The perils of putting all your eggs in one basket. There's a lesson here for those willing to listen and learn.

Story link

Okay, I give up. What's the lesson?

I tried several times to come up with a guess, but I can't.

What are you saying with this?

Are you guys serious? I can see his point, even if I'm not in agreement with it.

I think San Fran's trying to point out the dangers of a group or voting bloc consolidating its political power in one party, because such deep-rooted loyalty allows the party to take the bloc for granted and offer token as opposed to substantive participation in the party. Not sure if I agree, but that's what I think he's trying to say. It's definitely a debatable point.

Sorry for not responding quicker, but I do have to work, you know! Sure looks like some folks are either dumb or playing dumb, and since I'm not one to assume the negative, I'll go with the latter.

There are at least four points to this story. First, is that noted by William and hinted at by me in my post: don't put all your political eggs in one basket. If it gets broken - or stolen - you've just lost all your eggs. Second, don't commit until you get commitments. Listening, HRC? Think about all those early Democratic endorsements you made, before the GOP primaries were even held! Third, while caselaw recognizes that the black civil rights movement provides many parallels for the gay one, it also provides pitfalls. Chief among these is assuming that the Democrats are the only party who'll advance black civil rights. This not only ignores the whole early history of how the GOP came into existence as THE anti-slavery party, and remained the champion of black civil rights at least until the Dixiecrats' creep into the GOP turned into an avalanche in the '60s, but alienates those GOPers who maintained their founders' principles intact since then. In other words, don't gratuitously make enemies of friends because their friends might be perceived as an enemy. The Black Congressional Caucus's ostracization of OK Rep. JC Watts and Maxine Waters' onstage castigation of LA Mayor Richard Riordan come to mind.

Fourth, on the merits, doesn't this article demonstrate that if blacks are treated as second-class citizens, that Democratic politicians are just as capable of treating them that way as anyone else? Finally, by extension to gays, and in light of the lack of any real gains by gays at the national level, haven't the Demos treated us as second rate as well? Especially since so many of us give them our blind allegiance - why should they care?

Now, who learned something new today - or did some of you know all along?

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
Now, who learned something new today - or did some of you know all along?[/QB]

---

The lesson seems to be: vote for the party that actively hates you rather than the one that merely takes you for granted. I feel so edified.

Exactly. Makes absolutely no sense. I think the Democrats' feet need to be held to the fire a bit more by us to help them remember who their loyal base is and why we are there. But the Republicans would just as soon have their feet burned off than even listen. I admire some people's desire to illuminate or educate or breathe life into, or whatever you want to call it, to the Republican party, but at least be honest with what their position is on equal rights and treatment for gay people. They are against. Plain and simple. I could see lining up with the Libertarians since they don't really have anything to do with anyone and have sort of an every man for himself thing going on, but even that much can't be said of the Republicans.

Some people can just overlook that issue (the one about Repub being against equal rights for all) and just move on to fiscal issues on which we might more readily agree with them than the Dems. I, not being suicidal, can't do that. I'd prefer to work within the Democratic party to change some of their other policies I might not agree with but that are far less baseline to my being allowed to have a job, housing, freedom from arrest, etc. And don't say it doesn't happen. If it's too much for a politician to say that people should just be people and garnered the same rights then I would not be able to vote for them, Republican, Democrat, Martian party or whatever.

On the other hand, some people will never learn a damn thing!

I say that not to be (too) flip, but to emphasize that not all Republicans are homophobes and it is simply uninformed stereotyping to claim that they are or that the GOP itself intrinsically is. Sure, there are many Republican leaders who are homophobic, but we're starting to see less of them. ("Adios Armey, Falwell fare-not-so-well!")

And the number of state GOP platforms and policy statements that lash out against gays is declining too. But because the media don't report on the moderates within the GOP as much as they cover the firebrands, in their own warped estimate of what's newsworthy, we don't get much coverage. ("GAY MAN REMOVES HOMOPHOBIC LANGUAGE FROM GOP PLATFORM!" - Don't hold your breath for that headline, even though it's already happened.) But that doesn't mean the entire GOP is as homophopic as some stubbornly insist that it is.

okay, uncle thersis will come to the rescue in another situation where inference, logic, and deduction have been put in the hands of hapless amateurs.

there were four (count them, four!) lessons to be learned from the linked story. one of those lessons used caselaw as a jumping off point, but the original story made no mention of caselaw, so any logical connection is untenable. the other lessons required leaps of logical faith big enough to clear the grand canyon, and also, at face value, prove meritless.

