A Democratic friend of Elizabeth Marquardt has criticized Elizabeth for opposing same-sex marriage. Elizabeth suggests this is hypocritical of the friend, since the friend plans to vote for Kerry in the upcoming election. Kerry, like Elizabeth, opposes same-sex marriage (and he’s willing to amend the Massachusetts constitution to prevent gays from marrying) but supports civil unions.
There’s a key difference between Elizabeth’s friend and Elizabeth, however. Elizabeth’s friend doesn’t have a full range of positions to choose from; among candidates who have a chance of winning in 2004, it’s the Bush position or the Kerry position, and that’s it. Given a system in which the only real choices are the Bush position and the Kerry position, it’s not hypocritical for someone who favors SSM to support (bleh) Kerry. At least Kerry opposes Bush’s plan to amend the Federal Constitution.
Elizabeth, however, did not face that sort of constraint when choosing her position on same-sex marriage. She had a free choice of all positions, and chose to take an anti-gay position on this particular issue. (As Elizabeth points out, she’s generally pro-gay on other issues.). Thus, Elizabeth’s choice to oppose gay marriage is not equivalent to the choice her friend made to support Kerry.
I agree with Elizabeth that Kerry’s position on same-sex marriage is morally incoherant (although it seems odd of Elizabeth to say so, since her position is so similar to Kerry’s). However, when the only choices are Bush and someone whose position on SSM is incoherant, then it’s a reasonable position to vote for incoherancy.
That said, this is another example of what’s wrong with a two-party system. And Kerry’s opposition to equality – whether it comes from heartfelt opposition to gay marriage or from political pandering – doesn’t really inspire my support. (Don’t worry, Bush-haters, I plan to pull a paper bag over my head and vote for Kerry anyway.).
The problem of often needing to support a politician even though his or her position on some issue is abhorrent to you (because the other guy is worse) is not unique to two-party systems.
Even in countries with dozens of parties, coalitions must be built to form a government. If you vote Green in Germany, for example, you’re voting for the Red-Green coalition and therefore for Schroeder, even though you might dislike his policies. You can choose to vote in such a system for a purist party that will refuse to participate in any coalition, but if so, you might be helping to assure that someone whose views you find appalling will wind up running the country.
Now, there are still advantages over our system, in that the independents can still be elected to the parliament. But other aspects of the parliamentary system often mean that these mavericks have no say: party discipline is much tighter, meaning that the coalition with a majority gets to enact its program with little hindrance. So you really can’t get away from the problem that the best can be the enemy of the good.
I submit.
* I ought to vote for the presidental candidate who agrees with me 100% on every issue.
* I am the only person who agrees with me on 100% on every issue.
* I ought to vote for myself.
– Supporting gay marriage would be political suicide in this country. Why? Because this is America–homophobia runs rampant. Even among homosexuals, to some degree.
The difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry’s heart isn’t in it. Have you looked in his eyes when he says he believes marriage is between a man and a woman? He looks guilty. I seriously doubt that Kerry would support a *federal* gay marriage ban. Heck- look at how they’ve worded the Massachusetts ammendment- so that EITHER WAY gay couples get *something*.
People expect politicians to be perfect, and to be able to speak their views 100%. That’s fine for Republicans like Bush–but any liberal that does that in this country is going to be skewered and roasted.
So, what’s better? Voting for someone whose heart isn’t in voting for a gay marriage ban, or voting for someone whose heart and soul are IN it, who’s pushing it in congress, who’s running on it as a platform? (Or better yet- voting for some weak kneed putz who will essentially give votes to the homophobe in the whitehouse)
Sure, Kerry’s not perfect. Liberals aren’t going to get “Perfect” in the white house for a LONG time to come. Get over it. Pick the best man. Rally behind Kerry and maybe things won’t be quite as bad somewhere down the road.
I submit:
-a bipartisan system is entirely unfair and doesn’t fully represent its people.
-there seems to be very little we can do about this.
-therefore, we should abolish all world government and replace it with a Raznarchy, or at least Raznocracy. In any case, all government authority should be through me, specifically. For all time. Meaning that when I die, the rest of you either have to clone me or destroy the world.
It just makes sense!
I agree completely, and couldn’t have said it better myself. To those who say supporting gay marriage would be political suicide, not true. For example, Kerry was asked if he approved of abortion, his answer: I support a woman’s right to choose. But that’s not really the answer to the question is it? The Democrats need to figure out how to stand up for the right thing here, and then they need to do it. Certainly, we could have some political leaders who aren’t running stand up and support marriage equality. Very few have. They say they support civil unions, but really, that’s like saying they support a doctor’s right to choose.
Keith
I should have added “It just makes sense”! That adds rhetorical power to the whole argument.
yeah, but I am kinda indecisive, so even I don’t agree with me 100% of the time ….
I’m going to go with the idea of cloning Raznor.
