-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
I'm also one of those who is aggravated by conversions like Portman's, and here's why.
As has already been mentioned, it comes down to selfishness vs. empathy. It's practically engraved in stone in our political discourse. "Bleeding-heart liberal" is a phrase that goes back almost to the invention of the printing press, a phrase used to mock and scorn people for caring. When politics are reduced to two poles, this is how things shake out.
This is not to say that things are completely black and white. People on the selfish end of things feel empathy, but it tends to be limited to the people in their own monkeysphere. And that's why Portman's "conversion" isn't really a conversion at all. It is a conversion of particulars, not of nature. He's got a gay son, so now he gets a first hand look at what that really means, and why anti-gay policies are bad. But is Portman going to change his stances and his senate vote on social services for the needy? On health care? Or is he going to stick to the rest of the same selfish destructive conservative policy platform that harms millions of Americans in the same way his vote for DOMA harmed his son? It's easy to give a damn about people close to us, we're hardwired for that. Being able to have true empathy for everyone is the hard part, and that's what we should be elevating and praising.
So no, much in the same way I don't respect people who deeply believe in harmful ideas just because their belief is honest, I don't respect people just because they realize one of their harmful ideas is bad only when it actually touches their lives. They gain respect when they expand that revelation outward to encompass others who are not part of their lives, on issues that don't directly affect them or their families and friends. That is what is praiseworthy, and what we should be striving for.
Also, Portman isn't just an average citizen. He's a US Senator, and as such wields actual power. He voted for DOMA. The harm you do is not immediately absolved when you have a change of heart. That takes atonement.
So Portman doesn't get a parade, he gets a grumpycat "Good.". He'll have to earn his parade by working towards a lot more policies that help people who need help instead of policies that screw them over. Not just for his son.
If the lesson here is that the way to get people who oppose things like social welfare, anti-rape legislation, and gun control to support them is for them or someone they love to be starved, raped, and shot, that's a pretty fucking shitty lesson. We should hold humanity to higher standards than, "doesn't touch fire twice".
As has already been mentioned, it comes down to selfishness vs. empathy. It's practically engraved in stone in our political discourse. "Bleeding-heart liberal" is a phrase that goes back almost to the invention of the printing press, a phrase used to mock and scorn people for caring. When politics are reduced to two poles, this is how things shake out.
This is not to say that things are completely black and white. People on the selfish end of things feel empathy, but it tends to be limited to the people in their own monkeysphere. And that's why Portman's "conversion" isn't really a conversion at all. It is a conversion of particulars, not of nature. He's got a gay son, so now he gets a first hand look at what that really means, and why anti-gay policies are bad. But is Portman going to change his stances and his senate vote on social services for the needy? On health care? Or is he going to stick to the rest of the same selfish destructive conservative policy platform that harms millions of Americans in the same way his vote for DOMA harmed his son? It's easy to give a damn about people close to us, we're hardwired for that. Being able to have true empathy for everyone is the hard part, and that's what we should be elevating and praising.
So no, much in the same way I don't respect people who deeply believe in harmful ideas just because their belief is honest, I don't respect people just because they realize one of their harmful ideas is bad only when it actually touches their lives. They gain respect when they expand that revelation outward to encompass others who are not part of their lives, on issues that don't directly affect them or their families and friends. That is what is praiseworthy, and what we should be striving for.
Also, Portman isn't just an average citizen. He's a US Senator, and as such wields actual power. He voted for DOMA. The harm you do is not immediately absolved when you have a change of heart. That takes atonement.
So Portman doesn't get a parade, he gets a grumpycat "Good.". He'll have to earn his parade by working towards a lot more policies that help people who need help instead of policies that screw them over. Not just for his son.
If the lesson here is that the way to get people who oppose things like social welfare, anti-rape legislation, and gun control to support them is for them or someone they love to be starved, raped, and shot, that's a pretty fucking shitty lesson. We should hold humanity to higher standards than, "doesn't touch fire twice".
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
I can see that...a buddy of mine told me a lady called the cops because he looked suspicious near the airport. He's a tall, dark brother from the Caribbean, that's been working as one of the head engineers on the expansion at Atlanta's airport. He was just doing some statistics. The twist? The lady whip called was black. He had his badge, a pen and a note pad. We are 40 years from civil rights.
BertramCooper
Banned
It's amazing that supposedly-progressive people can so easily piss on what will one day be seen as a significant milestone in the movement toward marriage equality.
