Meryl Streep's eery reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady brings to mind Thatcher's most famous quip, "there is no such thing as 'society.'" None of the dwindling herd of Republican candidates has quoted her yet but they might as well considering their unremitting bashing of everything public.
What defines a society is a set of mutual benefits and duties embodied most visibly in public institutions -- wow gold public schools, public libraries, public transportation, public hospitals, public parks, public museums, public recreation, public universities, and so on.
Public institutions are supported by all taxpayers, and are available to all. If the tax system is progressive, those who better off (and who, presumably, have benefitted from many of these same public institutions) help pay runescape gold for everyone else.
"Privatize" means pay-for-it-yourself. The practical consequence of this in an economy whose wealth and income are now more concentrated than any time in 90 years is to make high-quality public goods available to fewer and fewer.
Much of what's called "public" is increasingly a private good paid for by users -- ever-higher tolls on public highways and public bridges, rs gold higher tuitions at so-called public universities, higher admission fees at public parks and public museums.
Much of the rest of what's considered "public" has become so shoddy that those who can afford to find private alternatives. As public schools deteriorate, the upper-middle class and wealthy send their kids to private ones. As public pools and playgrounds decay, they buy memberships in private tennis | swtor credits and swimming clubs. As public hospitals decline, they pay premium rates for private care.
Gated communities and office parks now come with their own manicured lawns and walkways, security guards, and backup power systems.
Why the decline of public institutions? The financial squeeze on government at all levels since 2008 explains only part of it. The slide really started more than three decades ago with | swtor credits so-called "tax revolts" by a middle class whose earnings had stopped advancing even though the economy continued to grow. Most families still wanted good public services and institutions but could no longer afford the tab.
From that time onward, almost all the gains from growth have gone to the top. But as the upper middle class and the rich began shifting to private institutions, they withdrew political support for public ones. | swtor credits In consequence, their marginal tax rates dropped -- setting off a vicious cycle of diminishing revenues and deteriorating quality, spurring more flight from public institutions. Tax revenues from corporations also dropped as big companies went global -- keeping their profits overseas and their tax bills to a minimum.
But that's not the whole story. America no longer values public goods as we did before.
The great expansion of public institutions in America began in the early years of 20th century when progressive reformers championed the idea that we all benefit from public goods. Excellent schools, roads, parks, playgrounds, and transit systems would knit the new industrial society together, create better citizens, and generate widespread prosperity. Education, for example, was less a personal investment than a public good -- improving the entire community and ultimately the nation.
2012年1月5日星期四
The Neocons Capture Romney
The top three vote-getters in the Iowa caucuses — Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) — responded to success in very different ways.
Santorum, best known for his antediluvian views on gay rights and choice, emphasized the economy and job creation. Paul, keeping with the themes he has focused on his entire career, talked about personal freedom, the need to restrict "big government," and preventing a new war in the Middle East.
And Romney, who is at this point the frontrunner for the nomination, started his speech by discussing wow gold the purported failure of Barack Obama to confront Iran.
With the economy still in the doldrums, Romney sees Iran as the most serious problem facing Americans.
ROMNEY: We face an extraordinary challenge in America, and you know that. And that is internationally, Iran is about to have nuclear weaponry, just down the road here. And this president, what's he done in that regard? He said we would have a policy of engagement. How's that worked out? Not terribly well. We have no sanctions of a runescape gold severe nature, the crippling sanctions put in place. The president was silent when dissident voices took to the streets in Iran and, of course, he hasn't prepared the military options that would present credibly our ability to take out the threat that would be presented by Iran. He's failed on that.
Next, Romney turned to what he sees as the second biggest threat to Americans: "And then how about with regards to the economy..."
His disturbing emphasis on Iran, which in no way presents a military threat to rs gold the United States — over the economy, no less — is very telling.
Romney insists that the administration's engagement efforts have failed. Not quite.
Obama has hardly engaged in any diplomacy with Iran. After an initial foray in that direction, he quickly pulled back, deterred first by the Iranian government's crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in 2009 and then by a Congress that, guided by AIPAC, vehemently opposes any negotiations with Iran.
