I don’t know if President Obama’s announcement today that he personally supports the right of same sex couples to marry will help or hurt him electorally, but from my point of view, it is absolutely the right call. And I’m not gay.
Glenn Greenwald, who is, credits Obama’s actions, regardless of their motivation. I agree.
The phony, dodgy political convenience that politicians hide behind, playing coy with the electorate about their beliefs on an issue for ‘tactical’ reasons — or worse, the awful ‘tell me what you want me to say I believe’ inauthenticity — weakens the ‘House of Representatives’ system in my view. It weakens us all.
I remember then-Wellington Central MP Fran Wilde, my next door neighbour at the time, courageously spearheading the Homosexual Law Reform campaign where her opponents — ‘god-fearing social conservatives’ and supposedly ‘upright citizens’ — threw all sorts of despicable smears. It was awful. Displaying hateful intolerance, they acted hysterically, obnoxiously, outrageously … shoving in as many references to sodomy as they could muster in their desperate attempts to stop keep someone’s sexual orientation being, in effect, a crime.
Laws that had oppressed others and covered up hateful, truly criminal behaviour like ‘poofter-bashing’ in New Zealand for generations, were viewed as some sort of last bulwark of decency. Political dog-whislte slogans like ‘A Decent Society’ were deployed, ignoring the fact that senior people and rising stars in that very Party were, let’s say, not completely unacquainted with homosexuality themselves.
How far we’ve come from those dark days.
Not all social taboos are sensible, it seems to me. And, let’s face it, sometimes the law is an ass. e.g. The US’s ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ which I understand reserves such spousal ‘benefits’ as couples’ tax treatment for committed relationships between man-and-woman ONLY is doomed to be about as successful as Custer’s Last Stand. Wake up and smell the human rights, people.
Also, the very real potential for injustice where a spouse-in-all-but-civil-status can be not just discriminated against, but practically alienated, for instance, denied medical information/hospital visitation rights (for REAL) and the truth about their long term committed relationship obfuscated by narrow-minded bigots can’t remain unaddressed.
I don’t care what pushed Obama to make his statement. Good on him.
Coincidentally, Obama’s move today also spikes the guns of Roger Ailes’ protege Governor Chris Christie who, as recently as February was able to justify his ‘position’ on gay marriage as ‘Gov. Christie: I’m with Obama on gay marriage‘.
For all sorts of reasons, and as counter-intuitive as it may seem, politics seems to work better with clearer choices (short of the astro-turf hyper-partisanship of the Tea Party-ilk). See our discussion of Politics as the art of polarization.
From the ABC ‘exclusive’ today:
President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.
In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this decision, based on conversations with his staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and his wife and daughters.
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday.
The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states’ deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.
…
Roberts asked the president whether first lady Michelle Obama was involved in his decision. Obama said she was, and he talked specifically about his own faith.“This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president.”
– P
Re “in their desperate attempts to stop someone’s sexual orientation being, in effect, a crime”, I think you mean to ensure it remained a crime?
I fully agree with our law decriminalising sexual orientation. What I find offensive now, however, is the insistence on having homosexual behaviour pushed in our faces seemingly whenever we turn on tv. I also resent our television masters insisting we should all be voyeurs… remember when people watching other people having sex were called “peeping toms”?
Thanks Graeme. Typo. Fixed: ‘… in their desperate attempts to keep someone’s sexual orientation being, in effect, a crime.”
I completely agree with Graeme. The drive to “normalise” things beyond the decriminalisation – is nothing short of goebbels-like propaganda. I’ve got no problem with someone else doing what they do in private – but when it is shoved at you every day and particularly via the media is a bit too much to take. Personally i have an issue with heterosexual behaviour also being shown like continual softporn in the media.
But then i’m someone who is never surprised how some young ladies now behave – when their mums let them dress like prostitutes.
The other thing i dont like – is that its not acceptable in this PC world to be “against” anything apart from the approved items on the PC list.
Nice to see you two agreeing!
This, from Graeme:
And this from Ivan:
… are exaggerations of almost satiric proportions, it seems to me.
Or do they perhaps (the comments) belie a sensitivity as reasonable as that phobia where people can’t stand the sight and sound of other people eating?
A bit like the prejudice suggesting homosexuals are predisposed [supposedly] to being predators or paedophiles, I think the incidence of such episodes and occurences involving homosexuals are dwarfed by heterosexual sexual predation, abuse and bad behaviour — i.e. if it bothers you, there’s a lot more ‘straight’ sex visible in media, art and advertising.