Equally amazing how supposedly-progressive people can so easily hand out credit for significant milestones to people who have never been anything but an impediment to progress. Yeah, it's great that the GOP anti-gay monolith got a big crack in it. I'll praise the years of effort and struggle by gay rights activists and the politicians that supported the movement all along for finally bringing enough social pressure to bear that it finally became possible. I'll not praise Portman for it.
BertramCooper
Banned
Yeah, that Portman. He's a whole 10 MONTHS behind the uber-progressive leaders of Democratic Party on same-sex marriage.
Who's saying that many of us are happy with the 'swiftness' of Obama and other progressive's 'evolving attitudes' on coming out in favor of same-sex marriage. I think many of us expected and wanted this to come to pass years ago, and are truly embarrassed at how slow our politicians act.
But good on Portman, he's the first Republican to come to the side of reason (on this topic at least), and he should be commended for it.
You're kidding, right? Nobody is going to remember "the first sitting Republican senator to support SSM." Nor should they in 2013. Portman is jumping on a train that's halfway out of the station. Why should we be impressed?
Did I say Democrats? Fuck the Democrats. Credit goes to those who helped. Portman was never one of them. The only reason Portman even had the political option to support his son's rights openly is because so many others worked and struggled for years against people just like him to change society.
BertramCooper
Banned
In all likelihood, SSM won't be adopted nationwide until a significant number of Republicans change their stance on the issue. So yeah, for a sitting Republican senator to support SSM is a pretty big deal.
And on a state level, it could prove hugely helpful to passing SSM in Ohio, the 7th largest state in the country.
You don't need to do anything, but if you want more people to jump on that train, I think it's better not to spit on those that do, and yeah, some positive feedback might help here.
And more broadly, I can understand being disappointed that it took until 2013 (though again, I don't how many people would've take a political stance that would have the same impact on their career as supporting same sex marriage in 2008 would had on Portman's) but I don't understand the outrage/disappointment that he did it only after his son came out. Changing strongly held beliefs when confronted with conflicting evidence is all I ask for, ever, even for myself.
I might shoot the guy a supportive email.
RustyNails
Member
holy shit. That was a better smackdown than some of the ones I've seen from supposedly "great" stand up comedians. And the balls it takes to say that...100% hostile crowd. My man.
The reason people are upset is because the conflicting evidence shouldn't qualify only after it's directly touching your family. It's not like this stuff is hidden.
So are you upset now that a sitting Republican senator didn't have more out of the closet gay friends?
So we're sticking to the low bar of only caring about friends and family. :|
You reject the notion that meeting gay people in person can have a profound effect on people's opinion on the subject?
I mean sure, it would've been great if people did their research and reached out to homosexuals on their own, but most people don't, personal interaction works infinitely better, we known that for a while, and that's on of the main reasons why activists are pushing gays to come out.
I don't think it's a big deal at all, for reasons I will elucidate below, but that's not what you said -- you said it will be seen as a significant milestone! Can you tell me the one Southern Democrat Senator to vote for cloture on the Civil Rights Act? Has his name gone down in song and story? You don't get credit for being the least bad bad guy.
Secondly, I don't think SSM will ever be adopted nationwide by Congress, but I don't think it will have to be -- at the bare minimum, I believe SCOTUS is going to throw out DOMA and force comity, which will make it a federal reality. Major civil rights victories have a tendency to happen in the court before they do on Capital Hill. They might leave it to the states to individually legalize it, but at that point it'll be even more of a fait accompli than it already is today. So I'm not particularly interested in Portman's vote, because I don't think it'll ever matter. I hope it does help pass SSM in Ohio, and if I'm wrong about SCOTUS, I hope it helps pass it nationwide -- but I would be shocked if this is still an issue in 2020.
You gotta be kidding me. First off, I have no interest in helping the Republican Party realign itself -- that's their problem, not mine. If Republicans continue to oppose gay marriage, that means less Republicans.
Secondly, I think it's ridiculous to give this guy credit for his brave rethinking of the issue. In case you didn't notice, Rob Portman's son came out to him in February of 2011. Since that time, Portman was protested at U of M for opposing gay rights, and his spokesperson reiterated then that "Portman believes marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman." So please don't pretend to yourself that he's doing this because he knows his son is gay! He's known for two years. It happens to be the right time to start favoring gay rights. But we certainly didn't hear any of this before November. If I thought this actually made SSM more likely, I would support it just for that, while observing that the politician in question is a naked opportunist on the issue (as I did when Obama pretended to switch to supporting it). But as noted, I don't. Once same sex marriage hit the Inaugural Address, it was a done deal (if Obama didn't think the Republicans would have to come around and support it, he wouldn't have mentioned it so as to take credit for it), so I don't feel we particularly gained here. What we got is another Republican deserting the sinking ship. Good for him. Pretty nondescript for us.
edit: Backpats to HuffPo for the info above -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/rob-portman-gay-marriage_n_2881805.html
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
speculawyer
Member
That is misinterpreting the point. No one is 'condeming him'. Just pointing out that it is sad that people can only see the light when it is shoved in their face. That does not bode well for getting more people to change their views because we can't expect them all to have gay children.