According to Iran expert and journalist Barbara Slavin, the Obama administration | swtor credits has spent a grand total of 45 minutes in direct engagement with Iran.
Romney's claim that "we have no sanctions of a severe nature" is just as false. The sanctions regime imposed by Obama is unprecedented in its severity. (Take a look at the full range of sanctions.)
According to a law signed by Obama in December, as of next summer, anyone who buys Iranian oil will be banned from doing business with the United States. We have the largest economy in the world, so this act could do much to damage not only Iran's economy but | swtor credits also the economies of some of our most trusted allies, like South Korea. If Iran retaliates by keeping its oil off the world market and causing prices to skyrocket, the dire effects will be felt globally. Including here at home.
Sanctions will probably not succeed in preventing an Iranian bomb (since the days of the Shah, Iranians of all political stripes, including the Green Movement, have supported Iran's right to nuclear development) but it is just absurd to argue that Obama has resisted imposing them.
As for the claim that Obama was "silent" when | swtor credits Iranian demonstrators took to the streets, Romney must know that America's embrace of the demonstrators would have been the kiss of death. Or maybe Romney actually believes that their cause would have been advanced if they could have been convincingly portrayed as U.S. puppets.
The remaining Romney charge is the only one that matters because, unlike the other two, it is not just an example of misinformation or prevarication. It is a clear indication that Romney believes that the only way to deal with Iran is through war.
What else can it mean when Romney says that Obama has not "prepared the military options"?
Of course, Obama has. As everyone knows, the president and the U.S. military have fully prepared war contingency plans for use in every volatile international situation. To assert that they have none for Iran (a major U.S. adversary since 1979) is really an accusation that Obama is not ready for war now. Romney, on the other hand, clearly is.
And why wouldn't he be?
Romney told us where he stands on Iran (and the Middle East in general) on October 7, 2011, when he announced the 22 members of his foreign policy team.
Santorum, best known for his antediluvian views on gay rights and choice, emphasized the economy and job creation. Paul, keeping with the themes he has focused on his entire career, talked about personal freedom, the need to restrict "big government," and preventing a new war in the Middle East.
And Romney, who is at this point the frontrunner for the nomination, started his speech by discussing wow gold the purported failure of Barack Obama to confront Iran.
With the economy still in the doldrums, Romney sees Iran as the most serious problem facing Americans.
ROMNEY: We face an extraordinary challenge in America, and you know that. And that is internationally, Iran is about to have nuclear weaponry, just down the road here. And this president, what's he done in that regard? He said we would have a policy of engagement. How's that worked out? Not terribly well. We have no sanctions of a runescape gold severe nature, the crippling sanctions put in place. The president was silent when dissident voices took to the streets in Iran and, of course, he hasn't prepared the military options that would present credibly our ability to take out the threat that would be presented by Iran. He's failed on that.
Next, Romney turned to what he sees as the second biggest threat to Americans: "And then how about with regards to the economy..."
His disturbing emphasis on Iran, which in no way presents a military threat to rs gold the United States — over the economy, no less — is very telling.
Romney insists that the administration's engagement efforts have failed. Not quite.
Obama has hardly engaged in any diplomacy with Iran. After an initial foray in that direction, he quickly pulled back, deterred first by the Iranian government's crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in 2009 and then by a Congress that, guided by AIPAC, vehemently opposes any negotiations with Iran.
According to Iran expert and journalist Barbara Slavin, the Obama administration | swtor credits has spent a grand total of 45 minutes in direct engagement with Iran.
Romney's claim that "we have no sanctions of a severe nature" is just as false. The sanctions regime imposed by Obama is unprecedented in its severity. (Take a look at the full range of sanctions.)
According to a law signed by Obama in December, as of next summer, anyone who buys Iranian oil will be banned from doing business with the United States. We have the largest economy in the world, so this act could do much to damage not only Iran's economy but | swtor credits also the economies of some of our most trusted allies, like South Korea. If Iran retaliates by keeping its oil off the world market and causing prices to skyrocket, the dire effects will be felt globally. Including here at home.
