consider him a flake, and generally disagreeable and unlikeable. He doesn’t have the stature or temperament or talent to be president, I don’t like him personally, and I don’t trust him. Add it all up, and it is a slam-dunk why I won’t vote for him.
Having said that, it’s important that he’s in the race representing the far left wing of the Democratic Party on issues that we would like to make mainstream positions within the party, like: repeal of DOMA, and single-payer non-profit health care. I’d prefer if someone with a better track record would replace Kucinich as the spokesperson for those values. Kucinich does more to marginalize our positions than he does to mainstream them. And, frankly, everytime I see Dennis, I want to eat cookies.
I’m guessing that while Terrance’s thoughts are inspired by progressives’ relationship with Kucinich, his focus isn’t merely on the rejection of Kucinich the candidate, but on what it is that informs our civic duty, in light of individual self-interest, if not our crucial aspirations & desires. Unwise compromise does seem a chronic thing.
you’re right, and correct to steer the conversation that way.
Thanks. I’m actually very appreciative of Terrance’s post at this particular stage of the game & not only regarding the election. Recognition of the validity of communal self-interest will be crucial as the nation meets its future.
hey boo- read the second graf that Ter blocks in. And as sorry as I am to say this, nah, i’m not sorry at all– We have seen just what the Ya Suh Mistuh Bush position has done. And to steal from the nutso’s book, I just don’t think that appeasement is working at this point in our history!
It’s always been the “nuts” that have shown the way! True, they usually aren’t there at the end but without them, there wuld never have been a journey!
What I do know is that without MLK, this country would still have black Only drinking fountains and they would still be sitting in the back of the bush.
& which ones to run away from.
Frankly, Terrance, I’d say that there are fewer true progressives than we think (if progress leads us decisively from the Status Quo, rather than ever-so-incrementally) — who may, nonetheless, rightfully consider themselves progressive in contrast to a centrist Left (as the Right, of course, dances gleefully with Fascism). The progressive position is actually relative.
Secondly, however: materialist cultural norms dictate that the heart’s wisdom is basically irrelevant as guidance.
first of all — hows the addition? And more importantly, How many diapers have YOU changed?
Now, having said that, re the idea of voting for “someone who can win!” is what you are seeing Mr T. Its simple. I don’t go along with that process but the average joe and joess will always make it as easy as possible for themselves and so they figure that if they can find someone that comes close to their self designed candidate, they will hook on and vote for that person. They have accepted that their “Ideal” doesn’t stand a chance so they will seek out number two and the sooner they do it the more secure they will feel. Just one less thing for them to have to worry about!
He’s doing great. At one month old, his cheeks are chubbier, his legs have those extra folds that babies have, and he’s got a couple more chins than he did when we walked out of the hospital with him.
And I’ve changed probably about half the diapers to date. Being a same-sex couple, we don’t have a gender-based division of labor. So who does what depends mostly on who has a free hand at the moment. Either that or, as with nightime feedings, we split it 50/50 and take turns.
Like I said before, I know that come November I’ll have to shelve my hopes and vote for the “least worst” candidate, probably. Or vote without as much enthusiasm as I might have before.
Blessings on the health of your baby, Terrance!
I completely agree that voters should not compromise themselves when they vote in primaries. I was angry in 2006’s Pennsylvania senate primary when every liberal I knew voted for Bob Casey Jr. instead of the two genuine progressives in the race. Primaries are not the time for compromise – you should vote your interests. Now those liberal friends are sorry they voted for Bob Casey Jr., because even a communist ham sandwich would have defeated Rick Santorum.
Dennis Kucinich is another matter. I don’t like some of his radical positions: he’s against nuclear (stupid and shortsighted) and he thinks we should withdraw from the WTO. He was also a really terrible mayor. That’s why I don’t even consider voting for him.
I voted for Chuckie P.
Booman brought up Kucinich’s new age beliefs. I forgot about them. How can you take anyone seriously who thinks that we should text message for peace?
How can we take seriously people who take the words anonymous first century writers so literally that they’ve dubbed I-35 the “Holy Highway” because they think it’s in the Bible, believe the earth can’t be any older than 6,000 years, and celebrate war in the Middle East because they believe Jesus is going to meet them in the mid-air sometime next week and save them a front row seat to watch the world blow up?
I don’t know, but we do. Or at least our candidates take them seriously enough to try and appease them, and win them over by bending over backwards to (a) not offend their beliefs and (b) suggest that that share most if not all of those beliefs.
Those beliefs are no more “wacky” than Kucinich’s beliefs, but they’re so privileged in America that you can say so.
Kucinich’s beliefs aren’t any crazier than Clinton’s, Obama’s, Edwards’, Huckabee’s or Romney’s. And no less founded in reality either.
Fine. I think that his beliefs are wacky, and I’m still a progressive.
On the other hand, how can you take any American pol seriously who claims to be God’s personal envoy on earth, in the eternal battle between Good & Evil? This is totally acceptable & correct, however, for those with a certain mindset. It doesn’t scare them.
radical????? Nuke energy. Ise, and stop supporting the WTO- Yup thats disgraceful.
I guess its radical to stop Nuke energy producers until the can show that they can safely destroy a product that lasts 10, 000 years and that has the capacity to kill any living creature that comes in contack with it. Thats for starters.
WTO- For crying out loud, here is an organization that continues to support the subjucation of millions of the poor everywhere that they have been able to stick their greedy paws into. Sure, we’ll lend you funding but you have to agree to our usury fees, our decision making involvement in you countries future economic policies and you will produce what and how much Plus, you must purchase from whomever we tell you to purchase from! Yeah, thats another crazy idea!!!!!
OPEN YOUR EYES!
Those ideas are radical and I think anyone would agree. Producing energy is dangerous and costly, and will continue to be in the near future. Nuclear power is the safest way of producing electricity. I like my electricity don’t you?
I want change … progressive change. And I don’t think Kucinich can deliver any, even if he were to get the nomination, and even if he were to win the General Election. So I do not support him for the nomination, entirely irrespective of whether I think he is electable.
But I’m happy that he’s around saying those things … and the ones that I do not entirely support, like a whole new State Department called the Department of Peace, instead of fighting to restore the position of the State Department vis a vis the Attack Department, well, I am not supporting him anyway so I don’t have to get fussed about it.
I too am perplexed by the reflexive antipathy towards Kucinich exhibited by some progressives. The Kos link and the Booman comment illustrate this hostility perfectly.
Perhaps progressives have internalized the dominant political and media message over the last two decades that their core beliefs are “kooky” and too radical for America. And the one bright spot of being in the wilderness is that progressives have the luxury of only having theoretical policy positions. Very few have even tried to implement real progressive change on a national level. Even the progressives’ putative allies, the Democrats, treat progressive core positions as loony. So when a candidate finally argues for real progressive policy changes maybe it scares progressives because finally their positions are getting heard and they react in fear, disproportionately focusing on Kucinich’s personal flaws–as if to say, “A real progressive is not kooky but rational and I will join you in mocking Kucinich to try to prove to you that we progressive are rational and normal.”
The only thing is that those other Democrats and the republicans and the media are not mocking Kucinich because of his spiritual beliefs or his appearance. They are mocking Kucinich because they believe the liberal platform is kooky.
Every time I see a progressive mock Kucinich’s appearance or single out his spiritual beliefs for ridicule (when plenty of other candidates have equally fanciful, albeit more mainstream, beliefs) I see a self-loathing Uncle Tom attack on the very principles of liberal progressivism. Progressives would be much better off focusing on why Kucinich’s platform is the most sane and less on his personal indiosycracies.