And for my contribution to the ‘never woulda happened in my day’ nostalgia quotient: What about all the tampon ads? (With beavers, no less?) Crikey, times have changed.
– P
Well – Graeme isnt always completely wrong .. which gives me hope for the future.
Now now now Petey ….here’s what i mean – ya cant say you dont like something without some bloody journo type inferring that there is something sort of – well – wrong – about it.
OK i admit it … scenes of gratuitous fucking are something i can do without particularly when eating. I thank my many Gods and Goddesses for the ability to record programmes and then fast forward through the naughty bits.
And i hate tampon ads – they conjure up imagery of women with splayed legs inserting absorbent stuff up their good bits. You started it Pete – not me.
What do you call a greek with a tampon behind his ear …. “absorba”
Now Petey – you arent perchance trying to be “provocative” and “mischievous” are you.
Or are you just metrosexual and proud of it …
Actually Pete – on reflection – i want to call bullshit on your comments. You label the comments of Graeme and myself as “exaggerations…”
You demonstrate a happy knack of seeming to be on everyones side at the same time – while maintaining happy relations with those in total opposition to any previously expressed views of yours. Some would call you a “whore” … i tend to think you are in an early mid life crisis while surrounded by a comfortable lifestyle and accompanying technology lulling you into a false sense of wisdom.
Its called journalism and the media i guess.
You have children – think very carefully about what you want them to be exposed to – see – experience etc.
Bad company corrupts good morals …. these days that bad company is virtual in nature. I am glad i dont have kids living through this current manifestation of life.
Quote from Mr Aranyi: “And for my contribution to the ‘never woulda happened in my day’ nostalgia quotient: What about all the tampon ads? (With beavers, no less?) Crikey, times have changed.”
As far as the historical dimension is concerned, refer to the New Left-wing movements of the 1960s (albeit, you could go back to as far as the libertinism of the Enlightenment era).
Something which is seldom understood: the “Sexual Revolution” (i.e., the counter-culture) was pioneered by Marxist theoreticians; indeed — excluding the fact that, in modern political lexicon, the roots of the Left are to be found in Marxian socialism — feminism, abortion, et al., achieved a certain social credibility with the advent of a bogus Social Democracy: that is to say, contraception, abortion, erotomania, and so on, was no longer stigmatized in the public sphere.
The Frankfurt School (a School of Thought predicated on Marxian dialectics) was the “intellectual think-thank” of — and still remains as such in point of fact — the 1960s New Left movement. The work of Herbert Macusse is a good reference point (refer to his work,”Eros and Civilization”, the seminal work of the New Left sexual revolution, an exegesis of psychoanalysis and Marxian social and economic theory).
I in no way defend baby-boomer “Conservatism”. Marilyn Monroe, a promiscuous secular deadbeat, is in no way a “conservative” idol to my mind (though most post-50s bourgeois opportunists, who milked the so-called “economic miracle” for what it was worth, would say otherwise). But, as far as political orientations are concerned, what does modern “Conservatism” comprise? The conservatism of 60 odd years ago is counter-productive. As things exist today, the damage is seemingly irreparable. The West is culturally, socially, and morally bankrupt — which perhaps only the archaic, the antithesis of modernity, forming a synthesis with modernity itself, can rectify.
Often the term “reactionary” elicits negative connotations in the minds of purported dissidents, insomuch as its avid defenders apparently seek to “preserve” a certain status quo of the currency speculators: for example, the economic miracle of the post-New Deal epoch of the 1950s. The status quo, however, is always shifting, constantly moving in cyclical motions of unbridled anarchy, i.e., some rise, some fall. What most people seek to “preserve” in our institutions today has already been destroyed. Thus, effectively, they defend what’s already been reduced to rubble. A cultural, moral and social progressive, in that sense, often becomes a preservationist, in the end.
As for gay marriage, I don’t really oppose it. I do however feel obliged to point out that — in the case of where I live, for one example — homosexuals — as a cultural substratum — are predominantly concentrated in affluent, suburban cities. Exceptions are to be made of course, and my contention is in no way infallible; generally speaking, though, the homosexual lifestyle is part-and-parcel of the “Leisure Class”; which is to say, they form a privileged socio-economic consuming stratum, which is why workers are more “homophobic” than the “emancipated” middle class.
The working class are apparently a lot more bigoted than most would think — and that is a fact. It has nothing to do with sexual ethic or sexual orientation, per se. The economic ramifications of perceived inequality is what elicits reaction from this particular electorate.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment.