there is one clear moral to the story, and it would have played right into gmg's defense and support of lcr. but people with agendas often lack objectivity and miss the obvious.

we have two black members of the house. one is in the number two power position (that this is used as an argument against the minority party is mindboggling!) this member of congress has dutifully worked with and within his party for years. he has slowly made inroads that ultimately landed him where he is (#2 ain't bad!).

we also have another congressman behaving a bit like a petulant child. he is newer to the scene, obviously ambitious, and wants to get to the top now. not later, now. he's on the sidelines hysterically waving his arms about and hyperventilating about being overlooked. no one pays him any mind.

the moral of this story is that the way to get ahead politically in this age of a two party system, is to work within the system, within the party infrastructure. the way to get ahead is to pay your dues and be patient. and that is the lcr party line.

your little tale of woe and angst did indeed have a great little lesson. pity you missed it.

my next lecture: revolutionary change vs. evolutionary change, and why one must proceed the other. it will leave you breathless!

Thanks, thersis, for confirming I can count. And recognizing that I do have an agenda. It is to educate gays that the policies and personality cults of the Democratic party are not the only route to equal rights for gays and lesbians in the US. It's also to get the word out about Log Cabin, since the media have proved themselves unable to objectively do so. There, I admit it, for those who hadn't figured it out by now. But a careful review of my prior posts will confirm that I'm hardly blinded by it.

I disagree with what you number, since you talk of the moral playing into my point, but then ignore it. Caselaw was not the starting point for my third point; it was only an example of an acknowledged analogy. As for claiming that the other three, particularly the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" argument, are leaps of logic, why, they're as plain as the fall of communism!

I will accept that you can add: your fifth point is indeed a valid, if rather strictly constructed (are you a friend of Antonin's???) one, even if a tight little tautology. But please don't plaster LCR with patience in any nonvirtuous sense. Patience is of use to a point, but the time comes when it has to be abandoned. We've not hesitated to cast it aside when events call for it, so I think we've got a pretty good perspective on its uses. Now, thanks to your lesson, others can benefit from its proper application as well.

As for a lecture on revolutionary vs. evolutionary soci..., er, I mean, change, spare me. I live in a town where we're bombarded with that dialectic daily!

There's more good history in the link that follows: Meanwhile, back in the Senate ...

Is anyone else miffed at how this whole thread has been structured? To paraphrase: Come children, I have posted a story that will prove a valuable lesson to you all. Wait. You didn't catch the lesson it was trying to teach? You all are "dumb or playing dumb." I will now graciously spell out 1-2-3-4 things to learn for you. What? You still don't get it? Sadly some people must be incapable of learning.

The whole bit is pedantic and patronizing before you even start. Then after insulting our intelligence you accuse someone of calling the Republican party "homophobic". The only one in the thread who uses that word is you. Now you're slinging phrases around like "personality cults"?? Inflamatory at best. You will NEVER get people to even listen to your points when you take this approach, let alone convince them of anything.

If your agenda is to spread the word about the work of Log Cabin Republicans, then speak positively about what they are doing. Talking down to us and telling us how our party is bad is a decidedly poor tactic and personally irritating.

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: curtj ]

[quote]Originally posted by curtj:
What? You still don't get it? Sadly some people must be incapable of learning.

---

Like someone once said...

Democrats think Republicans are evil, and Republicans think Democrats are stupid.

(When we all know it's the Republicans that are evil AND stupid.)

I actually agree with the thrust of gmgsinfo's argument, just not with his proposed solution. It seems to me an excellent argument for supporting a third party, rather than for struggling to make the second less hostile (and yes, if you check the thread on the Greens, I recommend splintering the Dems, too).

By the way, what promises did the LCR get from George W. before agreeing to endorse him?

thank you curtj for pointing out the reality of this thread...perhaps someone's still smarting over so soundly losing the election.

Speaking of gmginsfo - Your postings are patronizing and seek to summarize prematurely. Calling others posters dumb because they didn't get your stunning realization was ridiculous. You seek to tear down in order to gain instead of building up a positive concrete reason for change. While the moderate stance of LCR is appealing on some levels, there's still little evidence as to what you guys have actually accomplished furthering equal rights for gay people. If that's untrue, please enlighten us. Please continue to educate us on the workings and dealings of LCR but spare us your skewered lesson plan. You're starting to sound like William J. Bennett and one of him is more than enough.