Do we have to wait until X% of GOPers have gay children before we can get them to agree to giving them equal rights?
Fenderputty
Banned
Agreed.
People from the opposing side jumping on board is good for the broader movement of equality. This reads like you're willing to take political advantage over the advancement of equal rights.
I don't care if it was politically advantageous for him to jump on board now or not either. Hopefully he's celebrated for this and more people can jump forward in support as well.
As I thought I made clear, I think equal rights are advancing with or without Portman's help. Given this, I am not particularly interested in people who, in my view, still fundamentally oppose social justice attempting to coopt the victory by claiming they're on our side now that we're winning.
Of course I understand that. But we're talking about a politician at the national level. "I just didn't know anyone like that" doesn't cut it. We should require our politicians to be able to extend their empathy to people beyond their immediate circle. We should expect them to consider evidence and experiences that come from normal citizens. How else are they to represent us?
Through years of being directly confronted with entreaties for the recognition of gay rights from constituents, with all the debate, personal stories, news accounts, analysis, and letters, Portman effectively replied through his votes, no, no, no, fuck you, and no.
But then his son comes out, and now he's all, oh wow, I guess these people do deserve rights!
You can't see how that's kind of infuriating?
Like I said before, we should be expecting better. Are we to hope for some Republican officeholder to have a family member lose his home from crippling medical bills so that he can finally be aware that thousands of Americans have suffered this already, since he's apparently unable to see or hear news reports? And then pat him on the head for "seeing the light", while he continues to vote for all kinds of other vile shit until one of them eventually affects someone close to him?
Not good enough.
Fenderputty
Banned
It's moving, but it could move faster. Having half the political atmosphere in this country continue to be caustic to the movement is bad. It's supports the divisive narrative.
The Librarian
Banned
This is probably the main point of contention for me. I applaud the man for coming to the right position, but think of all the transgender folks too (for example). Do we have to wait until Portman's son transitions from male to female to make it easier to pass laws for folks like that?
BertramCooper
Banned
Jon Huntsman doesn't have any gay kids, as far as we know. I don't know why you'd think that only Republicans with gay kids will ever come around on the issue.
Everyone in Congress knows Portman, and he's well-liked and respected by people in both parties. The fact that he has a gay son and is fully supporting him could have a significant impact within Congress.
Let's face it, it's not a narrative, the country is divided. Trying to pretend that being warmer and fuzzier about it would move things faster in the direction we want is about as sensible as Reid deciding a handshake agreement over the filibuster would get the GOP to cooperate more.
The Librarian
Banned
Eh. I think you're overestimating Portman's presence in the Senate. He's like Burr. Hardly anybody knows he's there.
BertramCooper
Banned
And being a dick to any Republican who has the good sense to change his/her mind is a better strategy?
10+ years in the House, Bush's OMB director, trade representative, strong contender for Romney's veep.
He is extremely well-known in Washington, even if you don't know him.
So what? Half the country opposed desegregating schools, and we got that anyway, from the Supreme Court and the executive. I don't really care about the "divisive narrative." Nor, I think, will the Supreme Court. They're much more likely to care about the 60% of Americans who already support gay marriage than the unrepresentative Republican Party.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
So what? Many times it takes a person being affected PERSONALLY before they can fully appreciate their view was wrong. While not entirely the same I was against gay marriage when first joining GAF. It took a few people here to help me realize I was wrong in holding that view.
People need to get off of their high horse when a public figure changes course and allows their ideology to change. Basically admitting they were wrong.
The Librarian
Banned
He hardly holds any real power in the Senate, and most GOP freshman are Tea Party types that probably don't know him too well. He doesn't make any noise. This will not have a significant impact in Congress that you're predicting. I think you're letting the fact that Portman's your senator cloud a bit of your judgement.
Liberals are glad he's changing his stance. We just wish it didn't take the issue to hit closer to home for him to reconsider his views.
I don't want a senator to lose his kid in Sandy Hook in order to get him to reconsider his views on gun control. I don't want someone to need to see their friends and family members discriminated against for being gay, black, transgendered, or whatever, in order to reconsider their views.