It’s interesting how much ‘baggage’ is attached to some terms describing social movements and the (dangerous word alert:) evolution of society.
Where you might see, and state as a given:
I read eager readiness to perceive social decay (and an element of wishfulness about ‘archaic’ values providing salvation?)
Meh, not so much.
Those societies that today live under a semblance of such archaic values don’t seem to me to have much to recommend them in the way of individual human freedoms.
re Your point about ‘tolerance’ being a virtue of those who can afford the luxury, viz:
As my friend Ivan would say: With respect, I call bs on virtually all aspects of that dubious claim.
Bigotry, like sexual predation, incest and domestic violence knows nothing of social class boundaries.
Thanks again for dropping by. Feel free to continue to contribute to the dialogue.
– P
Update: On my ‘baggage’ comment: I meant to link to this — there’s currently a flutter of controversy about playwright David Mamet’s ‘conversion’ from liberal to conservative which David Frum examines in this interesting article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/09/the-secret-knowledge.html
which includes this passage which leads into :
I feel that way, a bit, about arguments (like yours, and on a related spectrum, Colin Craig’s ) which appear to try to re-litigate past social ‘values’ changes in terms of past ideological battles.
Aranyi writes: “I read eager readiness to perceive social decay (and an element of wishfulness about ‘archaic’ values providing salvation?)
Meh, not so much.”
I somewhat concur with Spengler’s thesis (recapitulated, and explicated upon in the context of the historical situation at the time, by the post-war European thinkers situated on the Old Right-wing, which made no concessions to the bourgeoning liberalism) in relation to the theory of cultural decline. His argument is in no way infallible of course. But, his ideological successors interest me greatly, with all the quasi-apocalyptic overtones of civilisational collapse and the general climate of cultural pessimism.
Arayni writes: “Your point about ‘tolerance’ being a virtue of those who can afford the luxury”
The following is perhaps a bit off-topic; nevertheless, I feel compelled to air my thoughts … To what extent can you be “tolerant”, though, especially as moral relativism pertains to accepting the following aphorism of the secular inquisitors, as it were: “Do as you see fit so long as you harm no one else, or impose your set of values onto another private individual”?
Permissiveness becomes the end result IMO.
As far as the historical dimension is concerned, “individual freedom” and “tolerance” — concomitant with the timeless proclamation of religious liberty — had its roots in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man, which prefigured the Declaration of Independence during the American Revolution, and the subsequent spread of liberal ideas throughout Europe during the 1848 revolts.
Ironically the idea of “tolerance” presupposes intolerance itself, as those who don’t accept, or are coerced into accepting, its underlying premises, are silently persecuted — in some cases oppressed or silenced by the aficionados for human freedom. Political and social liberalism, of either a leftist or rightist persuasion, then, is a reductio ad absurdum; unable to reconcile, and therefore actualize, its own raison-de’tre — which is secular humanism — without resorting to the very thing it decries and has always decried since the French Revolution: persecution, a euphemism otherwise meaning intolerance for freedom of association and expression or religious belief, however depraved from your own point of view. Its permissiveness, its emphasis upon “do what thou wilt”, so to speak, is innately intolerant.
Then again, I am speaking in terms of moral relativism. Suffice to say a liberal thinks in terms of absolutes — just like myself.
The fact is — notwithstanding the Jacobin’s high-and mighty declaration of liberty, human freedom, freedom of expression, the separation between Church and State, and so forth — millions were beheaded on the infamous guillotine, essentially by secular inquisitors, all in the name of “progress” and tolerance as a means of achieving their aim. That’s historical fact, which is seldom admitted.
My point of emphasis here is that 1) either basic human nature — irrespective of the moral dispositions of the subject in question — is innately intolerant by virtue of man’s corruption (perhaps in the theological sense of original sin, i.e., a fallen state and its contingency on the fallen man?), or 2) absolutist values are a means to an end whereby rectifying the social and political err of moral relativism in the public and private spheres of life, is requisite upon the imposition of sheer human will over others ( in a secular context) or an infallible deity, e.g., perhaps a social eschatology which rejects rationalist social science? Perhaps the everlasting potential for perpetual conflict in the realm of ideas constitutes an “absolute” too, inasmuch as Darwinism, or Marx’s historical materialism, constitutes truth?
Aranyi writes: “I feel that way, a bit, about arguments … which appear to try to re-litigate past social ‘values’ changes in terms of past ideological battles.”