Sanctions will probably not succeed in preventing an Iranian bomb (since the days of the Shah, Iranians of all political stripes, including the Green Movement, have supported Iran's right to nuclear development) but it is just absurd to argue that Obama has resisted imposing them.
As for the claim that Obama was "silent" when | swtor credits Iranian demonstrators took to the streets, Romney must know that America's embrace of the demonstrators would have been the kiss of death. Or maybe Romney actually believes that their cause would have been advanced if they could have been convincingly portrayed as U.S. puppets.
The remaining Romney charge is the only one that matters because, unlike the other two, it is not just an example of misinformation or prevarication. It is a clear indication that Romney believes that the only way to deal with Iran is through war.
What else can it mean when Romney says that Obama has not "prepared the military options"?
Of course, Obama has. As everyone knows, the president and the U.S. military have fully prepared war contingency plans for use in every volatile international situation. To assert that they have none for Iran (a major U.S. adversary since 1979) is really an accusation that Obama is not ready for war now. Romney, on the other hand, clearly is.
And why wouldn't he be?
Romney told us where he stands on Iran (and the Middle East in general) on October 7, 2011, when he announced the 22 members of his foreign policy team.
Confirmed: Nutrition Doesn't Explain Right-Wing Attacks on Michelle Obama
The dawning of an election year is certain to bring more attacks on Michelle Obama from the far-right press, which for years has unleashed an unprecedented barrage of name-calling assaults on the First Lady; wow gold assaults that in the past would have been deemed unthinkable by even partisan opponents who routinely avoided targeting First Ladies and their mostly ceremonial duties.
But runescape gold conservatives like Michelle Malkin have trampled that common sense tradition and now routinely, and gleefully, uncork all sorts of sordid smear campaigns against Michelle rs gold Obama.
But to hear them tell it, it's all the First Lady's fault. Conservatives become unglued because Obama's so busy pressing their buttons with her nutrition activism, which apparently drives | swtor credits them bonkers and causes staffers at Fox News to fabricate fairy tales.
According to the haters, what kind of conservative wouldn't be offended by the Nanny State rhetoric emanating from the White House, | swtor credits with all that big government hand-wringing about people eating too much food, when everyone knows the answer to obesity is to just eating less food, and that exerting a little personal responsibility can cure this | swtor credits problem overnight.
Indeed, the guttural response to the First Lady 's nutritional efforts has been so strong the right-wing media now practically campaign in favor of obesity, applying the simple, albeit deranged, rule that if Michelle Obama supports healthy food and exercise, it must be bad.
The First Lady's incessant critics insist intrusive nutrition activism goes way too far and invites their angry response. I mean, just look at this goody-goody health rhetoric:
But runescape gold conservatives like Michelle Malkin have trampled that common sense tradition and now routinely, and gleefully, uncork all sorts of sordid smear campaigns against Michelle rs gold Obama.
But to hear them tell it, it's all the First Lady's fault. Conservatives become unglued because Obama's so busy pressing their buttons with her nutrition activism, which apparently drives | swtor credits them bonkers and causes staffers at Fox News to fabricate fairy tales.
According to the haters, what kind of conservative wouldn't be offended by the Nanny State rhetoric emanating from the White House, | swtor credits with all that big government hand-wringing about people eating too much food, when everyone knows the answer to obesity is to just eating less food, and that exerting a little personal responsibility can cure this | swtor credits problem overnight.
Indeed, the guttural response to the First Lady 's nutritional efforts has been so strong the right-wing media now practically campaign in favor of obesity, applying the simple, albeit deranged, rule that if Michelle Obama supports healthy food and exercise, it must be bad.
