If You Build It, They May Come
Speaking of the City Paper, Clint Brewer has an editorial out focusing on the state of the Tennessee Democrats, and particularly their party building efforts:
If the state’s Progressive blogosphere and the aggressive stance of party activists are any indicator they suggest the tone and tenor of a party about to take back control of a state it held for nearly 100 years with very little opposition, expect for an upstart governor here and there and a historically impenetrable East Tennessee. [snip]
Yet, inside the party infrastructure of fund-raisers, consultants and kingmakers there is concern. Tennessee Democrats have been finding wins since the Republican Sweep of 1994 based largely on the individual strength of single candidates. What has suffered during the last almost 15 years has been the age-old goal of party building.
I'll go on record as to not having a damn clue about our chances on the state level this year. I've heard stories about how great some of these candidates are in the rural areas of the state, but without poll numbers or some other objective measurement to back them up, I have no way of knowing whether they are blowing smoke or telling the truth.
Now, in terms of federal races, my bet is that things will remain the same. Nothing will change in the congressional delegation, Sen. Alexander is the odds on favorite to win, and I'd give McCain 3-to-1 odds that he's going to win Tennessee.
Will the Presidential race effect down-ticket races? I'm not convinced it will. Black turnout might be higher, which won't make much difference for the seats in the urban areas, but might have some impact in the rural communities where African-Americans have a presence, but have generally under-performed. Republicans seem lukewarm for McCain around the country, and especially in the Southeast. We'll see if his warm embrace of Bush Republicanism is going to pay dividends in this region.
In terms of building the party, the TN Dems (as of the last reporting) have about 200K in the bank and their annual fundraiser is going to be held on May 31st. We'll see after that date what shape the party is in going forward.
53 comments:
Here's one you, and other progressive bloggers, might have missed: The California Supreme Court says that same sex people have a constitutional right to marry. At the same time there are people who had their kids taken from them recently in part because they practice polygamy. I haven't seen any progressives defend the rights of polygamists.
I'd be real interested to hear progressive bloggers clarify their whole position on marriage. Why OK for gays but not OK for multiple partners in marriage?
Martin,
We have discussed this issue, ad naseum, so I don't know what clarification you need.
Gay marriage and plural marriage are two separate issues that have overlapping themes.
In the instance of gay marriage, you are simply saying that two people can enter into a contract together with the state, regardless of their gender.
In plural marriage, you are expanding the definition of a state marriage license to be between more than 2 people.
I don't really care one way or the other with regards to polygamy, its not my fight...if you wanna take up the cause, you're more than welcome.
Well let us at least acknowlege that we disagree about your distinction. I don't see how they are distinct issues. They both deal with the concept of marriage. Should it be fixed, limited to two people of opposite genders, or not? If it should not be closed to same sex people then on what basis should it be closed to multiple people? As I recall you are not opposed to polygamy, but what of those who are opposed to polygamy but not same-sex marriage? Perhaps someone else could speak to that?
I don't see how they are distinct issues.
Did the California Supreme Court ruling legalize polygamy in the state? If no, then the two issues are separate.
Dr. K, there are several countries in Europe that allow gay marriage, in addition to some parts of Canada. Can you please cite for me how allowing gay marriage led to a clamoring for legalizing polygamy in those countries? Thank you.
Goldni,
The more appropriate question is why are so many countries are bigoted against polygamy?
Can't they just let people live their lives the way they see fit? What happens in the bedroom should be a private matter right?
GoldnI (and Sean), What Jim said.
Some people want to have multiple spouses. On what basis do we resist their desire to enter such consensual relationships/contracts?
Want examples of people clamoring for polygamy? OK, count me in. Look, if we are going to render the concept of marriage arbitrary and meaningless then let's just do it and stop with this lollygagging.
Martin,
If you wanna expand the definition to include polygamists, that is fine, but right now the issue is not really being debated. Gay rights is more at the forefront of the minds of voters than polygamists rights.
The two issues could be together, or they could be separate...right now they are separate.
Wow, so the Republicans come with the wedge issues in blog comments. Try to discuss election trends and they respond, "Gays are getting married in California!!!!"
If this isn't an example of how intellectually bankrupt the Republican Party is, I don't know what is.
That's not the question though. You're alleging causality, that allowing one will lead to the other. I asked you to cite examples of that, and you so far have not.
And you're not really talking about polygamy as it relates to consenting adults here. You brought up the case in Texas in your first comment. The kids weren't taken away because the parents were committing polygamy, they were taken away because they were forcing underage girls to have sex with older men.
