|
|
|
|
The Minor Details |
|
As the 2004 presidential election year begins, there's anger out there in everyday U.S. life that's often ignored. Much of it is unfocused waiting for clarity. But much is directed at the current "President." These people see him as a rich, bumbling, strutting, daddy's boy, who disappointed their populist hopes by blatantly feeding military contracts to buddies, dismantling environment protections to favor big-contributor industries' profits, stiffing the working class so that shifty corporate executives can run off with even more money, raising their children's national debt to play at fighting "terrorism," and fighting an Iraq war that looked good at one time to them but has shown its face in more corporate war-profiteering and lies about threatening weapons. The media spend little time really interested in these people, politicians see them as pushovers, and polls don't ask them thoughtful-enough questions to get their real opinions. Will their anger and sense of unfairness be tapped by a political party with a real, clear alternative to the present corporate-executive-funded administration? The Democratic Party has two chances to do this in 2004, one in the primaries and one in the general campaign. Will they blow it in order to look less "liberal" as they did in 2000 and 2002, trying to prove instead that they're really more like Republicans than a live, hopeful option? That's the unanswerable question in 2004. But there are some certainties about the campaign. First, it's clear that the Republican campaign will be far from nice. The right wing gave up nice in political campaigns even before it created the destroy-Clinton industry that still can't move on. Though this doesn't call for incivility in return, it does require that any "loyal opposition" needs to be less loyal, more opposed to something, and clear about standing for something. Nice didn't win the Congress in the last round, nor did it win the presidency in 2000. Frankly, nice won't win in the current climate. Second, will the Republicans label the Democratic candidate "liberal"? Of course they will. It doesn't matter one bit if she or he really is liberal. Using "liberal" as a putdown of any Democrat is guaranteed. So, there's no reason for the Democrats not to support someone who really is liberal, unless the party really isn't. Bill Clinton, after all, was labeled a liberal even though some of his policies were to the right of Richard Nixon. Third, will there be more macho posturing? Of course. The administration is a hyper-masculine gang with women members who better out-butch the men if they want to get along. Landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier and flying secretly to be seen with the troops are nothing compared to what's to come. And hyper-masculinity means language like: "We'll get him dead or alive." "Bring 'em on." "I'm sick and tired of…." It's the language of punishing, patriarchal, "I'm always right" fathers correcting their ignorant children.
Fourth, will this campaign be ideologically driven? Of course. That's the nature of the current administration. You didn't see it give in at all on issues of protections for the environment that might cost industry anything, reproductive choice for women, and LGBT rights. A lot of apparently conciliatory talk ended with actions enforcing their ideology without compromise. The Democratic campaign will have to have ideas and an ideology about values, human beings, fairness, equality for all, and the belief that government has a purpose - to help the neediest and guarantee health, privacy, security and the pursuit of happiness for everyone of any income or status. They'll have to act as if LGBT people are not just expendable voting blocks, but full human beings whose rights should be fought for even at some cost to their political fortunes. Fifth, will the campaign be populist? Well, the Republicans will continue to appeal to "all Americans" as if they speak the language of the working class and have so-called "middle class values" at their heart. The Democrats have a chance to really be for the people. They don't have to prove they too believe in some failed trickle down economic platform. They can speak clearly about liking what government can do again, as if the poor should not be punished and the rich should be cut off from their dependency on workers making less and losing benefits. Al Gore returned to his populist message by endorsing Howard Dean last month. Gore was never more populist in 2000 than in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. But a month later his running mate was assuring business leaders that he really didn't mean it. The populism leaked out of the campaign from then on, keeping the campaign from knowing where it was really going. The outcome is unclear. The Republican campaign is predictable. It's what the Democrats do that will make a difference. And what they do for LGBT people will be a taste of whether they will win or lose with principle and character. 
Robert N. Minor, Ph.D., is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas. His newest book is Gay & Healthy in a Sick Society (HumanityWorks, 2003). His book Scared Straight (HumanityWorks!, 2001) was a finalist for the Lambda Literary and Independent Publisher Book Awards. He may be reached at www.fairnessproject.org.
|
|
George W. Bush and his machismo on the campaign trail 
Howard Dean has captured the attention of Democrats, but can he win the general election?