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

For this I'm thankful?

JC, I don't believe LCR extracted any promises from GWB before we endorsed him. I'm more active in CA than nationally - for now. Simon, yes, but he reneged on them. We tried; he lied. We're not perfect either, but this story dealt with another group.

BD, I never called anyone dumb;* playing dumb is entirely different and I wasn't even the first who levied that charge, accurate as it seems to have proven. Nor am I smarting over an election loss; that canard's been addressed before and is as old an accusation as it is unfounded. If my tone sounds curt at times, have you considered that maybe it's because I've been subjected to the same and am only replying in kind? As long as that happens, you can count on me to do so; I'm not one to turn the other cheek. As another of us said, "Talking down to us and telling us how our party is bad is a decidedly poor tactic and personally irritating." It works both ways, which is a simple and obvious proposition. If you don't agree that the GOP is regularly derided and its supporters routinely patronized on this board, you must be looking at too many pictures.

If I seek to tear down, so be it; there's much wrong with our society that merits dismantling and I personally believe the GOP has a better set of rebuilding blocks than do others. As for sounding like Bill Bennett - man, hurry the day! I admire and respect him greatly.

Political differences aside, Happy Thanksgiving to all!
_____
*Cf. Conor's last post.

And now that Trent Lott's back as Majority Leader in the Senate, I look forward to being compared to a kleptomaniac again. Actually, kleptomaniacs historically are far more welcome in the Republican party than gays -- the Enron and other Fortune 500 execs have always been welcome there!

Gay Republicans are the political equivalent of sexual sadomasochists. It's all bizarre to me, but hey -- consenting adults can do whatever they want in the bedroom. Same in the ballot box.

Yes, unfortunately, gmginsf, you did suggest first in this thread that fellow posters were dumb for not understanding your original post.

Bill Bennett wants everyone to follow his values. He's a moral imperialist. While the content of his values have merit, he's another in a long line of religious folks who believe everyone should think like them. I'm glad you respect him greatly; it's too bad that he'll never feel the same way towards you regardless of merit. You'll always be a sinner to him and he'll never believe that you deserve equal rights under the law. Good luck changing your party from within...

2 days late and you're still not going to let it go, BD? 'Smatter, leftovers gone already? So be it; here's my repeat response.

READ - don't look at, but really READ! - all of my posts on this thread. I've never suggested, let alone said, anyone was dumb; in fact, I specifically said, after another* implied that, that folks were playing dumb. My words speak for themselves.

I've met Bill Bennett on several occasions and have had discussions with him about where the GOP is going and my own role in it as a gay man. Did he recoil in horror? Did he curl his lip, as Diann Feinstein used to when she was mayor of SF and obliged to meet "members of our community?" Do he become angry and defensive and threaten me with excommunication?+ NO! He carried on the conversation in the same intelligent, courteous way he is accustomed to, possibly because I approached him in a similar manner. Perhaps if others did the same, they'd find out he's not such a demon after all.
_____
*JIP, post #4, who called it exactly as it was. Cf., again, Conor500's last post.

+BTW, Bennett is not a member of the clergy.

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:


Perhaps the latter is more dangerous, for it is more deceiving and bound to let your guard down. At least with the former, you know where they stand up front. No hypocrisy or lying.

---

EXACTLY, Ump! Not only that, when you DO change the formers' minds, it's a genuine change, not one based on political expediency.

I share your opinion on Lott; he's not tough enough on the right things, although he's combative enough on all the wrong ones, per his "kleptomaniacs" charge. He went into my book under the "D" heading - that's for Disgust - when he turned the aftermath of the impeachment trial into some sort of rural Rotarians' conclave by presenting CJ Rehnquist with that ridiculous gavel and seeking to make light of the whole proceeding. Me, I'd like to see McCain in charge. But Armey's gone and that's a beginning - definitely worth sticking around the GOP for!

I couldn't care less about what politicians actually think. What they DO in office is what matters to me. I will happily take a hypocrite who will vote for gay rights legislation because he thinks it will be a popular choice with a constituency.

Actually, I think the homophobic pose of many GOP leaders is pure political expedience. It's just part of a cynical effort to delude working class voters into voting against their economic interests. When they "change their minds", it will be because gay-bashing isn't politically expedient anymore, as it has ceased to be in the Northeast and West Coast.

