I received an email from someone I do not know chiding me for my 'defense of Steve Bullock' in my last post. Since it appears that it was sent in good faith, I will not repost it or expose the author here. It did raise a few questions or concerns that have been occupying my thoughts here of late, so I'll post what response I can.
First, I was not defending Steve Bullock. Some of my opinions were posted yesterday, so allow me to flesh them out here. (Wait. You don't have to allow it because this is my forum.) My opinion is that Bullock's response to the question was fueled by surprise at being asked a question that doesn't much pass his radar. He responded as a candidate to a question he didn't expect, about an issue that is not very big to him, and informed himself only by his legal training. A Governor should not be in the business of overturning the will of his constituents. Those who think the response thoughtless have every right and reason to do so, especially as it affects them personally. I'm not defending that response at all. In truth, I thought it kind of thoughtless as well. To me, it was also understandable, and not of much substance. That is not a defense, it's rather pointing out the obvious.
The rest of the email can be boiled down to one question, in a couple of parts. 'How can you write that GBLT marriage rights are of no concern to you when it is a matter of civil rights?' That is actually a fine question, the one that demanded this response, one I have no problem answering when seen for it's parts.
First, how can marriage equality not affect me? Back in 2004, when Montana was considering it's defense of hetero-normity amendment, we were all inundated with the rather 'pragmatic' argument that gay weddings would cheapen, kill, blaspheme and destroy traditional marriage and our moral standing in the world. The correct and appropriate response to that was also very pragmatic and honest. Nope, gay people getting married won't influence or affect me one single iota. Not even a smidgen. Yet now that the amendment became a part of the Constitution of Montana, I am being asked to admit that it does affect me. No. No it doesn't. Whether or not GBLT people have wedding rights will not change my life at all. Not one bit. I'm not doing a 180 on this. My answer in 2004 is the same as my answer in 2012. It won't affect me either way. However, there are those that it will affect in very dramatic ways. And that is the root of single issue voting.
Those who feel (rightly or wrongly) that a single issue will affect them deeply given it's outcome are single issue voters and by all correct thinking, they should be. Where problems arise (one of many ways) is when single issue voters use that issue as an appeal to universalize voting itself. A bigger problem is when multi-issue voters use the single as a rallying cry to attack the person, rather than the issue. Witness this: Dave Strohmaier put out an advertisement promoting his support of marriage equality in Montana. The self-appointed liberal watchdog of Montana living in Colorado pulled his best Admiral Ackbar impression and warned us all that Strohmaier was likely deceitful, using a wedge issue to manipulate our votes. What's funny to me is this, a politician bringing up a wedge issue designed for single issue voters is to be suspect, but a poor response about a single issue thrown at a politician is cause for sharpening pitchforks and lighting torches (with all due non-violence, of course.) It seems to me there is something wrong with that. Claiming that something affects all people when it doesn't really isn't true. It often doesn't even ring true on reading.
What is wrong is confusion. It is using a single issue in effort to universalize it to all voters. That is what has happened with GBLT rights. Gay marriage is not the actual issue. The issue is civil rights. On that score, I don't think Bullock failed, despite himself. Ted Kennedy famously argued in the Senate that if rights were to mean anything, they could not be open to the will of voters, and especially could not be defined or denied by the states in this unified Republic. I think, my opinion, that many if not most, Puritopians have forgotten that simple truth. What the AG or Governor in Montana argues for or does not means little to the rights we all should have.
Yes, that affects me, just not on any level that will actually affect my life or the way I live it. Sad paradox, isn't it? Boiled down, GBLT rights are a matter of principle. Civil rights are a matter of principle. But when the rubber meets the road, telling anyone that a principle that will not affect them in even the smallest bit is more important than causes and effects that will alter their life is a poor strategy. It is begging one to agree with the universal nature of a cause that really isn't universal at all.
I'm not a single issue voter. I've yet to encounter a single issue that affects me so very much that I will pin my hopes on electoral success. At no point do I or will I fault those who do. Nor will I be told that a single issue defines my life or beliefs just because it might be falsely universalized.
This is slightly off-topic and may not be of general interest, but I've come up with a statement of my position on gay rights, including gay marriage, on my campaign website -- it's on the Issues page.
To me, the issue is petty simple. And people who don't like my position on it wouldn't vote for me anyhow.
The website is www.turnerforsenatedistrict36.com.
Posted by: Turner | May 04, 2012 at 11:50 AM
One can fairly claim to be affected by issues that define what kind of society we have, even if we're not physically impacted: I don't have to have been waterboarded to think that the people that waterboarded people ought to be criminally charged for having done so. And to feel 'directly affected' by the stubborn refusal of the President to do that which is within his power to lead our society from what it is to what it ought to be.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | May 04, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Richard, thanks for the comment. I've added your site to the sidebar.
