The Culture War Has Been Won
By us. Progressives. If you doubt that, look at what is happening to Indiana. Sure, idiot racist theocrats can still pass discriminatory legislation into laws in Republican states, but those states will then be destroyed through boycott. Indiana Governor Mike Pence is in full panic mode now, because he knows that his state’s economy is doomed. But he and the Republicans living in the Fox News bubble thought they could get away with passing a law their bigoted base wanted without any consequence. Now they know they were wrong, and facing boycott blowback beyond their wildest dreams. And yet, they do not know how to properly capitulate to the victors. So they will have to suffer.
Not our fault, Indiana. It’s yours. It’s not personal. It’s strictly business.
I’ve often said that the most powerful weapon progressives have at their disposal is the economic sword. Yes the courts and the legislative process is absolutely necessary. But business responds to the marketplace. Imagine a bakery losing out on all the cake business from gay weddings because two other bakeries down the street don’t care whose cake they are making as long as the money is green. Ditto the convention business which would go to other states that people find more hospitable. If someone wants to discriminate, they effectively create a need and like nature which abhors a vacuum, someone will fill that need. I can always hate gays on Sunday, but Monday through Friday, I would love to bake them cakes with a smile.
Added note: Subaru, which is popular with gays has their entire manufacturing capability in Indiana.
Mike Pence is freaking out because he is an idiot. Indiana’s congressional delegation is made of of 8 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Mitt Romney won it with 65% of the vote. I’ll declare victory when an atheist wins an election somewhere.
The L.A. Times raised the question of why, when several other states have passed similar laws, did Indiana’s doing so cause such furor? That is in interesting question as apparently there were no similar boycotts in the other instances. Are the other states (e.g. Kansas, Miss., Ark.) just too far removed culturally from places like San Francisco that companies based there don’t even send their people to Little Rock and Gulfport in the first place? A quick internet search of, e.g., “Kansas Boycott” suggests that a boycott somehow related to pitbulls and another by Darwinists have far more traction. Also, before you declare victory prematurely, laws like this are in the works in Georgia and S. Dakota as well.
Some of those laws date back quite some time to a more troglodytic era.
Governors and legislators who pass stuff like this nowadays do so in order to (a) curry favor with the wingnuts who vote in primaries, and (b) because they’re quite likely wingnuts themselves. Indianapolis is a HUGE convention and sports city. They are now in jeopardy of losing almost immediately the annual NFL draft combine and next year’s Women’s NCAA Final Four. That’s a lotta bucks going elsewhere b/c the wingnuts had to be satisfied.
Great work, Gov. Pence.
Yeah. This blew up on Pence because it such naked bullshit.
Allow me to do my victory dance while I sit on hold waiting to complain about my wifi to the monopoly cable company I subscribe to, on my oligopoly of a cell phone carrier cell phone, while I sit here in my layers of long johns 1 month into spring watching snow flurries out my window, and watching CNN tell me republicans and democrats are voting to screw me out of my social security.
Yay…we fucking won…
I think americans are just too f-ing shallow, lazy and stupid to address the real issues that confront them
I just keep wondering how this law is going to work. Is this a “don’t ask, don’t tell” situation? Can a store owner decide, based on looks/mannerisms, that you’re gay? Muslim? An adulterer? Anything that offends their religion?
Would customers have to confess their “sins” so as to save the store owner from inadvertently going against their religious beliefs? Would a baker who baked a wedding cake and then found out, after the fact, that the couple was gay have some right to legal or financial claims.
I have questions, people!
a gay, adulterating, muslim, wedding cake baker < {mind is blown}
Well said Dave and Jason 330. Social Conservatives have lost every battle, every time. Laws like this are an attempt to placate them by the Republicans (and the occasional Dem ), this one may well prove expensive and is already embarrassing. But it will not stop them, the holy rollers will be back in other states and may well pass laws like this and worse. Their fate will be wasted money in courts, boycotts and the contempt of a nation. But when has that ever mattered to fanatics?
