From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Publicity
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:57:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Sep2.205728.22212
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Sep2.190730.15684@PacBell.COM> rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
>With respect, Nelson, Matthew was referring to Presidential politics,
>not the situation in Oregon.

from where I sit, the two are virtually indistinguishable, on a
practical level. Except that the situation in Oregon is a lot more
personal for me, both because *me* directly and because I can actually
do something about it. But this Oregon election is happening at the
same time as the presidential election, and the sound bites flow from
one to the other.

Pat Buchanan's speech at the Republican National Convention was
virtually indistinguishable from OCA rhetoric. The OCA noise is very
real. It is affecting me. The Republican Party, on a national level,
is reiterating it. Now I agree that this year the Republicans aren't
trying to put hate-legislation into the national constitution. Will
they next year? It's supported in their platform. It was on the
convention floor. It's in the speeches of George Bush and Dan Quayle.
What am I supposed to think?

>I think he's correct in saying that the parties' support for or
>opposition to L/G civil rights, in itself, has little effect on the
>average voter's propensity to vote for one candidate or the other.

I'm not so sure about this. We'll need a good definition of "average
voter", and I'm not about to touch that one. A few polls have
indicated that the hard line family values stance is costing them
votes, which surprises but delights me.

Here's what Melmon said, again:

>That they are waving a red flag called 'The Homosexual Agenda' does
>*not* mean they give to craps about it - it means they *think* it
>will work well as a distraction.

I can't disagree with this. I have a cynical view of American
politics, too.

But I can disagree with this:

>[3] They claim that they have a mandate to be anti-GLB, because it
>    was in their platform.  (even though it didn't help them win)
>Number [3] is probably a bit more paranoia than reality.

This is exactly what is going on in Oregon. OCA says "gayz ur evil,
they shud be exturminated". Newspapers say "yeah, yeah, the OCA's a
bunch of extremists and they might win because they have a lot of
money and votes." Then the RNC happens, and Pat Buchanan says "gays
are evil, there will be a holy war". Suddenly, the Republican party
has validated the OCA. Just like they've been validating them for the
last two years.

But this is all beside the point. What makes me angry is the thought
that any rational person would think that just because the Republican
gay-bashing is a smokescreen, it is somehow less serious, less
important. Not only does it have direct effects (supporting the OCA),
but it belies a complete immorality, an attack on what I fundamentally
am - a queer who lives in America.

I'm still waiting to understand how any person could vote Republican
and still consider themselves human.
-- 
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/   Indifference, the plague that moves throughout this land
Newsgroups: soc.motss