Charley, you make a good point, one I attempted less well since my focus was on other things. Just because GBLT marriage rights don't affect me materially doesn't mean that the greater issues of equality don't either. My point is that whether or not something affects me materially has nothing to do with what principles I endorse, support and tally for my vote.
My point to the previous post, clarified here, is that no one else has anything but hypocritical will in telling me what that support should be or what it should mean. Probably being slightly meaner than I should be, I categorize those people as little different than Gary Marbut.
Posted by: Wulfgar | May 04, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Thank you for that clarification, Rob: it hurts my feelings when people with whom we have mutual respect clash on such emotional issues.
It is this interested party's view that AG Bullock has punted on Montana's wishes in upholding medical cannabis, too, as he compacts his perspective to attract more centrist voters.
Best wishes to you. Please reconcile with those of us drifting farther and farther to the left lane.
Posted by: larry kurtz | May 04, 2012 at 03:59 PM
Larry, I'm farther to the left than you may think. That would be the result of a concerted crusade of 'serve my will or be silent' on the part of others who just don't think I agree with them enough.
My time remains incredibly limited, but one thing I do intend to address soon is the ridiculous idea of voting for the 'lesser of two evils'. Just as a tease, doesn't that mean that whoever speaks such drivel is the arbiter of what is "evil"?
There will likely be no reconciliation with the Puritopians. That actually hurts my feelings too. But the blogs have always had a "Stand your Ground" law, and I've no intention of backing off what I think is right. (Okay, so it's not so much a law as it is an innate feature of the venue, born of the first amendment.)
Bullock has punted on next to nothing that Schweitzer hasn't already kicked down the field. But Bullock doesn't have Brian's charisma, so the punting becomes ever more apparent.
Posted by: Wulfgar | May 04, 2012 at 04:22 PM
you're a bully, wuffy, who tries to play the victim role whenever possible. you're also very good at labeling people who you have problems with, and you've had a problem with most of the contributors at 4&20 for awhile now.
you usually did not argue in good faith. maybe that's because you are self-defined by your EXCLAMATION MARK!!!
one thing I've learned from interacting with you is how effective the trollish tool of flame-baiting to derail comment threads can be. when I was a newbie who didn't know any better, I played straight into your little games.
no one benefits, though, from that level of discourse.
Posted by: lizard | May 05, 2012 at 06:42 AM
Lizard, I don't go to other people's webistes just to tell them how awful they are as human beings. I don't make up fables about how others have threatened me, then tell all my friends so I can look important and sympathetic while trying hard to hide the fact I'd done such a thing. Those would apparently be 'progressive' principles I don't share. So let's just say that you and I have pretty huge disagreement about what being a bully is.
Of course you don't think I 'argue in good faith'. That's because you don't. As I've stated many times, that's the standard Puritopian response to anyone who disagrees with their current outrage.
If there's something I've learned in my interactions with you, 'Lizard' it's the reason why the phrase "reality based community" has fallen out of favor with the self-obsessed champions of apostolic progressivism. His a hint, Liz, no one benefits from crusades divorced from reality. In fact, a lot of people usually end up hurt by such.
Posted by: Wulfgar | May 05, 2012 at 12:29 PM
don't put words in my mouth.
I called you a bully. to be specific, you have a bullying online persona. I do not think you are an awful human being. I don't really know you, but I've become very familiar with how you choose to operate online.
I think it's very interesting you assume there is an innate feature of blogs comparable to a "stand your ground" law. does that mean when you feel threatened by other perspectives that challenge your basic political assumptions, you feel justified in virtually shooting them dead?
that makes sense. but it doesn't have to be that way. humans write blogs, and makes comments, and humans have choices. we even get to form our own realities, because Reality doesn't exist, only billions of little subjective realities.
ladybug, now mahmet, recently made this comment at Piece of Mind:
"I don’t share reality. Only one per person, please. Try as one might, sharing another’s gets confusing fast. Be content we all even care about it at all. Rare these days."
I like that. do you like that Rob? or does that come from a commenter you categorize as part of the emoprog blogosphere, or whatever label you're currently using. I don't know. that's part of your reality, which is your choice to make.
so go ahead and keep standing your ground, Rob. you've got valid concerns about the short-term consequences of the political nihilism I sometimes express, and there are still plenty of people who are willing to hold their nose and vote for the guy that's blowing up women and children in places like Pakistan and Yemen to make us safe from terrorists.
keep the base where you protect your reality well defended, Rob. these are crazy times. we could all be very wrong about a lot of things.