“Would a baker who baked a wedding cake and then found out, after the fact, that the couple was gay”
Well, the stick figures on top of the cake would give the baker a heads up. So they kinda know ahead of time. Still, business is business and the far right is prone to cut off their nose to spite their face. Which is fine by me. As a rule (not a general rule, a very specific rule), I do not do business with those who insist on professing their religion as a function of their business. Most publically pious people have a pattern of hypocrisy in that they publically profess their faith but usually act in a very non-pious manner. You can’t trust them. We see this most often with Christians because that’s what we are exposed to on a daily basis, but it applies to all religions. Piety is a dish best served in private. Whenever I see public displays of it, I assume the worst.
Wait… what? There are people who still put plastic figurines on top of their wedding cake?
The cake topper has become a major battle with the future in-laws. Apparently it’s not an actual wedding cake unless figurines that look like the couple are on the cake.
Laws like this are an attempt to placate them by the Republicans (and the occasional Dem ),
I’ve always thought of these laws (and the whole of the Culture War) as a way to distract certain middle class and working class white people from the fact that they are losing economic ground and losing by design. It is also the basis of one of the GOP’s perennial problems — African Americans as a group can be very culturally conservative, but they do not by the resentment politics of the GOP.
It is great to win these battles, because it is one less fig leaf for the GOP to hide behind, but we still have the problem of middle class and working class people losing ground and there is little going on to address that.
“but we still have the problem of middle class and working class people losing ground and there is little going on to address that.”
Yes, because both parties are focused on social issues. The Dems are manning the ramparts against the invasions of the anti-abortionists, creeping (creepy) religionists, anti-gays, etc. and with very little attention on economic issues that affect the middle class. Yeah, I know each of these social issues has an economic component but really, aside from the minimum wage battle what else do the Dems have in their quiver? ACA truly is an economic issue but remember a great deal of the middle class already had health insurance.
I’ve said it before that both parties have a tendency to operate on the margins of the bell curve with the middle class being ignored because one party believes in trickle down and the other party believes in a rising tide floating all boats. Trickle down only trickles down to a select few and boats not in the water are not affected by a rising tide.
In short “It’s the economy stupid”
“In no way is this law designed to allow the kind of anti-gay discrimination that is the law’s single reason for existing.” – Mike Pence
From The Onion
And unfortunately, it doesn’t look like either party will be putting forward a presidential candidate in 2016 interested in addressing the economic issues that concern Americans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/business/candidates-and-wealthy-are-aligned-on-inequality.html?_r=0
It’s depressing when your best hope is that one of the candidates is being deliberately vague and might not actually mean what she says.
Instead of asking why certain social issue groups achieve success it might be better to ask why so many middle class Americans can’t bother to organize for their economy. Seriously, the Republicans are good at using social issues (and actual flippin’ laws – this is more than rhetoric) to distract the white middle class with shiny objects. Can we please stop pretending that things like gay rights are the reason why we can’t have nice things like economic issues. It’s like saying, “Oh, look at all those people doing the hard work for an issue they care about. That’s why WE can’t organize.”
And Cassandra is correct. These social “distractions” are aimed as resentment issues for white people. That is the GOP base, and, boy, can they count on the angry white person.
And it’s really insulting to pretend that things like gay marriage, reproductive rights, etc. aren’t part of the economy. They aren’t part of your economy, but to dismiss the financial benefits of marriage (SS, right of inheritance, health insurance, pensions, etc.) and the ability to decide how many children you’ll have as a side issue is insulting to those whose economy is directly and negatively affected. Your side issue is someone’s actual economic life.
And I’ll point out that very few people gave Occupy credit for reframing the debate and actually making income inequality the issue. Many people treated this group as a joke. Fine, but let’s not pretend there wasn’t an attempt to make the economy an issue.
And the more I think about it the more I wonder why these social issues aren’t allowed in the serious economy (real economy?) discussions. There’s a natural tie in. Economic issues would be stronger if we linked them together rather than placing them under the headings of “Important Real Economy” and “Issues Distracting From The Real Economy”. Merge that message and not only will you see wider support, but you’ll actually tap into all those groups who, you know, actually do the work.
