(1) OK, I said I would try not to write about Just For Kerry anymore, & I tried. (2) And some words of wisdom from my Yankee friend.
Excerpts and words of wisdom from my Yankee friend.
The gay marriage risk
By Joan Vennochi
The Boston Globe
May 17, 2005
You can say this much about Massachusetts liberals. The truest are not wafflers, and they are not afraid to stand up for something controversial.
Delegates to the Massachusetts Democratic Party convention voted overwhelmingly to endorse same-sex marriage in their platform. [This action] solidifies the stereotype that Republicans now revel in running against.
In many parts of the country, and in some parts of the Bay State as well, a Massachusetts liberal is now a reviled species. Nationally, Democrats are running from the left to the middle as fast as they can.
But Philip W. Johnston, the Massachusetts Democratic state party chairman, doesn't care. He said he proposed the platform resolution, and delegates backed it, because ''it's the right thing to do."
The controversy was fueled in Massachusetts, the first state to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Debate over it remains the flashpoint of a dramatic cultural divide. No state has followed the Commonwealth's lead in legalizing same-sex marriage, and 14 states in the last nine months have voted to ban it.
The Bay State's senior senator, Edward M. Kennedy, endorsed the party's platform resolution. However, Kerry moved quickly to distance himself, saying in Baton Rouge, La., ''I think it's the wrong thing and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."
Of Kerry's position, Johnston said, ''I was disappointed."
You can take many lessons from the 2004 election. One lesson is that some voters vehemently oppose same-sex marriage. Another is that some voters shrink from a candidate who tries to be for and against controversial issues like abortion and gay marriage.
The liberal or conservative base sees black or white and votes accordingly; some voters in the middle respect a strong position, even if it runs counter to their own. That would lend support to Johnston's theory that is important to take a stand, even if it is controversial.
However, there is risk in this gay marriage resolution, in Massachusetts, too. Advocates argue same-sex marriage is a pressing civil rights issue. But is it really the most pressing issue in this state? Even people who support same-sex marriage may conclude that with this emphasis, the Democratic Party is losing its focus on economic issues that win elections. In that case, the party nomination could be worthless, especially if the nominee is viewed by the general electorate as a pawn of one special interest group.
For those who watch politics, it is an interesting laboratory test case of conviction versus expediency, of boldly pushing left rather than safely hugging the middle. In a party filled with equivocators on controversial social issues, the liberal Democrats who run the party here are taking a liberal position and sticking with it, without apology -- and without regard for those who call them out of touch and worse.
No one knows if it is a winning strategy, but at least it's not a waffling one.
The gay marriage risk
By Joan Vennochi
The Boston Globe
May 17, 2005
You can say this much about Massachusetts liberals. The truest are not wafflers, and they are not afraid to stand up for something controversial.
Delegates to the Massachusetts Democratic Party convention voted overwhelmingly to endorse same-sex marriage in their platform. [This action] solidifies the stereotype that Republicans now revel in running against.
In many parts of the country, and in some parts of the Bay State as well, a Massachusetts liberal is now a reviled species. Nationally, Democrats are running from the left to the middle as fast as they can.
But Philip W. Johnston, the Massachusetts Democratic state party chairman, doesn't care. He said he proposed the platform resolution, and delegates backed it, because ''it's the right thing to do."
The controversy was fueled in Massachusetts, the first state to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Debate over it remains the flashpoint of a dramatic cultural divide. No state has followed the Commonwealth's lead in legalizing same-sex marriage, and 14 states in the last nine months have voted to ban it.
The Bay State's senior senator, Edward M. Kennedy, endorsed the party's platform resolution. However, Kerry moved quickly to distance himself, saying in Baton Rouge, La., ''I think it's the wrong thing and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."
Of Kerry's position, Johnston said, ''I was disappointed."
You can take many lessons from the 2004 election. One lesson is that some voters vehemently oppose same-sex marriage. Another is that some voters shrink from a candidate who tries to be for and against controversial issues like abortion and gay marriage.
The liberal or conservative base sees black or white and votes accordingly; some voters in the middle respect a strong position, even if it runs counter to their own. That would lend support to Johnston's theory that is important to take a stand, even if it is controversial.
However, there is risk in this gay marriage resolution, in Massachusetts, too. Advocates argue same-sex marriage is a pressing civil rights issue. But is it really the most pressing issue in this state? Even people who support same-sex marriage may conclude that with this emphasis, the Democratic Party is losing its focus on economic issues that win elections. In that case, the party nomination could be worthless, especially if the nominee is viewed by the general electorate as a pawn of one special interest group.
For those who watch politics, it is an interesting laboratory test case of conviction versus expediency, of boldly pushing left rather than safely hugging the middle. In a party filled with equivocators on controversial social issues, the liberal Democrats who run the party here are taking a liberal position and sticking with it, without apology -- and without regard for those who call them out of touch and worse.
No one knows if it is a winning strategy, but at least it's not a waffling one.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home