The First Lady's incessant critics insist intrusive nutrition activism goes way too far and invites their angry response. I mean, just look at this goody-goody health rhetoric:
2012年1月4日星期三
The Four Most Important Results from Iowa
Here are my takeaways from this year's Iowa Caucus:
1. Not a Three-Way Finish
The Iowa results seem to suggest a close three-way race – 25-25-21. Yet among self-identified Republicans, the totals were actually 28-27-14, showing that Santorum and Romney lead the base, while independents and new voters propelled Paul. That makes Paul more likely to fade, because other states do not have same-day registration like Iowa. In a Republican primary, | swtor credits Republicans matter.
2. Evangelicals Actually Like Ron Paul
In a huge and under-reported development, Iowa's evangelical voters – who make up the majority of the caucus – backed Paul more than any other candidate besides Santorum. (About 32% went for Santorum and 19% for Paul.) Perry and Bachmann had repeatedly sought that voting bloc, but Paul's principled conservatism and pro-life | buy swtor credits views still broke through. That may scare establishment Republicans - Fox News was the only cable channel to cut off Paul's caucus speech.
3. But Santorum is Already Squandering His Surge
Rick Santorum bounded to an incredible finish in Iowa, despite a tiny budget and a media blackout for most of 2011. But there are already signs that his campaign is not ready for prime time – literally. Santorum's | cheap swtor credits aides failed to get him on prime time television for a "victory" speech, for example, which would have provided his largest, unfiltered audience to date. (He took the stage at 12:20am ET.) Team Santorum simply waited while lesser candidates took larger billing, a galling rookie mistake. The Iowa Caucus is not a binding election night – a candidate may simply walk on stage to spin his "victory," without waiting for opponents | swtor gold to officially concede. Bill Clinton's famous "Comeback Kid" victory speech, after all, was delivered during a second place finish in New Hampshire
That's not all. Iowans noticed that Santorum's budget was so tight he didn't even have a bus – never mind a plane – and he campaigned out of the passenger seat of a vehicle called the "Chuck Truck." But apparently he doesn't have an Internet strategist, either. On Caucus Night, the Santorum runescape gold Campaign's website was not updated with any kind of "ask" for fundraising or email registration. That's a shame, because Santorum was the only candidate name that leapt into Google's hottest searches on Tuesday night (along with "Sugar Bowl"). By failing to capitalize on that interest with basic web tactics, Santorum left a lot of money on the table. One veteran of Obama's 2008 web team estimated the cost was in the millions of dollars. For Wednesday, though, the Santorum wow gold Campaign had a fundraising email ready declaring "we shocked the world last night in Iowa."
4. Gingrich May Stay In to Stop Romney
Newt Gingrich easily gave the most gripping speech on caucus night, and by associating himself with Santorum and pledging to "reserve the right to tell the truth" about Romney's shortcomings, he cast himself as a relevant spoiler in the days to come. Political operatives often say the most dangerous opponents are those who, for whatever ideological or personal reasons, are willing to suppress their ambition in pursuit of a "murder-suicide" strategy. Many Democrats say that's what really halted Howard Dean in 2003, for example, when Richard Gephardt went all in to stop the Vermont insurgent. And at the end of the night, Gingrich sounded like he would rather be Rick Santorum's coach than Mitt Romney's running mate. With two high profile debates between now and the New Hampshire primary, that could be an influential perch.
1. Not a Three-Way Finish
The Iowa results seem to suggest a close three-way race – 25-25-21. Yet among self-identified Republicans, the totals were actually 28-27-14, showing that Santorum and Romney lead the base, while independents and new voters propelled Paul. That makes Paul more likely to fade, because other states do not have same-day registration like Iowa. In a Republican primary, | swtor credits Republicans matter.
2. Evangelicals Actually Like Ron Paul
In a huge and under-reported development, Iowa's evangelical voters – who make up the majority of the caucus – backed Paul more than any other candidate besides Santorum. (About 32% went for Santorum and 19% for Paul.) Perry and Bachmann had repeatedly sought that voting bloc, but Paul's principled conservatism and pro-life | buy swtor credits views still broke through. That may scare establishment Republicans - Fox News was the only cable channel to cut off Paul's caucus speech.