JC, your second paragraph is an interesting one, but how to explain the out-of-step behavior of the CA GOP, whose radical right rather lose elections than drop its homophobia and start winning them? Hurry up with your answer; I need some ammo for the Convention in February!

Just to add one more slap to the dead horse, pal (gmingso) what you actually said was that people either were dumb or they were playing dumb. THat is in fact calling people dumb, which is pretty unnecessary and incorrect anyway since it seems to me we are all at least coherent enough to have strong opinions which I think we all try to back with the facts as we know them. Let's just respect each other enough to avoid petty name calling and make our cases.

And I would have to only partially agree with JC in that I care about both what politicians do and what they think. Because at some point, the twain will always meet. For example, even though B. Clinton wimped out on the gays in the military thing, he did make countless other gestures such as fighting for AIDS funding, speaking at the HRC dinner and just being very open with his friendships with gay people. Even such minor gestures speak volumes.

Similarly, even when Trent Lott is not calling us criminals he's at some prayer breakfast calling us something else. It will come into lawmaking somewhere down the road. It starts with the heart, goes to the head and then to the hand to sign the bill or raise it to vote. Even if the Republicans will be silent on some issues when it doesn't suit them to opppose us outright, you know they will still turn on us when the coast is clear. And in like manner, when the Dems are silent sometimes when they could be helping us, they will often turn around and help us when the coast is clear for them. Not optimal to be sure, but jeez, if I had to pick one...

And I've never been a fan of "the devil we know" school of thought. Personally, I don't want a devil. I would rather take my chances with an unknown quantity than someone I know to be some sort of buffoon or worse. Just because they are true to their convictions doesn't make we want them in power, if those convictions are only to champion equality under the law to those they see as deserving, as opposed to everyone.

thanks, matt...perfect timing

I believe the history of African American civil rights is skewed in the board by some members posting to it. Lincoln is not the Great Emancipator as has been suggested.
James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton argued in their book Hard Road to Freedom: The Story of African America that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate States. "As of January 1, 1863, all slaves in areas controlled by people in rebellion against the United States would be declared ‘free forever'"(Horton and Horton 2001, 168). Even though Lincoln was the first American President that had invited African Americans to meet with him at the White House, Lincoln told these African Americans that black people were a burden to the nation and should leave the United States and move to either Africa or the West Indies (Horton and Horton 2001, 168).
The Republican Party passed the Thirteenth Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. These amendments prohibited slavery, banned the use of race as a bar to citizenship and prohibited the use of race to deny the right to vote. These Reconstruction Amendments made the Republican Party more powerful by increasing the power of African Americans to vote. These Amendments were the last time that the Republican Party would lead the fight for civil rights for African Americans. The last of these Amendments were passed in 1870 (Horton and Horton 2001, 186).
The shift to African Americans voting for the Democratic Party had begun with FDR. The Republican Party had begun its southern strategy to get more southern white votes. This occurred in 1932 (Horton and Horton 2001, 256). Any suggestion that the Republican Party remained the champion of civil rights for African Americans until the Dixiecrats and Strom Thurmond in 1948 was historically incorrect.
Truman ended segregation in the armed forces in 1948 (Horton and Horton 2001, 268). L. B .J passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations, employment and education (Horton and Horton 2001, 294). Katherine Tate argues in her book, From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American Elections, that the last Republican President that dealt with a major civil rights bill was George Bush Sr. and he vetoed the Civil Rights Bill of 1990 (Tate 1993, 22). The way for gay rights and gay activists to win is to participate in issue-oriented coalitions instead of trying to elect candidates, either Democratic or Republican in anticipations that these candidates would support some of our causes. That was how African Americans got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. The belief expressed on this board is that if more gays and lesbians voted Republican, its candidates and leaders would be more inclusive to our goals and dreams. Many Black Republicans thought the same thing and they have been rewarded with a Senate Majority Leader who believed that Strom Thurmond's election in 1948 as President would have been a good thing.More Blacks don't vote Republican because they are seen as the party of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, David Duke and George Bush Sr, who used the Willie Horton ads to get elected over Michael Dukakis in 1988.
There was a mention of J.C. Watts on this board as well earlier. J.C. Watts is an Uncle Tom. He will say anything that makes white people feel good about themselves and how they treat or mistreat African Americans. His silence on the Lott affair is both telling and damning on him and the party he belongs to. He will write a book or has written a book about himself that will be read by the conservative whites and speckle of African Americans that agree with him. J.C. Watts was against reparations for African Americans affected by the Tulsa Race Riots of 1921. For those unaware, thousands of whites destroyed the African American section of Tulsa Oklahoma known as Greenwood during May 1921. These whites looted and burned this neighborhood to the ground.Up to 300 African American men, women and children were killed and 6 thousand were herded into concentration camps. 23 years later, in Korematsu v U.S., Japanese Americans were put into concentration camps mostly because of the war, but also because of the color of their skin. Their descendants have received apologies and monetary compensation because of this wartime mistake by the Supreme Court. Watts is waiting for the survivors of Greenwood to die. Their death will mean to him that their cause dies with them.
If readers of this board wanted to learn about African American history, they would read books on African Americans history. Good books about African American history include From Slavery to Freedom by John Hope Franklin, Hard Road to Freedom by James and Lois Horton, Riot and Remembrance by James S. Hirsch, From Protest to Politics by Katherine Tate, Trouble in Mind by Leon Litwack and Parting the Waters by Taylor Branch.
Finally, someone mentioned Dred Scott and gay rights on this board.The Dred Scott v.Sanford decision of the Supreme Court in the opinion written by Justice Roger B. Taney said that African Americans were not and could not be American citizens and had no rights guaranteed under the U. S. Constitution. I know of no Supreme Court decision denying citizenship to gays and lesbians.

