From:  tje3@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: More elections, a victory...
Originator: tje3@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Keywords: discrimination, hatred, intolerance
Reply-To: tje3@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Tammy Jo Eckhart)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:38:32 GMT

Michael S. Schiffer writes:

>	"Conversely, though, no amount of money can make the
>difference unless people are willing to be persuaded.  The sad fact is
>that there appear to be a fairly large number of people in Iowa who
>are willing to listen to Pat Robertson.  That being the case, I wonder
>if the money really mattered-- do you really think that people who
>take that sort of thing seriously weren't already opposed to an equal
>rights measure, or wouldn't have been persuaded when the
>televangelists started ranting about it on their shows?"

	"I don't know whether it was Robertson and company that actually
caused the failure of the amendment," the Lamplighter answers.  "I was just
objecting to the fact that non-Iowans were sticking their noses into Iowa's
business."

>	"The nature of American politics is that both parties are
>essentially loose coalitions, rather than being ideologically based.
>Because of this, each party has extreme elements which form part of
>its base, and must be mollified from time to time.  In the case of the
>Republicans, the major example of this element is the religious
>right-- the Democrats have their own albatrosses about their necks,
>which have contributed to the fact that next year is only the second
>Democratic administration in a quarter-century.

	"Yes, and now it looks like the Republicans have started their own
albatross collection.  There is now at least one special interest, the
religious right, that has its sights trained on the Republican party."

>	"But I disagree that the influence of the religious right is
>increasing.

	"I offer as evidence the 1992 Republican party platform, which is
more in tune with the religious right's beliefs than it has ever been
before."

>	"I'll answer two objections which I expect to hear:

>	"One: Pat Buchanan."

	"I wouldn't call Buchanan a member of the religious right.
Reactionary right, perhaps."

>	"Two: abortion."

	"If being anti-abortion isn't really part of Republicanism," says the
Lamplighter, "then why was it in the platform?  You may say, 'It's not that
Republicans believe all that; it's that the religious right managed to seize
the platform committee.'  But if they're so powerless, how did they do that?
And if the religious right was able to seize the platform committee so
powerfully, who knows what they'll be able to seize next?  I am scared by the
amount of power that the religious right now appears to have."

>	"Just out of curiosity, is there legislation currently which
>discriminates on the basis of sex?  In other words, was this entirely
>a matter of symbolism (which is admittedly not unimportant-- symbols do
>affect us) or are there substantive changes to the laws which would
>have occurred?  If so, would it be possible to persuade the legislature
>to change the offending laws now instead of waiting two years to amend
>the constitution?"

	"There are at present no Iowa laws that I know of that discriminate
on the basis of sex," says the Lamplighter.  "However, I am a male Iowan, and
discriminatory laws would probably discriminate against women, so I may well
be unaware of whatever glaring injustices may be out there.  The effort to
pass the amendment was based pretty much on idealism, on principle, not on
necessity, which may be why it failed in this year of necessity."

-         -    -  - -=---------=----=--=-=#=========#====#==#=#*#########*####*
The Lamplighter             |"There's only so many times you can type 'Pat
(Tom Lee)                   | Buchanan' into a word processor before the
tje3@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu | system crashes."                    -- Love & War