3. But Santorum is Already Squandering His Surge
Rick Santorum bounded to an incredible finish in Iowa, despite a tiny budget and a media blackout for most of 2011. But there are already signs that his campaign is not ready for prime time – literally. Santorum's | cheap swtor credits aides failed to get him on prime time television for a "victory" speech, for example, which would have provided his largest, unfiltered audience to date. (He took the stage at 12:20am ET.) Team Santorum simply waited while lesser candidates took larger billing, a galling rookie mistake. The Iowa Caucus is not a binding election night – a candidate may simply walk on stage to spin his "victory," without waiting for opponents | swtor gold to officially concede. Bill Clinton's famous "Comeback Kid" victory speech, after all, was delivered during a second place finish in New Hampshire
That's not all. Iowans noticed that Santorum's budget was so tight he didn't even have a bus – never mind a plane – and he campaigned out of the passenger seat of a vehicle called the "Chuck Truck." But apparently he doesn't have an Internet strategist, either. On Caucus Night, the Santorum runescape gold Campaign's website was not updated with any kind of "ask" for fundraising or email registration. That's a shame, because Santorum was the only candidate name that leapt into Google's hottest searches on Tuesday night (along with "Sugar Bowl"). By failing to capitalize on that interest with basic web tactics, Santorum left a lot of money on the table. One veteran of Obama's 2008 web team estimated the cost was in the millions of dollars. For Wednesday, though, the Santorum wow gold Campaign had a fundraising email ready declaring "we shocked the world last night in Iowa."
4. Gingrich May Stay In to Stop Romney
Newt Gingrich easily gave the most gripping speech on caucus night, and by associating himself with Santorum and pledging to "reserve the right to tell the truth" about Romney's shortcomings, he cast himself as a relevant spoiler in the days to come. Political operatives often say the most dangerous opponents are those who, for whatever ideological or personal reasons, are willing to suppress their ambition in pursuit of a "murder-suicide" strategy. Many Democrats say that's what really halted Howard Dean in 2003, for example, when Richard Gephardt went all in to stop the Vermont insurgent. And at the end of the night, Gingrich sounded like he would rather be Rick Santorum's coach than Mitt Romney's running mate. With two high profile debates between now and the New Hampshire primary, that could be an influential perch.
Santorum's Anti-Family Stance on Social Security
In the New York Times on Tuesday, David Brooks attributed Rick Santorum's last-minute surge in the polls to the appeal of his family values platform with working-class whites. If Brooks is right, then those same voters should take a second look at Santorum's position on Social Security, a program that represents the best of American family values.
Brooks argues that Santorum's blue-collar background and his emphasis on "family and social solidarity," rather than the Ayn Rand-style individualism of the GOP establishment, make him a good match for high school-educated whites. These | swtor credits working-class whites, Brooks writes, "sense that the nation has gone astray," based on their belief that among other things "marriage is in crisis," and America's "work ethic is eroding."
Brooks chooses to accept Santorum's family values bona fides uncritically. But working-class supporters of Rick Santorum should know the truth.
If Santorum were really such a pro-family candidate, he would be a strident defender of Social Security, which helps keep families strong and encourages hard work. Santorum's record shows that | buy swtor credits he is anything but.
As the Strengthen Social Security Campaign's guide to the Republican candidates reveals, Santorum has supported privatizing Social Security. Here's what he said in 2005, at the height of President Bush's drive to privatize the program:
Personal retirement accounts provide individuals--not the government--with control and ownership. And they hold the promise of a greater return for future generations than what they are promised by today's Social Security system. (The Hill, March 1, 2005)
The promise of higher | cheap swtor credits returns in private Social Security accounts is standard conservative pablum, but it is not borne out by the facts. In 2008, 401(k)'s lost nearly 40 percent of their value. The family-oriented working-class voters that Santorum is apparently counting on would not have fared so well if Congress had followed Bush and Santorum's lead back in 2005.
Contrary to what Santorum thinks, Social Security--in its current form--is the ultimate family program. Social Security helps maintain the bond between generations of family members. Benefits often prevent adults caring | swtor gold for aging parents from experiencing undue financial strain. Social Security is the majority of income or more for more than two-thirds of senior households. Even minor reductions in benefits could force these seniors to rely on their children more, who are often in their peaking earning years and struggling to support children of their own.