Now, I realize that there are plenty of conservatives who probably wish that it was legal. But you're trying to conflate this issue of children being raped with two consenting adults getting married. This isn't some "academic question," you're deliberately trying to confuse the two.
On the contrary GoldnI. I did not imply causality at all. Forget the Texas case. It doesn't matter and it seems to be confusing the larger point. We agree that there are people who would like to marry, to enter into contractual relationships, with mulitple partners. Why should we not let them? I am against it but I don't see how anyone who supports same-sex marriage has an argument against it.
An academic question? Not in the least. Not for a second. So much social pathology is atttibutable to the breakdown of marriage... crime, poor academic performance, deteriorating mental and emotional health, suiicide, poverty. I guess I would agree that it is an academic question in the sense that the battle has been decided. We'll see plenty of same-sex marriage, confused and complex fertility experiments where parental responsibility is unclear, eventually we'll see normalization of polygamy... it is academic in that sense. The battle wasn't lost last week in California or a couple years back in Mass. It was lost in the 1930's I'd say. And the people who opposed the event in the 1930's knew it. They predicted it.
Martin,
In many states, the definition of marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race. Would you have opposed efforts to redefine marriage as between a man and a woman, deleting race?
If you feel the need to play the slippery slope card, it goes both ways.
I would not have, I hope, opposed efforts to redefine marriage regarding race prohibitions. Race is incidental. We are of the same species.
I am not playing the slippery slope card.
[Gender] is incidental. We are of the same species.
You were the one who brought up the Texas case. You could have found an example of polygamous arrangement among adults, but you deliberately chose the most sensational story that has far more issues in it than just polygamy. You ARE trying to turn it into a slippery slope.
Sean, Reproduction is only possible betweem the male and female. Gender differences are not incidental. The emergence of the institution (marriage) laid out the responsibilities and obligations associated with reproduction. The family has served a crucial function in society. The breakdown of the family has detrimental consequences. Do not the laws of nature compel you to consider the implications of rendering the fundamental institution of society meaningless?
Marriage has nothing to do with the laws of nature. Our natural instincts would be to procreate as much as possible with as many partners as possible to render the maximum amount of offspring.
Marriage is an institution of civil society that has varied throughout the ages. It used to be that men could take on many wives, and was more of a property contract than it was an act of love. At some point, it evolved into an act of love and devotion.
If we decide, as a society, that we want the definition of marriage to be between two people of any gender arrangement, then that is the institution we have. It does not strengthen or weaken it, it simply defines it differently.
If married people wanna have babies, good for them; if they don't, good for them. Its really irrelevant to the institution. Now, obviously you want it to be between two people of opposite genders, and that is your right to believe that...currently, you hold the majority, so that is generally what will happen. At some point, my generation will take over, and this will change. Until then, enjoy your marriage while it still has meaning.
I find this arguement interesting. Because none of you can find an arguement that neutralizes the professor's arguement. Take the arguement away from marriage and make it, if your going to change the definition of anything, what governs the restrictions you place on the altering of the definition. Bottom line is the definition of marriage universally has been a contract between a man and a woman. So if you're going to change it, why not completely change it? If your reason is people are clammoring for it...then I guess polygmists better get a better lobbing group. Would you change it then?
At some point, my generation will take over, and this will change. Until then, enjoy your marriage while it still has meaning.
Testy testy...when losing insult. Aw well, you plenty of good arguements tomorrow.
TC,
That wasn't an insult, just a fact...my generation is more open to equal rights than older generations. If Martin is worried about the institution of marriage being diminished, he ought to enjoy the institution as he knows it; whilst it still exists.
Marriage has been defined by however society wanted to define it...if we chose to expand it to plural marriage as well as same-sex unions; then so be it, but one need not do one if they do the other, which is a point that still remains true 20 comments in.
GolnI, I didn't. For the purpose of the discussion I wish, for your sake, that I did not bring up the Texas case.
But let's consider one of your points... that there were other issues... that it was not just a case of polygamy pure and simpe. Don't you think that there are "other" issues always? Isn't that the problem? You can't separate issues of abuse and the subjugation of females from the institution of polygamy. I mean that is the point. If families lived in vacuums I'd have no great problem with polygamy. Unfortunately we live in societies, together. There are spillovers. I prefer positive spillovers. Likewise with same-sex situations. If a couple guys want to live together I have no policy problems with that. I wouldn't know and wouldn't care what they did in their spare time, in their bedroom. But the whole idea that two guys raising children is just another type of family is preposterous. If you can't see that then perhaps you need a break from the Ivory Tower. (I don't know many straight guys who want children and don't fully understand those that do.) Don't misunderstand, the same holds true for single parent households. There are times when such situations are unavoidable but they should not be encoraged in any way. And, don't get hung up on what someone believes or what you might think he or she believes... look at the data. Controlling for family income and other things compare the progeny of children from single parent households with those from two parent households.