“I’ve always thought of these laws (and the whole of the Culture War) as a way to distract certain middle class and working class white people from the fact that they are losing economic ground and losing by design.”
I don’t know if it intentional or not, but if it is intentional, it’s working. The Economy doesn’t work for a great many people. Social issues are near and dear to a great many people, but if you want to make change and you need to win elections in order to facilitate making change you have to it literally on bread and butter issues; food on the table, money in the bank; a chicken in every pot, and jobs that provide the means to sustain a decent life; you have to get companies hiring again. The candidate in 2016 who articulates that message the best is going to win. Whether anyone likes it or not I believe that’s the way it is. And yes, I agree you can integrate social equality with economic equality. If the marriage equality issue were framed that way in the first place, I believe it would have been a easier road.
But… but… but… they were framed that way. Gay marriage was presented as the economic advantages hetero couples automatically received with a marriage license/certificate. This issue has never been about wedding cakes and walking down the aisle. Reproductive rights have been about women and men deciding when they would have a baby (a HUGE economic issue). If you didn’t get these messages then that will tell you how loud the Republican message is.
And let’s face it, the GOP’s messages are directed towards a certain demographic (one that’s losing in today’s economy). Pick an issue and you’ll find the resentment. Immigration – brown people, Voter ID – black people, Busing – black, brown and poor, Abortion – slutty, immoral women, Food stamps – poor people, Gay rights – gay people. I could go on. But notice which group is missing from Republican fear tactics. That’s not an accident. These fear tactics work on the group you’re (we’re) trying to rally. How do we fix the economy when certain people don’t want to fix it for everyone. That’s the problem.
@pandora why so many middle class Americans can’t bother to organize for their economy.
… because most of them are (A) too damn busy trying and failing to make it in order to (B) think past the demonization issues.
By and large middle class people don’t organize politically FOR things, organizations convince them to vote AGAINST things.
“Gay marriage was presented as the economic advantages hetero couples automatically received with a marriage license/certificate. This issue has never been about wedding cakes and walking down the aisle.”
Actually, if you sift through the articles, news reports, etc. you would come to a different conclusion. Even today (Indiana) it would appear that it’s about cakes and flowers. You have to shift your perspective a bit to see it I guess. Yes, there are significant economic issues but remember there are approximately 8M LBGTQIA folks in the U.S. out of a population of 330M (~3.5%). What you see as the defining civil rights issue of the decade appears to others as a narrow issue affecting a small part of the population. While most may support the movement, ultimately it doesn’t put food on their table.
I’m not suggesting it is unimportant. What I am suggesting is that most people do not see the issue in an economic context and even if it were really being portrayed as an economic issue, it has a narrow constituency. It’s not just about how loud the GOP message is, it is also the way the issues are presented by advocates. Take Reproductive rights for example. You said “Reproductive rights have been about women and men deciding when they would have a baby ” Oh yeah? Did you type that with a straight face? It has never been presented that way. It has always been presented as a woman’s rights issue. In fact the economic considerations have been overshadowed by civil and privacy rights. Otherwise we would be reading more about how it costs $245,340 to raise a child to 18 and the financial impact of raising an unwanted child on the system in real world dollars. In 2014 there were ~1.21M abortions. If there no abortion the total debt load would have been $2,968,614,000,000. Did you read that anywhere in the last x years? Me neither. I’m not even sure what the number is. I think it’s trillion. And considering that a good chunk of that cost is paid by the taxpayers due for many reasons, that’s a hell of savings. Now, I’m anti-abortion, but pro contraception, but when I first calculated this number it gave me pause. Now when I take into account the economic considerations, I’m questioning my stance. I am well read and these kinds of arguments in regards to abortion are not really part of the general conversation. This would even give Republicans pause. After all their values usually extend no further than their wallet.