Social Security Survivors' Insurance also helps keep family's finances in order when the worst occurs unexpectedly. If a worker with children under age 16 dies unexpectedly, Social Security provides benefits equivalent to 75 percent of what runescape gold the worker would have received in retirement to the spouse and children of that worker until the children are 18.
In fact, Social Security even reinforces the nation's "eroding work ethic" that Brooks says working-class GOPers are so concerned about. You are only eligible for Social Security benefits if you have worked ten years and contributed to the program with payroll taxes. This provides an incentive to lower-income people to work by guaranteeing them retirement income no matter how low-paying their job. Social Security even rewards achievement, providing workers with larger benefits the wow gold more they have earned and contributed over their working years.
Skeptics might say: Sure Social Security is a family program, but do high school-educated Republicans know that? Don't they scorn Social Security as much as any other government program?
No. Poll after poll shows that working-class Republicans are just as likely to support Social Security and oppose benefit cuts as Democrats. According to a July Pew poll, 53 percent of Republicans earning $30-$74,999 called keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits where they are a higher priority than reducing the budget deficit; 62 percent of Republicans making less than $30,000 said the same.
In fact, working-class voters overall (partisan breakdown not available), are more likely to oppose measures like raising the retirement age to 69. In a Lake Research Partners poll done on election eve 2010, 71 percent of non-college men and 76 percent of non-college women were opposed to raising the retirement age to 69--more than any other groups. This might be because nearly 6 out of 10 high school-educated workers aged 58 or older work in physically demanding jobs or dangerous working conditions, according to a 2010 study by the Center for Economic Policy and Research.
Brooks argues that Santorum's blue-collar background and his emphasis on "family and social solidarity," rather than the Ayn Rand-style individualism of the GOP establishment, make him a good match for high school-educated whites. These | swtor credits working-class whites, Brooks writes, "sense that the nation has gone astray," based on their belief that among other things "marriage is in crisis," and America's "work ethic is eroding."
Brooks chooses to accept Santorum's family values bona fides uncritically. But working-class supporters of Rick Santorum should know the truth.
If Santorum were really such a pro-family candidate, he would be a strident defender of Social Security, which helps keep families strong and encourages hard work. Santorum's record shows that | buy swtor credits he is anything but.
As the Strengthen Social Security Campaign's guide to the Republican candidates reveals, Santorum has supported privatizing Social Security. Here's what he said in 2005, at the height of President Bush's drive to privatize the program:
Personal retirement accounts provide individuals--not the government--with control and ownership. And they hold the promise of a greater return for future generations than what they are promised by today's Social Security system. (The Hill, March 1, 2005)
The promise of higher | cheap swtor credits returns in private Social Security accounts is standard conservative pablum, but it is not borne out by the facts. In 2008, 401(k)'s lost nearly 40 percent of their value. The family-oriented working-class voters that Santorum is apparently counting on would not have fared so well if Congress had followed Bush and Santorum's lead back in 2005.
Contrary to what Santorum thinks, Social Security--in its current form--is the ultimate family program. Social Security helps maintain the bond between generations of family members. Benefits often prevent adults caring | swtor gold for aging parents from experiencing undue financial strain. Social Security is the majority of income or more for more than two-thirds of senior households. Even minor reductions in benefits could force these seniors to rely on their children more, who are often in their peaking earning years and struggling to support children of their own.
Social Security Survivors' Insurance also helps keep family's finances in order when the worst occurs unexpectedly. If a worker with children under age 16 dies unexpectedly, Social Security provides benefits equivalent to 75 percent of what runescape gold the worker would have received in retirement to the spouse and children of that worker until the children are 18.
In fact, Social Security even reinforces the nation's "eroding work ethic" that Brooks says working-class GOPers are so concerned about. You are only eligible for Social Security benefits if you have worked ten years and contributed to the program with payroll taxes. This provides an incentive to lower-income people to work by guaranteeing them retirement income no matter how low-paying their job. Social Security even rewards achievement, providing workers with larger benefits the wow gold more they have earned and contributed over their working years.
