US politics, justify being a gay republican

[OrphanPip]

The problem with the American political system is the increasing polarization of political parties. As what would usually be considered a proponent of the far left, I'm not exactly opposed to radical political ideas. However, there is a problem when political parties increasingly rely on the fringes to get them elected at the expense of actually representing the people. I feel that my goal as a democratic socialist should not be to impose socialism on the society at large, but to help bring the popular opinion over to socialism. There is a problem if someone pandering to me gets elected because most of the electorate has been alienated and doesn't bother voting any more, or worse their voting becomes motivated out of fear of the other possibility.

The other problem with the American political system is the prominent role of wedge politics. It is bizarre from a Canadian standpoint where elections usually revolve around budget proposals, where spending and programs are outlined by the party prior to election and they debate whose budget is most viable. In Canada, we don't really see any debate about these divisive issues, except perhaps in Quebec where the secessionist issue is a wedge issue that strongly divides the population. Of course, this problem in part arises from the nature of the American political system, since in the British system we have a fused legislature and executive (the PM is always a member of the legislature), where as in the US you have a separation of your legislature (congress and senate) and your executive (the President). This creates an issue because the President doesn't have any actual control over budget measures, though he has significant influence on his own party the legislature can often be in the control of another party. The logic behind the system is to check the powers of the various branches, but it has the effect of creating a lot of wasted time.

So, most Republicans, or right leaning people in the US, are probably not like the fringe nuts attending the debates, or even the fringe nuts running for the candidacy. This is sad, because moderates, who do exist and are probably the majority in their party, end up with no political influence.

[marshlander]

Interesting you should raise this, pellaz. I was just reading the exact same three points on an American news site and wondering the same thing.

While we are waiting for a Republican to provide us with some inside information I wonder if so much of this situation has arisen because of what looks like an entrenched two-party system in the USA?

As an uninformed outsider there would appear to be a groundswell of craziness that is driving the Republican Party. In other countries, there might be more of a tendency for extremists to coalesce into a new party altogether, but is there is something particularly un-American about being so liberal?

[pellaz]

the current 2 party system is having big difficulty making decision when it comes to budget, taxes etc. i am thinking if three parties existed nothing would get done, more than the nothing currently happening now.

i was hoping Obama would be the leadership to make liberal not such a bad word but not.

[fredv3b]

to the gay republican people out there how do you justify your attachment to the republican party. this is not social concervatism.

What do you suggest that gays and lesbians who believe in small government, lower taxes, a strong national defence, the second amendment, businesses should be freed from burdensome rules, the right to life, etc. should do? Just ignore politics?

[SIZE="2"][COLOR="Navy"]We in Europe have got the 'Human Rights Act 1998' in Europe I wonder how Texas Governor Rick Perry would cope with that?

Human Rights Act

You have the responsibility to respect other people's rights, and they must respect yours.
Your human rights are:
the right to life
freedom from torture and degrading treatment
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
freedom of expression
freedom of assembly and association
the right to marry and to start a family
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
the right to an education
the right to participate in free elections
the right not to be subjected to the death penalty[/COLOR][/SIZE]

First the Human Rights Act 1998 is a piece of U.K. legislation, in Europe as a whole we have The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), it was originally signed in 1950. As far as I can see, with the exception of the death penalty and education, all of the above rights are, more or less, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, a much older document that was written when Europeans were still fighting wars with each other. Indeed the ECHR was written as part of the response to a rather large war that we needed an awful lot of U.S. help to win. Also the right to an education is quite limited, it does not specify the duration, quality or value of that education, the text says...

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions.

[Almac]

First the Human Rights Act 1998 is a piece of U.K. legislation, in Europe as a whole we have The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), it was originally signed in 1950. As far as I can see, with the exception of the death penalty and education, all of the above rights are, more or less, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, a much older document that was written when Europeans were still fighting wars with each other. Indeed the ECHR was written as part of the response to a rather large war that we needed an awful lot of U.S. help to win. Also the right to an education is quite limited, it does not specify the duration, quality or value of that education, the text says...

Fred I think you missed the part where African Americans were denied all those rights up until recently, I don't pretend to know that much about American history. So while Europeans were fighting each other, one section of American society was oppressing the other part.

[OrphanPip]

the current 2 party system is having big difficulty making decision when it comes to budget, taxes etc. i am thinking if three parties existed nothing would get done, more than the nothing currently happening now.

i was hoping Obama would be the leadership to make liberal not such a bad word but not.

