The Ugly Aftermath

I'm even more sick of postelection election analysis than I was of the goddamned campaign. 

A majority of whites voted, as they have for a long time, Republican.  A majority of minorities voted Democrat, which, along with the white votes Obama did win, was enough for 52% of the popular vote.  Why is it that so many people comment on the Republican tilt of white voting with disfavor, like "Oh, those whites, they just can't see past the party line" but not when it's African-Americans or Hispanics (Hispanics as a group are not as solidly blue as African-Americans, of course, in part because there are so many complications to grouping all those nationalities and histories under one sorry label)?  African-Americans continue to vote Democrat despite the fact that there is evidence that they are more socially conservative as a group than whites (Hispanics, for what it's worth, generally are, too).  Democrats seem all excited by Democratic wins in the West, but Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Rep. Barney Frank have virtually nothing in common as far as I can tell.  If Obama gets too liberal, African-Americans may not cut him off, but Hispanics just might.  It's hard to say--possibly the generation that is born in the US and growing up here will turn out more liberal than their parents.  All I'm saying is, why do people comment on white voting patterns like it's horrible to vote more for one party than the other, but not say the same thing about other ethnic groups.  I mean, basically I know the answer, and it's twofold.  One, most of the people saying that are Democrats, so it worries them more when whites, who are for now still a majority, don't vote Democrat.  And two, it just isn't done, is it?

And another thing:  SHUTUP ABOUT SARAH PALIN'S CLOTHES.  For Christ's sake.  Let's talk about how much the Obamas spent on their clothes, hey--or just how much they spent, period.  That worries me far more than the vague and totally unproven notion that we might have been in danger of getting ourselves a Vice-President who likes to shop and look good.  And PLEASE you fucking hypocritical jackasses who have suggested that if she was running as a woman of the people, she should have just kept dressing the way she dressed in Alaska.  Right.  I can see how that would have made you snigger and snark daily, making fun of her clothes.  Instead, since the RNC dressed her up, you snark instead about how much the RNC spent to do it.  I actually read one piece that suggested that she could have made do with just a few pairs of pants, a couple of jackets.  Yeah, because she wasn't being photographed or appearing in public in contexts where appearance counts for a lot on an almost daily basis.  And of course the press would never have commented in snarky tones about how she just keeps wearing the same pants every day.  Sure.

Which brings me to another point:  We don't think you're sexist for questioning Palin's qualifications.  There were legitimate questions there.  We think you're sexist for harping on "how's she going to raise her kids and be president?"  Yeah, I don't hear you asking that about a man named Barack.  We think you're hypocrites for balking LOUDLY every time someone mentioned Hillary's pantsuits and then spending weeks--but WEEKS--talking about the RNC's budget for Palin's wardrobe.  Yes, absolutely it's also hypocritical of the Republicans to call you out on this one, since the Republicans denied it was sexist when it was done to Hillary (and I'm not so sure either case is sexist--politicians' clothes and styles get talked about.  Remember when Al Gore changed to "earth tone" suits in his 2000 campaign and how we had to hear about it for days?  Remember Edwards's haircut?), but for cryin out loud, take the high road for a change.  We also think you're sexist for repeatedly making comments, overtly sexual comments, about Palin.  Perhaps my favorite was when one writer called her an "ideological lap dancer."  Right.  I'm sure you couldn't find a less overtly sexual and dehumanizing way to put it.  Good job.  Now anyone who doesn't agree with you is a pole dancer.  Why not just call her a slut and get it over with?  I also liked all the people who referred to her as a "Stepford Wife" when, in fact, every indication is that she is far from it.  We think you're sexist because it was pretty clear from the first moment that she entered the campaign that you weren't going to be happy with any woman candidate who wasn't from the blue side.  That has been the clear implication of most of what has been written about her from the beginning.

(What I think now that so much dirt is coming out of those quarters is that McCain and Palin were badly advised by their campaign managers.  The country already knew who McCain was and many independents and moderates liked him a lot, so instead his managers decided to get him to appeal to the far right "base" and alienate the voters who already liked him.  Palin is more moderate on some issues than we were led to believe and is quite knowledgeable about others, especially energy policy, not that you would know it from the way she was handled.  Looking back on the Katie Couric interview now, for one thing, I wonder how much of that was that she didn't know what she was supposed to say.  I'm not saying that McCain and Palin don't share the blame for going along with what was clearly a losing scheme.  I just don't buy the crap that I'm supposed to believe about Palin--not at all.  She is neither as far right nor as stupid as we were led to believe.  Some of the blame also goes to media bias and sexism, too, in my mind.  And, no, I didn't vote for McCain.)