I agree. Though, values are becoming increasingly relative, to the extent at which “anything goes”. That is my sole concern, and of course, my opinion.
It’s like Einstein’s theory of relativity. Relativity postulates an infinite number of universes — If I am correct — which all converge at the same point in time and space. (I am no expert in theoretical psychics, so I may be incorrect, bear in mind.) When the theory of relativity is transposed onto the socio-political sphere, however, every conceivable action— for either better or worse — becomes a dormant reality. Every action is a potential already existing in some hypothetical universe amid a multiuniversal googolplex. By analogy, it’s like “cheating on you’re wife”. You can’t avoid it under this very premise; this potential action already exists in some hypothetical universe “out there”, and is thus a reality which has already occurred. In a similar vein, the social ill of prostitution, or the innate vice of a fallen man, cannot be resolved, as, according to a rationalist state, these are irrevocable ills which exist as potential actions in an innumerable number of universes converging at the same point in time and space. How can you change something which has already occurred, and in point of fact, exists at the same point in time and space?
To my mind “tolerance”, an ambiguous term in reality, is just this. In other words, how far can you take it before it takes on authoritarian, dare I say totalitarian, aspects, is what I’m saying? It seems that the very word “tolerance”, then, has been semantically distorted, which is to say its etymology has been corrupted.
That’s just me. I situate myself on the Old Conservative Right of the Ancien Regime, as far as orientations are concerned that is (rejecting both Left and Liberal parties as progressive movements); dare I say an Old traditionalist Catholic in the mold of a Donoso Cortes — rejecting the legacy of the Enlightenment in toto.
Interesting. Thanks.
Yes, sorry, I’m not schooled in much of what you talk about in that post, but the dichotomy between cries of: ‘Liberty, Fraternity and Equality!’ and: ‘Off with his head! And hers!’ *is* striking.
It seems the urge to overthrow ‘Oppressors’ is unquenchable. Or maybe something else is at work? Something darker.
BTW ‘millions’ killed by guillotine seems implausible. Approx 15,000 of the 40,000 to 50,000 killed during the French Revolution was the best I could find.
http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-people-were-killed-by-the-guillotine-during-the-french-revolution
It’s intriguing that you ‘situate’ yourself politically so specifically, with reference to the Ancien Regime and Donoso Cortés … of whom I know nothing.
I’ve lately been thinking the whole ‘left & right’ model might be getting creaky and past its useful life.
But, as I have discussed with poormastery … being strong in the centre can be dangerous:
http://www.thepaepae.com/feedback-from-cameron-slater-gay/18695/comment-page-1/#comment-11266
—
This is a serious question: What benefit is there to you for ‘rejecting the legacy of the Enlightenment’?
– P
As for the so-called “homosexual question”, I think Barrett and Pollack’s research will suffice to demonstrate the social and economic ramifications that this cultural substratum has for the proleterianized part of the populace (though, once again, not infallible):
Barrett and Pollack write:
The visible and political gay community has been characterized as an increasingly middle-class,
white institution. It is hypothesized that this middle-class nature requires economic and psychoso-
cial resources that are NOT available to the working class and, thus, may limit the expression of sexual
orientation for the working class. An analysis of data from the multicity Urban Men’s Health Study
supports this hypothesis. Nine of 14 hypothesized effects are statistically significant and indicate
that working-class men who are homosexually active are less likely to describe themselves as gay, are
more likely to have heterosexual experience, and are less likely to be involved in the gay community.
Thus, it is important to incorporate class differences when addressing the social and the political
dynamics of sexual orientation.
Assuming that is true, then their economic lot in life precludes them from expressing their “sexuality” in an open manner — in other words, they have not been emancipated, as it were. Class difference and the homosexual question are interrelated. And, therefore, arguably, only those with a relative degree of affluence can partake of this lifestyle, without being demeaned in factories (as workers are more often than not bigoted).
The case could be that, if workers were emancipated from the factories, they could potentially express latent homosexual desires (assuming they have fantasies about legalized arse-rape in the first place).
It’s like feminism, and post-modern feminism, in general. It wasn’t about women’s rights at all; it was about money, and that was all (and the same can be said from homosexual rights, which isn’t about homosexual rights at all, but about money, insofar as, according to the research above, the economic conditions of the workingclass preclude them from expressing their purported latent desires). On the one hand, you have women unionists saying their “bodies are exploited”, in which case they thereby imply exploitation at an unfair price (after all, how much do porn stars earn)? Thus, they call for a “wage increase”, i.e., legalized prostitution. That was feminism.