A three party system tends towards a fight for the center though, it causes different political dynamics, it's rare that you would have a situation in multiparty systems where one party doesn't control the legislature. Although, the problem with you getting stuff passed isn't the result of your party system, but of the set up of your government, with the congress, senate and the executive all having different allegiances and overlapping powers.

[Pix]

Years ago I had equal antipathy toward the Democrat and Republican parties. But in the last couple of years the GOP has just seemed to have gone insane and they scare me really bad and I definitely see the Democrats as, by far, a lesser evil at this point.

There are exceptions of course. Mayor Jerry Sanders of San Diego is a Republican who actually came out for complete gay equality (that means he was even more progressive than President Obama on that issue) and broke down in tears on TV because his lesbian daughter and her girlfriend were treated as 2nd class citizens. And he's just one. But right now it seems that the Tea Party, Christian Right, and even Dominionists (who want to make the Old Testament the law of the land, some of them even promoting slavery as acceptable) seem to have far more influence with the GOP and that's just very bad news for Log Cabin Republicans.

Btw, I have conservative friends and know that some of them, including straight, are very disturbed with the current state of the GOP. One guy has even given up being a Republican because of the things mentioned in the OP.

[marshlander]

Sometimes I despair

http://unicornbooty.com/2011/09/jamey-ro...omecoming/

Matthew 7:20

[Inchante]

Fred I think you missed the part where African Americans were denied all those rights up until recently, I don't pretend to know that much about American history. So while Europeans were fighting each other, one section of American society was oppressing the other part.

Based on the above statement that "African Americans were denied all those rights up until recently", I would say that you know very little about American History at all.



Freedom of religion: First fully independent African American congregation, 1816

Education: First African American to graduate from an American college: 1823

Freedom of Speech/Press: First African American Newspaper, Freedom's Journal: 1827

Political Office: First African American elected to public office (State Legislature of Vermont): 1836.

First African American to vote: 1870

First African American Elected to the U.S. Congress: 1870.

First African American Governor: 1872

So on and so forth. etc. etc.

The thing is, Almac, there are very few blanket statements about the United States that can be made and actually fit. That is, point in fact, due to the political system of the United States, the division between State and Federal Government. There were certain instances in American History when African Americans had more rights than White people living in some parts of Europe at the same time. It largely depended on place and period.


Looking at the list of rights that you provided, most of those rights were extended to African Americans after the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

There were a few like freedom of marriage, suffrage, and education that certain States, almost entirely in the South-east, bypassed through measures that band marriage between races, Jim Crow laws that limited voting rights, and segregation like "separate but equal". All of those laws were done away with by 1967between 45 and 55 years ago. However, states in the North had extended almost all of those rights to African Americans decades prior to the end of slavery in the South.

Also, you should remember that slavery was first initiated under European rule and was inherited by the U.S. after the Revolution. At the time of the Revolution, the ban of slavery in the U.S. was not a feasible option, as it would have been a subject of division between the colonies. Indeed, so much animosity built between the North and South, almost entirely over issues relating to slavery, that it lead to one of the bloodiest wars in American history, the American Civil War. At that time, slavery was legal in the American South under U.S. rule for just under 90 years, you can compare that to slavery under European rule which existed for more than 200 years.

As Fred pointed out, two of those rights you listed do not exist on the Federal level in the United States:

Capitol Punishment: Capitol Punishment at this time falls under States Rights, which means the states have jurisdiction to write their own laws about the death penalty. Some states allow it, others do not.

Education: This topic is mute in the United States, as education is compulsory to all individuals between the ages of 5 and 16-17, depending on the state in question.

[OrphanPip]

Although, blacks received equal rights in the British Empire (1834) prior to the 15th amendment, so they do have a claim to that. They also actively interfered with the slave trade in West Africa. And in fact, the Canadian colonies banned slavery as early as 1803. And if we look at the last place to emancipate serfs in Europe, Russia in 1863, even they beat the USA to abolition of human bondage.

Moreover, most of the rights the US instituted, especially legal rights and jurisprudence, were inherited out of already existing British systems.

However, this is to say there is no vacuum of human development, ideas move everywhere. And the notion of any one land having a monopoly on the proper order of society is misguided, all societies have their various injustices.