As Sea Manky said, I would like for progress to be better than not touching fire twice. A little bit of empathy is what I ask for. lack of empathy is why things like health care for 9/11 responders get blocked, or why universal single-payer health care isn't politically viable. You shouldn't need to know a 9/11 responder or have a shitty experience with the private health insurance industry in order to support these things. Especially as a member of Congress.
I don't want a senator to lose his kid in Sandy Hook in order to get him to reconsider his views on gun control. I don't want someone to need to see their friends and family members discriminated against for being gay, black, transgendered, or whatever, in order to reconsider their views.
As Sea Manky said, I would like for progress to be better than not touching fire twice. A little bit of empathy is what I ask for. lack of empathy is why things like health care for 9/11 responders get blocked, or why universal single-payer health care isn't politically viable. You shouldn't need to know a 9/11 responder or have a shitty experience with the private health insurance industry in order to support these things. Especially as a member of Congress.
Frankly, if I believed that Portman was genuinely honest about his conversion, I'd offer a different criticism (probably like Jon Chait did), but I don't, for reasons I've given. Nor do I believe, as apparently many here do, that the views politicians espouse necessarily coincide with their actual views.
Here's what I do believe: if we had a magic spell that could force all politicians to vote in line with what they really think, rather than what would be politically expedient for them, we could pass gay marriage through both houses of Congress today. We probably could've done it two or three years ago, even.
Not at all. You mentioned Huntsman. He changed his stance on gay rights without having a gay family member, just from examining the issue. That perfectly illustrates the difference from how Portman did it. I would say he had "the good sense to change his mind." I wouldn't say that about Portman.
I'll just be a dick to Huntsman about his economic stances. But at least he's shown that he can be responsive to evidence that doesn't directly affect him! As Chichikov said, that's all we can ask for.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
So what conversion would be acceptable to people frustrated with Portman?
Fenderputty
Banned
I'm not gay, but if I were, I would want it to move as fast as possible. I'm not just talking about the legality of SSM either. I'm talking about acceptance. I don't think we should just accept that half the nations political movement is pushing a hateful narrtive simply bcause they'll look stupid and be on the wrong side at the end. It sure would make for a great "I told you so though" huh?
BertramCooper
Banned
So you can only be sincere in your support for SSM if you don't have a gay child? How much fucking sense does that make?
Jesus Christ.
One that took place in 2011 would've been nice.
Really? Have you considered paying attention to anything that has happened since 1968? That's literally the ONLY THING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS DONE SINCE THEN.
Well... there is the Americans with Disabilities Act
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Ever had to alter a stance on an ideological issue that was difficult for you?
Fenderputty
Banned
This is precisely why I think the way I do.
Yes, this was my take as well. I just read yglesias' amazing post along the same lines.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/15/rob_portman_and_the_politics_of_narcissism.html
(This is only part, the whole thing is worth reading.)
Sorry, I just don't find it infuriating when a love to one's son override years of religious indoctrination, strong held beliefs and political calculations, not at all, not on any level.
Are you sure this isn't personal?
I mean, were you infuriated when Obama said that talking with his daughters about their friend's same sex parents change his mind on the subject?
And by the way, I at least believe Portman, I think Obama always supported gay marriage, he just didn't say so in public until that position stopped being a liability.
If you have no interest in making this country more tolerant toward gays that I think we're not going to agree on a whole mess of things.
Let me ask you this way, what's the downside of applauding that move (or at the very least, not shitting on Portman)?
I'm already tired of this bullshit. The Republican Party isn't the country.
What's the downside of consistently rewarding political opportunism? I feel like we both know the answer to that already.
BertramCooper
Banned
How is this opportunistic? This could mean a very serious primary challenge for Portman. It's a pretty huge risk, actually.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
How many of you who are condemning how he came to the decision or doubt he is genuine have ever been faced with doing a 180 on an issue such as gay marriage, in particular one built on religious indoctrination.
But people who vote Republican are close to half of this country. you honestly think that if the GOP came out in support of gay marriage this will have no impact on public opinions?
You really think that it's political opportunism for a Republican senator to support same sex marriage?
And as I'm sure I already I said a million times in this thread, I care much more about your positions than how you got to them, I think it's an infinitely more useful way to approach the world.
PhoenixDark
Banned
He's not jumping on a train. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. As others have said, Portman's reaction is no different from that of millions of older parents/baby boomers in this country. He is not making some calculated move with alterior motives (after all, he could be primaryed over this), he is simply expressing his own personal evolution on the subject.
There are plenty of people who came around on civil rights due to personal connections with black people, or due to their children entering an interracial marriage and having mixed children. You can get on a high horse and reject that type of social transformation but realize you're rejecting how most people evolve on these issues.
- Status