Posted by: lizard | May 05, 2012 at 01:57 PM
You really should learn to use the language, lizard. Being pugnacious is not being a bully. I've never carried a banner of "agree with me or face my wrath". As I've clarified, many many times, that would more be your schtick. As I've also clarified many many times, I have no patience for willful stupidity, nor have I encountered any moral code that demands it, (save Conservatism). That's one of the reasons why people such as yourself react with hostility when I use their own words against what they claim. My behavior online is pugnacious. To claim that you don't think what you just blatantly accused me of? Yeah, that would be willfully stupid.
No, Lizard. What it means is that there is no 'blogic' law that says I have to 'play nice'. I rarely, if ever, feel threatened by 'other perspectives', and find it ridiculous when people do. In my little reality, I only feel threatened by others actions or potential actions, not by words on a screen.
Whether I like it or not only matters if it was meant as propaganda and I received it as such. What is pertinent to rational discussion is whether or not I agree with it. I don't. I spent too much time studying Immanuel Kant to believe that subjective reality defines all we can know. I have a great empathy for existential thought and have often called myself a Marxist existentialist. But post-modernist solipsism is anti-biological at best, and a denial of moral responsibility at worst. Are you certain that a debate over ontology is one you want to call?
Why, Thank you. Now that I have your permission, I think I will.
That may be the first time you've ever admitted such, though you had to do so in a 'bullying' manner. After laying out that trope, kindly don't ever tell me again how I argue in 'bad faith'. For the record, I've suggested that many on the left were engaging in political nihilism well before you wrote a post stating such. The Internet didn't begin with your involvement; you get that, right? It may take bringing down the system to get to a result where America is no longer an imperial power. It may also make us slaves to other imperial powers. And more to my concerns, it won't be because of the mewling cries of non-violence coming from 'progressives'. Bringing down 'the system' is revolutionary. I mean that with all it implies. Political nihilism does not have "short term consequences", Lizard. I find myself unsurprised that a) you don't realize that, and b), you've no will to discuss it with one so 'bullying' as me.
That might be the first and only thing you and I can agree on.
Posted by: Wulfgar | May 05, 2012 at 03:17 PM
political nihilism would include those who don't vote because they don't see the point. that's a hefty part of the population, Rob. and why do you think that is? it's because they see plenty of evidence of voting not really mattering in their lives. politicians quack nice sounding rhetoric for votes, then act in accordance to demands of those who can fan them with the biggest wads of cash. that's the system your practical bludgeon is swinging for.
I perceive you as being a bully, Rob. that's the word I will continue to use to describe you. you can use a different word, but that's your reality. kind of like how you celebrate being IN! YOUR! FACE!
that's very aggressive, Rob, some may even say threatening. but that's how you choose to be seen. a snarling wolf. you didn't choose the picture of a Pug. no, you want your snarl to be big and intimidating.
like I said, when I was a newbie I played in to the tactics I noticed you didn't deny using. I know now to be more weary. luckily this blog stuff doesn't really matter much.
I look forward to you having more time to share your very interesting insights into the minds of those you enjoy snarling at.
meow.
Posted by: lizard | May 05, 2012 at 03:55 PM
For a poet, you have a piss poor understanding of sarcasm and/or irony, don't you?
Prove it. You wrote:
Are those two actually similar? Do either have the efficacy you claim? Do you have anything that states that this kind and degree of public will is possible, or more to the point, desirable? Anything? No? I certainly didn't think so. The ultimately important question is this: What will does your version of nihilism serve? But don't blame me. I voted for Kodos, right?
As I wrote, you'd best get a grip.
Posted by: Wulfgar | May 05, 2012 at 05:02 PM
And I do notice that the liar who claims I threatened her, as well as the self-important drama queen, send you to do their dirty work. Good on you, Lizard. Oh wait, they didn't send you? You're just dumb enough to accept their lies while claiming I am a bully when you can't show it?
Yeah. Good on you, Lizard. (What a putz.)
Posted by: Wulfgar | May 05, 2012 at 05:09 PM
I'd best get a grip? or else what? kinda sounds like a threat.
low voter turn out hurts Democrats, which is why groups like ALEC promote state laws aimed at making voting more difficult.
GOP electoral success will make the social conditions even worse, which may make destruction even more desirable. yeah, I think there's a connection between not voting and political nihilism.
as for your second comment, my choice to engage you here is mine alone. and you're right, it is dirty work, but hey, someone's got to do it.
Posted by: lizard | May 05, 2012 at 09:12 PM
No, Lizard, someone doesn't. That seems to be one of the fundamental things about blogs you really don't understand.
I never wrote that there was no connection between not-voting and political nihilism. I have asked, very often in the past and here again, why is your political nihilism desirable? Since you avoid the topic of it's efficacy, let me be blunt: who and how many must be martyred before you get what you want?