Also, can you let it go that Palin hunts?  A lot of us do.  The numbers of women hunters are actually increasing and will continue to increase as it gets harder to afford food for your family and especially to afford meat that one might consider safe.  The moose in Palin's chili had no antibiotics given to it at all, ever.  It had no growth hormones.  It lived free range for its entire life in its natural habitat and was responsible for no pollution.  More than that, it was probably killed within Palin's local foodshed, making her and most hunters, locavores (it's hard to be a locavore in Alaska--it would be totally impossible if you didn't eat meat or fish).  This is a big reason why white people don't vote for you, because of the obvious and extreme anti-hunting prejudice that is usually based on nothing related to fact.  Of course, the reality is that without hunters, Fish & Wildlife Departments would be hurting badly and there would be no money to save the boulder darter or whatever other endangered creature you want to save.  In a lot of the West, Hispanics hunt, too, so I'd be careful on that one if I were a Democrat.

I notice now that Californians are shifting blame for passing Prop 8 from African-Americans--because that is clearly very sensitive territory--to Mormons.  Apparently what the Mormons did wrong is contribute money to the Yes on 8 committee.  I mean, it's clear that Mormons as a group don't support gay marriage, but it's also clear to me that Mormons do not actually constitute a large enough voting bloc in California to be directly responsible for this.  Jeffrey Toobin rightly pointed out that some blacks are getting irritated that gays keep trying to make it seem as if the situations of these two minority groups is really comparable.  I'm white, and it's starting to bug me, too, frankly, because while there are some similarities, I would say that the differences are far greater.  The situations faced by the gay community and by Hispanics also aren't morally equivalent, and if I were Hispanic I'd also be getting a little annoyed at this comparison. 

Back to the Mormons.  So, what they did was donate money to run ads that gay activists then found objectionable because they were ads encouraging voters to vote for Prop 8.  I hate to be a dick here, but that's our democracy (such as it is) in action.  That's kind of how it works.  I can't see that they did anything wrong.  I don't agree with their beliefs, but, as they say, I would defend to the death their right to believe them and to speak them.  If you really want to tell me that the Mormon church somehow brainwashed voters into voting for something they didn't agree with, then you are way more cynical about people than even I am.

Now back to the gays.  I have heard two alarming things from gay-activist quarters (including but not limited to Dan Savage).  One is that you cannot be against gay marriage without also being homophobic.  This is presented as a tautology with no argumentation or evidence that I've ever seen.  But, in fact, as I have argued in the past and will continue to argue, there is substantial evidence that you can be against gay marriage without also being homophobic and/or a bigot or whatever.  For many people who voted for Prop 8, the crux of the matter was not whether or not gays should enjoy equal civil rights but the word "marriage" which, like it or not, is still tied to religion in the minds of very many people.  I read many interviews with people who said that it's just the word "marriage" that made their vote go that way.  The Court doesn't make a formal distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage, but voters do.  Eventually, particularly in California, religion will probably die out and there won't be that objection.  Until then, that would seem to be the major hangup here.

The second alarming thing I've heard is that passing Prop 8 represents a return to persecution and oppression of gays.  Uhhh...I don't know where they're getting this at all.  Domestic partnerships, which as far as I can tell allow for the same legal rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriage, remain legal in California.  California did not go back in time to reinstate laws that forbid homosexual sex or, certainly, to allow discrimination in the workplace of gays.  Nothing like that.  As a group (and admittedly, this may have more to do with sample sizes than anything else), gays make more money than non-gays.  Nowhere except in the military (um, and maybe Idaho...and Arkansas...but I'm talking about California here) are gays asked or expected to hide their sexuality the way they once were expected to.  So, in California, despite the fact that for all intents and purposes, they enjoy the same legal status, rights, and benefits as anyone else, how the fuck are they persecuted and oppressed?  I understand that simply being a minority can lead to attempts to "normalize" oneself that can be psychologically difficult or even damaging, but I don't see that any act of law can change that.   

Me, I would have voted against Prop 8, but it gets under my skin when the essence of the complaint here--as far as legality goes and what was voted on--is that gays are prevented, formally, from using the word "marriage" to describe their relationship (informally, of course, everyone is free to use it).  If I'm reading the domestic partnership law correctly, then there are not any significant rights or benefits being withheld.  Just a word.  Yeah, I would have voted against it, but this is a far, far cry from being oppressed or persecuted or somehow akin to groups of people who weren't even allowed to use the same water fountains as white people do until 45 years ago.  It's a bit different.

And finally.  I just read something Obama said that really bothers me.  Apparently he said it a while ago, but I missed it.  He said, "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms.  But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."  This might seem OK to you when applied to the Second Amendment.  But think about the implications of this in terms of other amendments.  State and local governments used to constrain the exercise of the right to vote, for example, by instituting literacy tests and poll taxes and so forth.  That clearly wasn't OK.  Or how about the right of free speech?  How might state and local governments constrain the exercise of that in such a way that would be acceptable to Mr. Obama?  Or perhaps the right to due process?  I just cannot imagine that such a broad statement would be acceptable if we were talking about any Constitutional right other than the Second.  On the other hand, it's well known how Democrats in general feel about the Second Amendment, so I guess it's no surprise. 

Alright, I'm sure I've said way more than I ought to have and pissed everyone off.  My work is done here.  I obviously need to cut myself off from the news for a while.