(just to clarify my version of anti-abortion – I believe that life begins at conception. But I also believe that I do not have a right to tell people what to do with their bodies. So I’m anti-abortion with a conflict, which is why I am ardent pro contraceptionist).
Bottom line. You think things are being framed as economic arguments. I disagree. Those arguments are peripheral at best.
I think the lack of organization we see from the middle class is due, in large part, to the loss of unions/union jobs. Unions represented a large swathe of the middle class. This was how the middle class use to organize for the economy. Union’s did most of the work and the heavy lifting for this group.
So, we add another group (unions – altho not police unions. Those will be the last to go) to the GOP’s demonization list. They are quite good at getting people to vote against their self-interests – in the name of screwing over “other” people. And that’s the real problem. Fix that mindset and we might see action, because social issues aren’t the problem. Social issues aren’t the reason we’re not discussing the “real” economy. Not one bit. But they are used as another way to divide people into “us and others” categories.
It has always been presented as a woman’s rights issue.
Making your own decisions *is* a women’s rights issue. Managing your life to your finances is a women’s rights issue. The problem is that there are too many folks who are perfectly willing to ignore that in the rush to make those decisions (and judge those decisions) for women. For the GOP, the business of personal responsibility and taking charge of your own life always reserves for themselves the right to override what every responsibility you are exercising to impose their own standards.
What I am suggesting is that most people do not see the issue in an economic context and even if it were really being portrayed as an economic issue, it has a narrow constituency.
Even the Indiana Chamber of Commerce is calling for a very fast change to RFRA. Not so narrow a constituency. The problem here is still resentment politics. An economic argument has been made for LGBT equality forever — it is far too easy to punch the resentment politics button to get people to focus on the distaste for the OTHERS who may be having different sex than you.
As long as lower class uneducated whites can be manipulated by their petty resentments to vote for candidates who work against their economic interests, nothing will change
“But they are used as another way to divide people into “us and others” categories.”
Yes. The obvious counter strategy would be to find ways to unite people. Everybody has a wallet, even in Indiana. Notice how companies are falling all over themselves to make sure everyone knows they will serve everyone or to reconsider investment and events in the state? If I were in the business of manipulating the public and the voters, every ad would be connected to economics and everyman’s wallet. How does it affect me if Wal Mart workers are only making minimum wage? Answer that question and you create unity around the issue. To me, the overarching argument for ACA was the fact that I had to pay for people who did not have health insurance when they received health care. It personalized ACA for me. Yeah sure, people without health care, kids, yadda, yadda and all that, but those are the ‘others.’
Appeal to their sense of justice and people will be vocal in their support. Appeal to the wallet and that support turns into a demand. Economic arguments and actions gets results. Otherwise you are left with legislative action which breeds resentment and tribalism.
True, mouse. And the idea that people focused on “social issues” are doing it wrong really means they’re not doing what Dave deems they should be doing.
Cakes and flowers are a response to gay rights. They are the counter attack. They are not the debate, and never have been. If that’s all you’ve read about this issue I would not call you informed.
As for this: “You said “Reproductive rights have been about women and men deciding when they would have a baby ” Oh yeah? Did you type that with a straight face? It has never been presented that way. It has always been presented as a woman’s rights issue.”
First, I have never been an “all men do this” sort of person. But feel free to show me where I typed what you’re implying. You’ll see me typing with a straight face a lot. That said, you reveal your “issues” with this comment.
Second, we have found another area where you aren’t informed. The costs you cite about raising a baby/unwanted pregnancies have been cited many, many times. Perhaps the better question is why you’re just discovering them? I would say these issues are new to you. Because everything you say you’ve read echoes the GOP’s talking points. Someone who has been following gay/reproductive rights doesn’t rely on wedding cakes as an argument and isn’t the least bit surprised by the costs of raising a child or unwanted pregnancies.
And if we go by your standard for the economy then we’ll have to deal with just one part of it. No complex, multidimensional, related side issues. The economy is about more jobs, right. Is it about minimum wage? Education? Housing? Unions? Healthcare? Well, according to your statements it’s not – since reproductive rights and gay rights should only focus on one aspect – economic.