For those who support same-sex marriage it is all about rights. I hear nothing about what is best for society via the rearing of children. I see no right, in any constitution, for same sex people to marry. I see no reason for society to provide and encourage that. I do see that there are other contractural concerns between two people who are sharing a life but you don't need marriage to address them.
... my generation is more open to equal rights than older generations...
As I said, all about rights and "taking over" as if the younger generation always must correct the bad things that the previous generation did. I think that's called arrogance.
Of course TC is right. You have yet to address the point that I made initially. You don't have an argument but I am unsure whether you realize that. And GoldnI, you'll get plenty of support for your non-argument at law school... but that won't make it a coherent philosophy.
You can't hear it, but imagine the sound of my head banging against the desk as you continuously say I haven't answered a question that I've answered 50 times already.
As for being arrogant, sure, maybe I am...but its a realistic arrogance that I won't see the changes I want until my generation takes over the reigns of power in the next 20 years.
Marriage has nothing to do with the laws of nature... Our natural instincts would be to procreate as much as possible with as many partners as possible to render the maximum amount of offspring...
For men, yes. That is why marriage emerged and why it serves such a crucial function in society. It regulates this behavior. It says that if you father a child, you are responsible for that child. Sean, you're a pretty smart guy but I encourage you to think this thing through. Get over the "rights" argument. It is vacuous. Dare to challenge the flow of "your generation."
Dare to challenge the conventions of yours.
I've answered 50 times already...
Here's what the aggregate answer is then and correct me if I'm wrong:
a. Marriage is whatever society wants it to be. (so we agree that the same-sex ruling renders the traditional concept of marriage arbitrary and meaningless)
b. There is no argument against polygamy. They have a right to marry, but it will not be recognized for some time.
c. Exanding the concept of marriage does not weaken society, rather it is an embrace of equal rights.
You say "look at the data" but you don't cite anything. How can I look at the data when you don't care to tell me what the data is?
Personally, I think the breakdown of marriage started to occur when they let the uppity women out of the kitchen and into the workforce. Women ought to stay at home, pregnant and in the kitchen, since that is their place in the world. It says so in the Bible. It's time for all you men to rise up and reassert your authority over your bitches.
A) Yes (no)
B) No, while I personally don't care to argue for or against polygamy, that does not mean those arguments don't exist. And expanding marriage to exclude gender from the equation does not inherently effect plural marriage.
C) Ding, Ding, Ding.
a. If you say yes to the first then you must say yes to the second... unless you are logically challenged.
b. Of course it does; you've changed the defintion
c. Yea, that's all the proponents got... its equal rights man.
Now, for my final question(s): Where do rights come from Sean? Do I have a right to play basketball as well as Michael Jordan? And as long as you're handing out rights, can you look into getting me the ability to play basketball as well as Michael Jordan?
GoldnI,
That kind of humor is beneath you.
But is that not what your traditional definition of marriage is? The man as the head of the household with the subservient woman to stay at home? In your definition of traditional marriage, aren't gender roles specifically proscribed?
Because if not, that sort of undercuts your entire argument.
Constitutional rights are derived from the constitution; statutory rights are derived from legal statutes.
Derived from... but where do they originate?
Which right?
And dude, what about my right to play round ball like Jordan?
Which right?
Speech, worship, life, liberty, property... the main ones.
Not sure, where the founders pulled those from, I know John Locke was a big influence on them. But these rights have been in existence in some form for many centuries.
Well it makes it easier for you GoldnI to cartoonize people who disagree with you, but you don't know me, or my wife. And it might surprise you to learn that we don't quite fit into that cartoon version. Now on the surface it might seem like that to some people and that is true also of the family I grew up in. But it ain't quite that simple. Now it is true that that mentality does exist but I bristle when someone suggests that that is what explains my views and thinking in this area.
Now, I apologize for not appreciating your humor. I like humor and try not to take offense easily, but I hope you forgive me if I tend to take this issue very seriously. I know two guys who left their wives. I've seen up close what havoc that can bring to children. It shatters their world. The stability of marriage is no academic question. You want data? Single parent households (mostly female headed) are five times more likely to live in poverty than two parent households... and material poverty isn't nearly the worst thing. Girls growing up without dads are more likely to be abused, sexually promiscuous, and end up pregnant before marriage. Boys without dads are more likely to end up in jail, more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be violent to women. The precise data is a google search away.