Skeptics might say: Sure Social Security is a family program, but do high school-educated Republicans know that? Don't they scorn Social Security as much as any other government program?
No. Poll after poll shows that working-class Republicans are just as likely to support Social Security and oppose benefit cuts as Democrats. According to a July Pew poll, 53 percent of Republicans earning $30-$74,999 called keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits where they are a higher priority than reducing the budget deficit; 62 percent of Republicans making less than $30,000 said the same.
In fact, working-class voters overall (partisan breakdown not available), are more likely to oppose measures like raising the retirement age to 69. In a Lake Research Partners poll done on election eve 2010, 71 percent of non-college men and 76 percent of non-college women were opposed to raising the retirement age to 69--more than any other groups. This might be because nearly 6 out of 10 high school-educated workers aged 58 or older work in physically demanding jobs or dangerous working conditions, according to a 2010 study by the Center for Economic Policy and Research.
Santorum's Homophobia Problem
LGBT people awoke with a sense of dread to the news of Rick Santorum's near-tie with Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses. Santorum is not just the butt (pun intended) of a deservingly dirty joke; he has long been ahead of the curve when it comes to bashing gay people for political gain. He is the poster child for political homophobia.
And yet, this near-win is different, because America is different. Santorum represents not the resurgence of gay-baiting, but its last, self-defeating gasp.
Only a few years ago, homophobia was a great uniter. | swtor credits Short on campaign cash? Need to fire up the base? Why, flash a few images of the latest pride parade, compare same-sex marriage to bestiality, and the checks and self-rightous blog posts would flow like milk and honey. And while religiously-soaked gay-bashing wasn't the rhetoric of choice for neo-conservatives and fiscal conservatives, they went along with it, building a strong coalition between corporate capitalists and Christian conservatives.
Indeed, it has been remarked that this | buy swtor credits was Reaganism's great innovation: using social issues to convince working class people to vote against their economic interests. At first, it was the "Southern strategy," making use of coded racism. Later, it grew into gay-baiting, making use of overt homophobia. For at least twenty years, it was the winning formula for the Republican party. Enrich the rich by enraging the working poor.
Only now, things are different. Last May, a Gallup poll found a majority of Americans supported legalizing same-sex | cheap swtor credits marriage. Last September, a large majority supported the end of the military's "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy. And over the last year, we've seen a dramatic increase of LGBT (including T) people in the media, in politics, and in our communities.
As a result of these dramatic changes, Santorum's homophobia is more a liability than an asset. Gay people may be horrified at his near-win in Iowa, but we needn't be. His bigotry still plays to his base -- but it's only the base, only the extremists, who still soak it up.
Of | swtor gold course, public opinion could always turn against gay people. But I don't think that's likely, because it changed, over time, due to a very resilient and powerful force: truth. Straight folks have seen, in their own personal experience, that gay people are no more or less ethical than they are. There are lusty, libertine gays, and quiet, conservative ones. Gay people are atheist and religious, of all ethnic backgrounds, young and old, wild and mild. The stereotypes that all gay people are a certain way (lewd, anti-family, demonic, whatever) runescape gold are simply not true, and anyone who bothers to -- no, allows themselves to -- get to know their gay neighbors realizes this.
And they've seen, too, that sexual orientation is a trait, not (as it has been variously labeled) a sin, pathology, "lifestyle choice," neurosis, or dysfunction. Sexuality is just part of who we are -- a good part.
That kind of truth isn't subject to the whims of political opinion. Once you see that stereotypes are lies, you don't go back to them later, especially when -- as poll after poll has shown us -- that knowledge comes wow gold first-hand. The lesbian couple in church, or the gay man raising a child, is far more potent an opinion-shifter than the latest fundraising santorum from the likes of Rick Santorum.
