Following up from yesterday's post:
- Shakespeare's Sister has a roundup of blame Teh Gay commentary (also here). These arguments are as inevitable as they are nonsensical, and they're part of what I had in mind when I wrote yesterday's post.
- Slate's John Dickerson, meanwhile, writes a very stupid column:
For this scandal to cause lasting damage to GOP leaders, Democrats may have to use homophobia in a way usually associated with the Republican Party.
which Robert Farley explains is full of shit:I know that pre-emptive war is the big thing nowadays, but shouldn't we wait until a single Democrat says something homophobic before we assail the party for "courting homophobes"?
To our credit, nobody in the Democratic Party has suggested embracing homophobia in this case...and I hope and expect it to stay that way. - As far as what we should be doing, I think the smartest thing is to stay out of the way. Sure, Democratic leaders should make their pro forma statements about failure of leadership yadda yadda yadda...but the Republicans are tearing each other apart over this, and I say let them. The less visible we are, the worse they look.
- In comments to the first post, Ben says:
Too much thinking about implications and repercussions is what's paralized the Democrats-it's why the Republicans can sell themselves as the party that knows right-and-wrong.
Indeed--but thinking about the moral implications of our actions (and ideas) is what makes us the good guys. It isn't that wingnuts and terrorists are bad people and they have no moral doubt; wingnuts and terrorists are bad people because they have no moral doubt. Doubt is what distinguishes us from the barbarians. Yes, it sucks that this gives the bad guys a built-in advantage. Those are the cards we're dealt.
|