Then people mock men who take their role as provider and protector seriously. Wanting to provide for your wife and children, and being guided in part by religious conviction to do that, does not imply being disrespectful to women and their abilities and contributions. I have a daughter. I don't want her to be treated as a second class citizen.
But these rights have been in existence in some form for many centuries...
Where do they come from?
There you go again, conflating different issues. We've gone from talking about the TNDP to talking about gay marriage to talking about polygamy and now we're onto single-parent households.
You don't cite where any of your data comes from, but that's not the issue here. I know how to use the Google, and there was a large study that came out in 2005 that looked at children in same-sex households over a 15-year period, and guess what they found? The kids were FINE!
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
Here's the link to the full text from the American Academy of Pediatrics:
http://pedsinreview.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/9/354?ijkey=1d29616586a75bb01b331cd1e4afa9bc605790c0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
The AAP, in fact, says that it's precisely the uncertain legal status of gay couples that leads to potential problems, not the gay parents themselves:
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339
You're welcome to dismiss the views of elite people with MD's, but there's the data.
See, you may make fun of the "Ivory Tower", but in the Ivory Tower, you learn how to cite your sources when you make an argument.
GoldnI,
Is that something that you say when you're confused... that the other person is conflating issues. I was responding to your last comment. GolnI, you've yet to spell out what you're view of marriage is - same-sex, mulitple members in a "marriage"
Why don't you do that? Listen this isn't politics where you are going for spin. This should be a discussion. I respond specifically to your last comment and I get that crap "there you go again" nonsense. Come on GoldnI, impress me. Show me you're thinking and not just being knee-jerk.
Maybe I am confused. I have no idea what the hell this conversation is about anymore. You keep changing the subject.
The definition of marriage is not static, nor has it ever been. We frown on incest now, but marrying within the family was common pratice until recent history, and it still is common in many parts of the world. Centuries ago, few would have disputed that as a legitimate form of marriage. Likewise, as Sean pointed out, interracial marriage was taboo in the U.S. until a few decades ago.
So no, it doesn't bother me what arrangment consenting adults live in. You can't prove that children in same-sex households have problems relating to their parents. You also haven't shown that the single-parent household statistics have more to do with the parents themselves rather than with socio-economic factors. I'm not the one who's knee-jerking here.
GolnI, Empirical research is a tricky thing. They, the reviewers, did note differences but seemed to interpret them as positive differences... more likely to play with girls and boys toys and such. Did they control for other factors, especially income? The anecdotal evidence I've seen suggests that gays and lesbians tend to be higher than average income. That's a big deal. Is 15 years of data sufficient? There was only one reference at all to a longitudinal study at all. Were the hetero raised children from intact families?
Now, you have yet to address my main point, is there any reason to prohibit polygamy? If so, why?
And let me hit you with this question: You have an infant and you know that you and your husband will be killed in one week. You can leave your baby with one of two couples that are demographically identical, same income, same age etc, except one is a same sex couple and the other is hetero. What do you do? What would most people do? Is their behavior driven by fear and bigotry? This is your child, and you must choose.
Maybe I am confused. I have no idea what the hell this conversation is about anymore...
Are you opposed to polygamy?
I don't care about polygamy. If consenting adults want to live together, that's their business. But it's not the same issue as gay marriage, which is what you're trying to say it is. I'm saying that's a red herring designed to raise fear about gay marriage precisely because of polygamy cases like the one in Texas.
To answer your final question, I have two close guy friends here at school. One of them is Orthodox Jewish, the other is gay (also Jewish). They're both going into well-paying jobs next year, and they both have fairly serious significant others. But I'd trust the gay one with my kids over the upstanding religious one. I don't feel comfortable divulging the exact reasons over the Internets (I may not be anonymous anymore but I'd still prefer to keep some of these issues private), but I know them both well enough to know that my gay friend would them an excellent home.
Does that answer your question? You're dealing with hypotheticals, so I hope its ok that I brought in a real-life example that undercuts your model.
No, GoldnI that's not OK. The idea of a thought experiment is to control for everything else, in order to isolate the variable of interest. You are avoiding the relavent question by saying that you can imagine, and even have a situation, where you'd leave your kid with a gay guy. You would do that FOR OTHER REASONS. You don't know the two couples. Shoot GoldnI I could say that I'd sooner leave my kid with a decent lesbian rather than a couple that "swings" and likes to troll the Internet for new sex partners... duh.