And by the way, this is even true within Santorum's base itself. In evangelical communities across the country, there are moderate voices questioning the way in which gay people have been singled out by the so-called Christian Right. While most evangelicals remain committed to a broad reading of Scripture regarding homosexuality, increasing numbers are voicing misgivings about whether it's really Christian to stigmatize gay people. Who Would Jesus Hate, after all?
Given the money and the races ahead in the Republican primary, there's no way Rick Santorum will be the party's nominee. Mitt Romney's PACs will destroy him just as they destroyed Newt Gingrich in Iowa, burying him under an avalanche of negative ads. But as depressing as Santorum's rise may seem to LGBT folks, this time really is different. We are not about to be victims again. On the contrary, if the polling data is accurate, the biggest victim of Santorum's homophobia will be Santorum himself.
And yet, this near-win is different, because America is different. Santorum represents not the resurgence of gay-baiting, but its last, self-defeating gasp.
Only a few years ago, homophobia was a great uniter. | swtor credits Short on campaign cash? Need to fire up the base? Why, flash a few images of the latest pride parade, compare same-sex marriage to bestiality, and the checks and self-rightous blog posts would flow like milk and honey. And while religiously-soaked gay-bashing wasn't the rhetoric of choice for neo-conservatives and fiscal conservatives, they went along with it, building a strong coalition between corporate capitalists and Christian conservatives.
Indeed, it has been remarked that this | buy swtor credits was Reaganism's great innovation: using social issues to convince working class people to vote against their economic interests. At first, it was the "Southern strategy," making use of coded racism. Later, it grew into gay-baiting, making use of overt homophobia. For at least twenty years, it was the winning formula for the Republican party. Enrich the rich by enraging the working poor.
Only now, things are different. Last May, a Gallup poll found a majority of Americans supported legalizing same-sex | cheap swtor credits marriage. Last September, a large majority supported the end of the military's "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy. And over the last year, we've seen a dramatic increase of LGBT (including T) people in the media, in politics, and in our communities.
As a result of these dramatic changes, Santorum's homophobia is more a liability than an asset. Gay people may be horrified at his near-win in Iowa, but we needn't be. His bigotry still plays to his base -- but it's only the base, only the extremists, who still soak it up.
Of | swtor gold course, public opinion could always turn against gay people. But I don't think that's likely, because it changed, over time, due to a very resilient and powerful force: truth. Straight folks have seen, in their own personal experience, that gay people are no more or less ethical than they are. There are lusty, libertine gays, and quiet, conservative ones. Gay people are atheist and religious, of all ethnic backgrounds, young and old, wild and mild. The stereotypes that all gay people are a certain way (lewd, anti-family, demonic, whatever) runescape gold are simply not true, and anyone who bothers to -- no, allows themselves to -- get to know their gay neighbors realizes this.
And they've seen, too, that sexual orientation is a trait, not (as it has been variously labeled) a sin, pathology, "lifestyle choice," neurosis, or dysfunction. Sexuality is just part of who we are -- a good part.
That kind of truth isn't subject to the whims of political opinion. Once you see that stereotypes are lies, you don't go back to them later, especially when -- as poll after poll has shown us -- that knowledge comes wow gold first-hand. The lesbian couple in church, or the gay man raising a child, is far more potent an opinion-shifter than the latest fundraising santorum from the likes of Rick Santorum.
And by the way, this is even true within Santorum's base itself. In evangelical communities across the country, there are moderate voices questioning the way in which gay people have been singled out by the so-called Christian Right. While most evangelicals remain committed to a broad reading of Scripture regarding homosexuality, increasing numbers are voicing misgivings about whether it's really Christian to stigmatize gay people. Who Would Jesus Hate, after all?
Given the money and the races ahead in the Republican primary, there's no way Rick Santorum will be the party's nominee. Mitt Romney's PACs will destroy him just as they destroyed Newt Gingrich in Iowa, burying him under an avalanche of negative ads. But as depressing as Santorum's rise may seem to LGBT folks, this time really is different. We are not about to be victims again. On the contrary, if the polling data is accurate, the biggest victim of Santorum's homophobia will be Santorum himself.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)