You’ll have to excuse my crudeness. I am not anti-homosexual per se.
Note: Yes, your figures regarding the French Revolution are indeed correct; I was exaggerating.
Ivan, I completely agree with you about the ‘false sense of wisdom’ — that’s a real trap — but I’m not at all convinced about the ‘early midlife crisis’. (Wishful thinking?)
This: “the insistence on having homosexual behaviour pushed in our faces seemingly whenever we turn on tv” and this: “it is shoved at you every day and particularly via the media” ARE exaggerations, with respect, in my view.
I watched TV tonight and there were NO instances of homosexual (nor heterosexual for that matter) sex ‘pushed’, ‘shoved’ — or even ‘thrust'(!) in my face. (There were some dwarfs in one show …)
As for my (reading between the lines) disagreeable tendency to look for common ground, or things I can agree with in other people’s ‘arguments’, whichever side of the spectrum they hail from, well, sorry about that.
Perhaps you think I’m too reasonable by half?
FYI, here’s someone I disagreed with:
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/culture/homosexual-law-reform/reforming-the-law
– P
I think you are a very reasonable fellow Pete – which drives me bloody nuts sometimes. But more power to you.
Some of your reasonableness may one day rub off. Never liked Norman Jones.
And yes – i agree – thrusting and pushing and dwarfs .. maybe i was exaggerating somewhat.
Where did you see dwarfs??
re Dwarfs… ‘Once Upon A Time’ TV2 Thursdays
A story of parallel worlds based on fairy tales. I’m enjoying it.
http://tvnz.co.nz/content/4675682.xhtml
And here’s someone I agree with (about this):
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/105562/gay-marriage-not-on-agenda-key
UPDATE: But we could both be wrong about that. Maybe there is demand…?
Oh look, a development, according to the NZ Herald today:
Another example of the ‘dynamic environment’ I guess …
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10805087
The word in Key-speakism is “dinnamic”
Re my “exaggerations of almost satiric proportions”, guilty, your honour. That’s why I said “seemingly whenever…” I don’t actually watch tv very much because it’s so awful but I did for a couple of hours the other night and there wasn’t a lesbian kiss in sight. Mind you, I was watching later than Coro Street’s demo and Modern Family for the kiddies.
Do you have any verifiable data on this Graeme.
Is there anything from the time of (i dunno) (maybe) the time of Tutankhamun about this. Or maybe Sodom and Gomorrah. I understand there’s a fairly reputable source published by some wandering homeless Jews some centuries ago with some comments on homos and lesbians??
Any reliable data is always appreciated.
The most obvious programmes for our children to learn what’s normal (besides “Ellen”, “Coro St”, “Eastenders”, “Shortland St”, “Home and Away” and “Neighbours”) are comedies “Glee” (with 10 LGBT characters), “Modern Family”, “30 Rock”, “My Name is Earl”, “Nurse Jackie”, “Friends”, “Suburgatory”…
Interestingly, Ivan, Jesus never singles out homosexual behaviour per se. Nor does Paul. They both call for faithfulness, which also rules out adultery and heterosexual promiscuity, while dealing lovingly with prostitutes and divorcees. Do you want references?
Well Graeme i would be interested in your references in the biblical setting that deal with samesex nookie and homosexuality. What does Jesus say about this – what does the old testament say – and how do they intersect if at all? By how much margin does the new covenant myth override the new covenant myth. Let the fairytale (pardon the expression) be explained once and for all.
How do Pauls comments (i’ve heard him described as an old misogynist) about women strike you …
I think it would in fact be of great value if you provided a complete set of references and solved all our problems in one comment on one thread.
Drip feeding is not an option.
If you must know – i am a conservative (not any party – just old boring and conservative) – i dont like the new morality or its sliding scale. I do however – strongly dislike monotheism and all its incarnations.
Sorry Graeme should have said OLD Covenant Myth – not NEW twice …
Must be a fascination with couplets …
Just to contextualise, Moses’ OT comments on sexuality describe the Egyptian and Canaanite customs of the day and call Israel to a different standard, e.g. Leviticus 18:3ff. This passage addresses issues of incest (vss. 6-18) and fertility rites (vss. 19-30).
Jesus spoke in Aramaic, which we have recorded in Greek, about “porneia” (e.g. Matthew 15:19), a general term for immorality which, to a first century Jew, summarised Lev 18.
Paul also wrote of “porneia” (e.g. 1 Corinthians 5:1) but spelled it immediately after in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Also in Galatians 5:19-23.