NOW, WHAT WOULD GOLDnI DO?
Well then I guess you can't use me in your thought experiment, since the sexuality of the parents would not be my deciding factor. Sorry, go find another guinea pig to try and prove your point.
GolnI,
So you'd flip a coin. Fine. I'd suggest that most people, who support same sex marriage, would take the gender of the couple into consideration. That doesn't prove anything of course except that people do recognize that it - same sex arrangements - are different in some substantive way.
Why the hostile tone always? I wasn't using you for a G. Pig. And you still haven't addressed the polygamy question. I don't get you. What's the big deal? You support same sex marriage and polygamy. Your not running for office. It won't cost you votes.
Who's being hostile? You're the one yelling at me in ALL CAPS.
I thought I've made it pretty clear that I don't care about polygamy. I personally wouldn't choose to be in it myself, since I'm about as territorial and alpha-female as they come. But if it works out for other people, it's their business and it's not my place to judge them.
But it's not the same thing as gay marriage, and nothing you say is going to trap me into a "gotcha" situation, which I have no doubt is your intention. We've now gone on for almost 50 comments and it keeps coming back to that point.
Don't mistake the caps for hostility. There is no gotcha GolnI. Of course it is not the same thing. Look making judgments is inevitable. Something is morally good, morally bad, or morally neutral. We differ on the case of polygamy, also on same sex marriage.
I would also point out that, to my mind, bad behavior, not all of which can or should be regulated, has implications for society. I think you must get interesting perspectives even within the Jewish community that you mentioned to me, the two guys... on far more than just sexual codes. I would think an Orthodox Jew would have a very particular view of the Mosaic law that would clash with how a secular Jew might see it. Interesting and provocative I'm sure.
For my part I can't quite get my mind around self-described progressives on the one hand and libertarians on the other. I think, after much thought on it, that neither quite appreciates what economists call externalities, or spillovers. The libertarians seem to me to be more consistent where the progressives tend to pick and choose what to regulate and how much. Take Sean's preference for regulating how much employers must pay workers... why regulate that and concern yourself with achieving some level income equality by restricting the freedom of employers and then turn around and say that people who want to marry and have children, no matter the gender or the number, should not have any restrictions?
Just curious to me.
You keep saying "Oh, there are all these externalities." You have yet to cite an actual study or research paper from an objective source that indicates that any of these externalities exist. You threw out the statistics for single-parent households, but you still can't prove that those numbers didn't have more to do with socio-economic status.
You didn't get your Ph.D without backing up whatever you argued in your dissertation, so why can't you back up your "externalities" argument? You can tell me to "just Google it" all you want, but I've been taught here in the Ivory Tower that it's my job to make and back up an argument, not to make baseless claims.
I have a busy day tomorrow so I won't be around to take this thread to 100 comments, but I have one last point. If there ARE negative externalities associated with the children of same-sex unions--problems in school, low self-esteem, etc--does it even occur to you that maybe, just maybe, these are not the fault of the parents themselves, but of the other children, the ones who are raised to believe that making fun of them is acceptable?
Good night everyone. And Sean, sorry about the way this thread got hijacked.
It has been said that the quality of comments is a negative function of the number posted. In other words, they tend to get worse. I tend to agree and it doesn't matter the blog or the level of intelligence of the commenters. Why? In my opinion it is because the focus is lost. A narrow question is expanded and confused and bombarded by mitigating circumstances.
I try only to make narrow points. The world is far too complex. Let me make the same point sans the particulars:
Suppose Red Apples enjoy some status in the world and Green Apples approach the world and argue for that same status. If the Red Apples enjoy the status because they are apples then the Green Apples have a sound argument. They are apples too, just a different color. It is an incidental difference and not a substantive difference. Then suppose that Oranges petitioned for the same status. "But you are not apples," they are told. "Well we can call ourselves apples," they answer. "But calling yourself an apple does not make it so," they are informed. "But we should have the same status as apples; we are a type of fruit too."
Now if they are granted the right to be called apples and enjoy the same status as apples then what has ocurred is a fundamental shift in the meaning of apple or applehood. When that occurs the definition of apple has become arbitrary and meaningless. When Limes approach and petition to be called apples there is no strong argument (not even a weak one) to resist. In short, "making" Oranges into apples via a change in definition has implications. When chairs come along there might be resistance on the basis that they are not even a food, but so what. They are organic, at least wooden chairs are. What grounds are there to resist their appeal? Then if wooden chairs are granted status why not metal chairs?
Post a Comment