![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avramA lot of people seem to have decided that it was gay marriage that handed Bush four more years. Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe maybe. There’s a real danger now that Democrats will start blaming gays for the Bush victory. Not the same way we blame Nader for 2000, but in a hectoring sort of way: We told you to wait twenty or thirty years for lasting social change to work its way through state legislatures, not rush into a judicial solution. Now see what you’ve done! Don’t.
We’ve been through a similar strait before. Up until the ’60s, the South pretty much belonged to the Democratic Party’s conservative wing. In 1964, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law, he knew it’d cost his party the South. He even said to one of his aides, as he signed it, “We have just lost the South for a generation,” and he was right. Barry Goldwater appealed to southern bigots with his “southern strategy” and took a big chunk of the deep south, his own home state, and no other states. In 1968 the south all went either Republican or American Independent.
Did Johnson make a mistake? No. He was faced with a clear moral decision — between political expediency and racial justice — and made the right choice. Those justices in Massachusetts made the right choice too.
We’ve been through a similar strait before. Up until the ’60s, the South pretty much belonged to the Democratic Party’s conservative wing. In 1964, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law, he knew it’d cost his party the South. He even said to one of his aides, as he signed it, “We have just lost the South for a generation,” and he was right. Barry Goldwater appealed to southern bigots with his “southern strategy” and took a big chunk of the deep south, his own home state, and no other states. In 1968 the south all went either Republican or American Independent.
Did Johnson make a mistake? No. He was faced with a clear moral decision — between political expediency and racial justice — and made the right choice. Those justices in Massachusetts made the right choice too.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 07:41 pm (UTC)Blame God
Date: 2004-11-03 08:07 pm (UTC)(As I was writing this, it occurred to me that you were talking about either clergy or churchgoers, but this was still too good not to post.)
Andrew A. Gill
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 08:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 08:11 pm (UTC)Don't let your rage blind you to who your friends are.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 08:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 08:33 pm (UTC)Okay, re-parse that with s/atheism/gays/, s/atheism/blacks/, or s/atheism/jews/ and see how it sounds.
I just read one so-called liberal christian in a comment thread on Crooked Timber say something to effect of "gee, if you would just let us legislate morality by banning abortion and free speech, we'd vote with you Democrats."
Sorry, he's a enemy.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 08:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-04 05:12 am (UTC)Yes, I know there are Christians with good politics, who get that birth control and voluntary family are the right thing to do.
Problem was that the guy on CT is really and truly a progressive sort. He thinks we should take care of the poor, and provide health care. But he also thinks flashing Janet Jackson's metal plated nipple on TV was a horrible thing instead of a silly gag.
I get testy around people who think the 1st Amendment's just about his right to pray to whom he wants while the rest of us are consigned to hell and have to ride in the back of the bus.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-04 02:49 am (UTC)Or maybe not. Bush himself, for example, never goes to church, except for the occasional photo op.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-04 05:03 am (UTC)