Re Paul as misogynist, I think that’s just a 20th Century misreading of him. Unlike the Greek philosophers, he often worked with women (e.g. Romans 16:1-15).
Re disliking monotheism, surely you can recognise differences between the monotheistic faiths? Some are despicable and some are laudable, e.g. all of the benefits of liberal democracy we enjoy today came from our Judao-Christian heritage; most of the genocides came from heresies of that, such as Islam and Marxism.
Question – you refer to Jesus and Paul – both new testament alleged characters or inventions. What of the old testament. Is the old testament valid in your particular interpretation of what is “godbothering” or the opposite of “god-rejecting”.
Within the the myths and legends of your particular religious fairytale … what of the statements of the old testament. How do they mesh with the Jesus myth.
Surely you aren’t suggesting Jesus and Paul were fictitious, are you? That canard was demolished decades ago.
Re the OT, it was the primary source for everything in the NT. Is this what you’re asking?
Oh man! I was just channel-surfing and before I had time to realise it was Shortland St, there were lesbians at each other…
I found this article interesting:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a992778e-9aa4-11e1-9c98-00144feabdc0.html
I have a feeling that the left’s drift from advocating working class interests, to becoming a sickly liberal mouthpieces for elitist middle class causes, has left a huge swathe of the community disenfranchised.
How can this be good in a democracy?
Of course, the sickly liberal will typically simply describe the socially conservative working classes as uneducated, reactionary, racist or homophobic. And they may even be some truth to this representation.
Yet the sickly liberal purports to despise elitist ideology, and yet this particularly sickly version of liberalism is typically the most fixed and murderous ideology in the book. Sickly liberals will brook no dissent. Alternative views are met with a torrent of name calling and abuse, to the point where everything goes and any and all personal responsibility are gone.
Of course, I am a globalist, and have sympathy for many sickly liberal views. Gay people? Do what you want, as long as you leave me alone. I really don’t care.
And yet. We have the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Youth unemployment is hitting 50% across whole swathes of Europe. The US appears to be the last country economically standing, but the situation is tenuous. The politics are intractable; the budget figures a train crash. There is plenty to talk about in US election year. Medicare spending. Defence spending. Iran and war. And – apparently – gay marriage. Hmmm…
It probably plays well to the intelligentsia, secure on tenure in their university posts, or scribbling their self absorbed drivel in their hack rag. The coddled middle class baby boomer is the needy clientele of the sickly liberal politician. The baby boomer arguably squandered a great inheritance of wisdom borne from the previous generation’s suffering. Wisdom lost was merely a sacrifice on the altar to the God of “freedom”, with little concern for responsibility. Because they’re worth it.
I sense that a global backlash is coming against the permissiveness, self indulgence and irresponsibility of the baby boomer sickly liberal intelligentsia.
I hope that I am wrong about this.
Rgds,
*p*
Poormastery – a very good analysis.
Very right – very true
Huge holes in your arguments still – and i still sense you looking down your nose at working class types – but overall PMY you are developing nicely in the right direction.
We are heading for war PMY – and it will make the last two major conflicts look like a school picnic.
Gay marriage wont even figure on the horizon. But the coddled classes dont see it coming from within their own societies to bite them all on their well funded and padded arses.
Something else poormastery forgot to mention in my rant.
When I lived in Britain, the vacuous Mr Blair was in power. Whenever the polls got close, he would introduce an anti-fox hunting bill into Parliament.
Don’t get me wrong. Fox hunting could be seen as the unspeakable pursuing the inedible (Wilde). Certainly, large numbers of ludicrously dressed toffs chasing a small furry animal around don’t elicit much public sympathy.
Nonetheless, my point is this. My suspicion is that the vacuous Mr Blair used this issue cynically to appeal to his sickly liberal base. Furthermore, I suspect that the traditional working class voter couldn’t care too much about this issue – they are too busy with the ordinary business of life (feeding, clothing and sheltering their families).
No, the base that Mr Blair was cynically exploiting was, of course, the Islington intellegentsia. The sickly liberal lovies (Stephen Fry et al) lap up this anti fox hunting rhetoric.
Perhaps Mr Obama is using the same strategy with regards gay marriage? Or is the fact that it is election year nothing to do with it – a mere coincidence?
You decide,
*p*
ivan, you say:
“Poormastery – a very good analysis.”
Oops. must have been complete drivel then. Maybe I was high on drugs when I wrote it. Or drunk.
As you were!
Rgds,
*p*