In fact, I think we ought to clone Raznor now, so that real!Raznor can keep on being underpaid and bitter, and thus will still have time to post neat comments, and clone!Raznor can run the world.
Get over it. Pick the best man. Rally behind Kerry and maybe things won’t be quite as bad somewhere down the road.
You do it. I’m bitter. :p
How come progressive voters only “count” when the Dems are afraid they’re going to lose?
I’m a little bit cranky about feeling that I’m being bullied into voting for them all the time. You think my vote counts? It’s important to you? Then court me, dammit! Bring me some flowers and chocolates. Then maybe I’ll consider it.
I’ve been saying that now for years, Elkins, but nobody listens.
I think I’d rather vote for someone other than Nader, but I have to say that watching the same old legion of DLC and/or liberal trained seals (no, I don’t mean anyone on this blog at the moment) lob the same old insulting bullshit at him and his followers is not a terribly good advertisement for their product. Nor are Kerry’s stances on the war, trade, campaign finance reform, and so on.
I’m voting Kucinich in the primary because I hope he can get a handful of clout at the convention if I do. He seems to think he can. What the hell ? [shrug] It’s better than ripping out all my hair again. Plenty of time for that between July and November. :(
Morphienne,
Welcome to the Horde of Minion of the Raznocracy! I have to warn you that your addition has upgraded us to being a Horde of Minions.
Amy S.,
You don’t have to vote for Nader. There is (or will be, most likely) a Green candidate. And there are various flavors of socialist & progressive parties.
Yep. I know, Jake. I’m just in a weepy, brooding sort of mood. The happy pills aren’t holding their own today. :(
Yes, excellent, my loyal hordes have now doubled in size! Now you may do my evil bidding. But uhh, I’m not sure of any evil bidding for you. So, uh, I don’t know, maybe do some jumping jacks until I can think of anything more evil for you to do.
Raznor,
I’m still voting for myself. We differ on some substantive issues. I do not want E Marquart to call me a hypocrite. Were she to do so, I would melt into a pool of tears.
However, when the only choices are Bush and someone whose position on SSM is incoherant, then it’s a reasonable position to vote for incoherancy.
So you’ll be voting for Bush, then?
How has the SSM issue been treated in those countries that have other voting systems? Are there parties that have endorsed SSM? Obviously in the Netherlands, right, where it’s legal (am I correct about that?), but what about elsewhere?
I voted for Nader in the last two elections, so I can hardly be accused of being a mindless DLC Nader basher. But the kinds of things Nader has been saying this year make me doubt whether the man has any remaining contact with reality. He’s actually talking as if, by running, he and Kerry can form a two-front war against Bush and that he (Nader) will take votes away from Republicans. That’s just whacked. Even Noam Chomsky says we’ve got to hold our noses and vote Kerry this year.
Yes, there are tons of things wrong with Kerry. He’ll bring the Rubin people back in to promote neoliberal “free trade” policies that are bankrupting the third world. While he will shift the tax burden somewhat in the direction of the better off, he won’t fully undo the shift in recent years that taxes labor more and capital less. He will maintain hostility towards countries that dissent from the “wisdom” of the IMF and the WTO (like Venezuela).
So why vote for him? Because there are issues where the differences are black and white. Abortion is often mentioned, but equally important are the environment (where Kerry has a great record and Bush has an appalling one), and continuation along the Bush path is just death. And on the issues where Kerry is bad, I don’t get the impression that he is a true believer, like the neocons are. A Kerry administration will have a mix of progressives and pro-business neolibs, so the good guys will have a shot at winning some battles. With Republicans in charge there is no chance at all that the right thing will happen on almost any issue.
There are some dangers to a Kerry victory. The media will henceforth call Kerry’s positions the “left” and the Republicans in Congress the “right”, and anything further left than Kerry could become just unspeakable as far as the press is concerned. It’s possible that Kerry will do the wrong thing on Iraq (given the mess that Bush will leave him with), but there is some hope: he needs to be reminded of his own personal history.
In 1971, when he was with Vietnam Veterans Against The War, he asked “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”. This question is highly relevant today.
Frankly, Joe, I enjoyed your post. But it scares the fuck out of me that Kerry seems to be making motions toward escalating the war and re-establishing the draft. Like Iraq hasn’t been enough of a giant disaster already for everyone except Haliburton. :(
One of the reasons I’m trying to make little gestures in the direction of Kucinich’s run through Oregon is because I hope some more reasonable Democrats can talk some sense into Kerry on the issue of war and foreign policy in general. It would be nice if Democrats actually listened to each other instead of Republicans for a change. Alas, I’m starting to suspect that it’s Lieberman’s camp that has the tightest grip on Kerry’s ear at the moment. :(
What was Michael Moore’s joke about how much “I hate losing when we win” ?
Bah. [fume]
Hi