Political Reality

While not precisely a new screed, I'll address it again, perhaps with more vigor.

Any time that a small, minority, or non-mainstream group in a two-party political system marries itself so thoroughly to one political party or another such that the unallied party reasonably views that group as beyond recapture - that group has sold whatever influence they had, and sold it at a heavy discount.

Most politicians are basically whores, and rather nasty ones at that. They are, by the nature of things, out for votes and cash with which to get re-elected. They, like everyone else, have limited amounts of time and resources (thank goodness), and have to prioritize how they spend that time and their resources along the lines of which interest group or demographic pandered to is likely to yield the greatest number of votes and/or dollars come the campaign or election.

Not all politicians start out in this mode, and not all of them take it to the logical extreme, or even admit this to themselves...often rationalizing it as some form of necessary evil "to accomplish the noble goals that I really truly believe in." But politicians that SURVIVE, however, find a way to work with this dynamic whether they like it or not, whether they admit it even to themselves or not, or whether they remain in some form of blissninny denial while their aides get their hands dirty.

Once a group is "sold" beyond a reasonable hope of extracting a statistically significant number of either dollars or voters to either the "other party" or "other candidate"...the motivation for the politician to do anything nice for the group their opposition has purchased, or even keep that group happy (or at least not actively hostile) , dwindles swiftly - in some cases, downright vanishing as it's a short trip from "political black hole" to "handy group to demonize to folks that actually like us".

As an example, no matter how even-handed and pro-gay a GOP candidate may be - unless their opponent with a (D) after their name is a total scumbag with a thing for gerbils (or just plain deceased, and even that may not be enough) - any GOP candidate, no matter how good, has an uphill row to hoe in any area with a significant LGBT population, or in trying to pry either votes or dollars in significant numbers out of the LGBT community.

If elected, that candidate is unlikely to view the LGBT community is one that s/he needs to stay on the good side of to ensure his/her next electoral victory, to rush out and push for LGBT civil rights (when that would offend many folks that DID vote for him/her) - we've become, to that candidate who might have either supported our issues or remained largely neutral, a throw-away group to whom s/he owes nothing beyond a swift kick in the collective shins.

The flip side of this vile coin, is that often the Democrats (justifiably) view our community as a gathering of useful idiots, of "gimme's" whom it is utterly safe to take for granted, as we (apparently by our own hand) have no apparent significant other place to go. (The American Green Party, it is to laugh). THEY don't have to do anything nice for us, because they don't have to expend political resources, cash, or dollars on all but the most infrequent of basis to keep us in the fold of the mighty jackass.

We've actively fostered this in our community by actively ostracizing those who dare to favor the Log Cabin Republicans, who are related to GOP politicians, or who express conservative views in support of the community (i.e., pro-gay, pro-gun, fiscally conservative). Libertarians are typically given the some what less respect than the Greens (that given radicals we *don't like*).

But this isn't just a LGBT thing - that is simply the example with which I'm most intimately familiar. Substitute "black" or "evangelical christian" or "nra member" or "bostonian" and apply the necessary linguistic tweaks so that the affected paragraphs continue to make sense - and the same basic principal applies.

As long as a group is seen as being "in play" and statistically signiicant for either major party to gain or lose votes/dollars - that group, whatever it is, wields substantial influence as candidates of both parties pander to that groups issues. The moment that group is even popularly believed to be irretrievably a supporter of one party or another, their influence is vastly diminished.

That's why I'm grateful that the SAF and NRA and other such groups are quite open to supporting candidates of *either* party if that candidate has a history and a platform of supporting those groups agendas. I tend to agree with those agendas, and I believe that "uncertainty factor" makes those groups more effective than they might otherwise be - they set a clear bar that politicians must leap to garner support, and reward those who pass it. They aren't married to either party.

On the flip side, that is why I'm disgusted with some groups and members of my community - they are pissing away, with great enthusiasm, political capital that we need. We've gained a great deal over the years, and the end zone is (at least from my point of view) is well in sight - gay marriage and allowing open LGBT service in the military - and I can't really favor pissing away potential influence we could wield there, or the additional dollars we might garner for HIV/AIDS research with such influence.

Sadly, however tempting it may be, wandering about and swiftly and repeatedly crotch-kicking the various leaders of the sundry sell-out factions...isn't especially constructive, makes the neighbors talk, and is likely to lead to less than ideal relations with local law enforcement.