Posted by: Wulfgar | May 07, 2012 at 03:20 PM
it's a figure of speech, blog master. when you get to talking shit on 4&20, I feel like someone should address your mewing. sometimes that someone is me.
and I've never said my political nihilism is desirable. I lament that at low points that's how I feel.
Posted by: lizard | May 07, 2012 at 05:56 PM
Talking shit? Did she lie or did she not? Inquiring minds want to know?
Posted by: Wulfgar | May 07, 2012 at 07:00 PM
And you're still avoiding the question":
who and how many must be martyred before you get what you want?
Posted by: Wulfgar | May 07, 2012 at 07:01 PM
I'm not getting involved with your spat with j-girl.
as to martyrs, there are already plenty who have died and suffered under the Obama administration.
over a thousand women and children have been killed with drone strikes.
3 US citizens have been killed with drone strikes.
a half dozen whistleblowers have been targeted under the Espionage Act.
over a million immigrants have been booted.
maybe your pragmatic approach to playing the political game will yield a few concessions from the bipartisan consensus that has impoverished this country over 3 decades.
or maybe, despite the good intentions of good people, the trend-lines won't change until the consensus is challenged from a locale outside this two party death grip.
Posted by: lizard | May 07, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Uh No. ~W
Posted by: Probably not unless his IQ has dropped a lot Mark Tokarski | May 08, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Well, Liz, that's a start.
First, I don't think you understand the word "martyr". The dead you decry are not martyrs to us. They are victims. You may find that a small distinction. It's really not. So let me ask a question, in good faith. Do you seek symbols for a cause you support, or do you seek justice? I would be happy if you would elucidate.
Second, calling my understanding of our representation a 'political game' shows a misunderstanding of what Representative Democracy is all about. I've never considered it a game. I've called you a poor American because you thionk this is play. That you do so does more to explain why your outlook is so grim than it does to explain what I believe or where I come at the issues from. In truth, it's a rather dismissive style of Ad Hominem.
Third, what I've been asking remains unanswered. What makes you think the 'trend-lines' can be changed by challenge from "outside this two party death grip", what form will that take and what will be the consequences of such actions?
Those are honest responses and questions, Lizard. My confidence that you can or will respond to them with honesty remains very low.
Posted by: Wulfgar | May 08, 2012 at 04:41 PM
I understand the distinction, and the martyrs being created by the administration only fuel the hatred of America.
but Democrats are too busy being super excited that their president can't be called a wuss (like you called me) because he isn't shy about killing people, even US citizens. ho-hum.
Democrats don't seem very capable of stepping back and asking themselves if drone-killing is actually good policy (hint: it's not). in fact, a drone strike just killed a woman and 4 or 5 kids. does that make us more safe from terrorists, or create more people who hate and despise us for good reason?
the term martyr is hyperbolic; I don't think anyone should have to suffer for an ideology. but I will say that if we as citizens continue to allow the two wings of the war party to operate with impunity, then we will be attacked again, and the global community will not see those who get killed as guiltless victims.
representative democracy? ok, if you say so. the main problem: money.
and what makes me think "trend-lines" can be changed by challenge from outside this two party death grip? it's called history, Rob. like the labor struggles and civil rights struggles that used direct action, boycotts, and civil disobedience to make political gains where cowardly political will barely existed.
that.
Posted by: lizard | May 08, 2012 at 05:49 PM
Sidelining everything but the topic. I really think Gay rights is a civil rights matter.
Some busybody people think, they should define how others want to love each other.... I think it is high time we silence those critics and legally give gays the same rights as others.
Is it a wedge issue? No, not any longer half the country by some polls, and higher in most others say the country is ready for this to end. That gays should be allowed equal privilege. I agree!
Is this the defining issue of the election?
No! No one in their right mind should focus on singular issues, there are so many problems the country needs dealt with now, like Jobs, taxes, healthcare, a crumbling infrastructure, our children's future education.....
But I gotta tell you, the GOP cant seem to walk and chew gum at the same time anymore. This is were ALEC and the KOCH brothers come in and give them issues to rail for!
Republicans have come to that impasse when they cant come together on anything without a corporate sponsor writing the bill! They are so paralyzed by social issues by the Teapublicans, they can no longer move forward.
Watching them tear down one of the last moderates in Richard Lugar today was Painful... but it shows me they have learned nothing in the last two years of sending TP folk to DC. People who represent them have done nothing but gum up the works and say "No".... and yet, two years of getting nothing done hasn't fazed the TP base at all.
We are in this now for the longer haul!
Posted by: Ilikewoods | May 09, 2012 at 01:11 AM
By the way my site is up as well!
Http://www.normaduffy.com
Posted by: Ilikewoods | May 09, 2012 at 01:15 AM