And if this issue is important to you then do something – something more than telling other people what to do. But that’s really the heart of this problem. The people you need to rally to this cause won’t join in because it’s more important to them to keep others out.
“The costs you cite about raising a baby/unwanted pregnancies have been cited many, many times. Perhaps the better question is why you’re just discovering them?”
If I chose to delve into the issue, I could and would have discovered them. But the fact is they have not been cited many, many times except perhaps below the fold, which is my key argument or at Guttmacher Institute. What I am trying to communicate to you is that perception is reality and if people perceive it to be about wedding cakes and flowers, then it is – not to you, but to them. And they don’t care. If the perception exists because of the GOP message machine, so what? It doesn’t matter. What matters is the strategy to counter the machine and my opinion is that the strategy has to be an economic one.
More mansplaining in the house.
The costs of babies and unwanted pregnancies has even been the focus of *multiple* national ad campaigns by various groups. This is immaterial to people whose resentments make them think they are entitled to make decisions about *Other* peoples’ lives.
“In short “It’s the economy stupid”
The problem on that front is that both Democrats and Republicans have bought into the bogus Chicago/Austrian bullshit that passes for economic thought among politicians. When neither side will endorse policies to rein in capitalism, you end up with an economy like ours.
The only question is whether they are stupid, and therefore unable to understand that their policies don’t do what they claim, or dishonest.
Preach on brother Geezer. The “stupid v. dishonest” question haunts my thoughts regarding John Carney’s grasp of economics. However, I’m convinced Coons and Carper know the deal and are simply dishonest.
If all people know about gay rights is wedding cakes then they probably haven’t been paying attention. And the reason they now cite wedding cakes is because, on some level, that resonated with them. It fed their resentment or it fed their belief that this is not a serious, civil rights issue. It didn’t affect their lives.
Republicans tell people what they want to hear. If a person cites wedding cakes as a gay rights issue and then is surprised at the economic costs of babies/pregnancies that tells me they weren’t really concerned about these issues to begin with and are comfortable in framing the discussion in the way GOP wants them to. Mainly because these issues don’t impact them or their economy.
Saying the debate should be about “everyman’s wallet” leaves out certain groups – groups that wouldn’t benefit as much as “everyman” because they’d be paid less (or not even hired) due to their gender, race, sexual orientation. I still don’t understand why social issues must be excluded from the economic discussion. Unless you’re saying if we want to improve the economy we have to let white men think it will only benefit them. If they think women, gays or minorities will benefit, too, then they’ll call the whole thing off and walk away?
To not be concerned about these realities is a luxury, and to cite population numbers (there’s only x number of LGBT people in the country) isn’t fair or what our country was founded on. Going by the standard of “we should focus on the concerns of the majority” lends itself to the “making Christianity the country’s religion and affording that religion (Hobby Lobby) special rights” brigade. Seriously, if we’re going to prioritize based on population then, on some level, we’re agreeing with conservatives. We will be telling women, minorities and gays to wait their turn – we’ll get to them after we deal with the larger group and the real economy, of which, somehow, they aren’t a part.
And yes, these facts have been cited many, many times. Perhaps you skipped over these articles or changed the channel when the topic came up or have limited your reading/channel watching/internet surfing to main stream media cites. Altho, these points have been made many, many times on those outlets as well.
This reminds me of the conservative cry of, “What about black-on-black crime? Why isn’t the black community addressing this?” It should go without saying that the black community has been addressing crime in their neighborhoods quite aggressively and for an extremely long time- but if you’re waiting for people like Wolf Blitzer, Richard Cohen or Chris Matthews to inform you on this you’ll be waiting forever. Because to them this problem became about hoodies and rap music.
Agree with the stupid and dishonest answer, but lean towards dishonest when it comes to Ds and Rs. The system, as it stands, benefits them. It’s hard to get people to change their ways when it means they’ll have to give up behavior they like.