Great post, Ballplayer. Yes, Lincoln's decree only affected the Confederate states but not border states like Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, and Missouri, where slavery was effectively in operation, though all of these places were held by Union troops. Slavery was illegal in every northern and California (and became so in Oregon, Kansas, and West Virginia) except New Jersey, which finally abolished it in 1846, but effectively ended it at the start of the Civil War, so Lincoln's order, while practically ineffective, was still a symbolic step that Sherman, Grant, Butler and others finally effected.

General John C. Fremont of California had previously decreed at the beginning of the Civil War that all enslaved Blacks crossing into Union lines were free, I believe, an order which was rescinded because of the uproar it was thought to cause among Whites in occupied or border regions. Still, the sentiment was there and would eventually become de facto and then de jure. You're right too that Lincoln more than once suggested repatriation (as had some African-American leaders earlier) and was known to have strong personal antipathies towards Black people. (The Stanford historian George Frederickson has written an excellent book on this topic.) To his credit, however, Lincoln did prosecute the war to its end rather than agreeing to a negotiated peace prior to 1865, he authorized the use of and allowed his generals to take whatever measures they needed to force the Confederacy, which in general had better battlefield leaders, to surrender. All in all, whatever his personal feelings towards Blacks, I, as a Black American, am very glad that he won the Civil War, and in spite of his personal failings he certainly is one of the greatest presidents (along with Washington and the two Roosevelts) that we have ever had.

Although the last of the major 19th century amendments passed in 1870, Ulysses S. Grant enforced the system of Reconstruction, including the installation of federal troops in several southern states. It was under the Republican Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio, whose election in 1876 closely mirrored that of 2000, that the northern Republicans allowed the removal of federal troops and other emoluments to the South. Hayes actually did say that he would protect the ex-slaves and already free Blacks, but he basically appeased both the new leaders in the South and the ex-Confederates, and by the time he left office the situation for Blacks, under mostly Democratic rule in the South and national Republican leadership, was quite bad.

The Republicans (Garfield, Arthur, etc.) who followed Hayes for the most part had less racial baggage than Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who erected a fence around the White House lawn in part to keeps Black off it. Warren Harding. During his presidency, some of the worst racial violence against Black Americans occurred, especially in 1919, the "Red Summer." t was primarily the Depression, that hit Black Americans disparately hard, and the New Deal and more racially inclusive policies under Roosevelt, that drew Blacks to the Democratic Party. Truman, who had belonged to the KKK, integrated the armed forces and, as is now well-known, supported a Civil Rights Bill. And so she wrote. However, Eisenhower's record on racial issues was no worse than Truman's, and in fact he sent federal troops into Arkansas, among other places, to enforce federal laws. Even Nixon, who was personally racist, supported a number of broad-based Federal programs to help Black and poor Americans. The most prejudiced Republican president we've had in the 20th century has to be Ronald Reagan, who demagogued on racial issues from the time he took office till he left. He elevated the racism and racial coding implicit in Nixon's electoral and political strategy, particularly in the South, to an open, nationwide strategy.