rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (10/26/84)
The following is a blatant attempt to influence how you vote on November 6th. It's addressed to all voters who think they may vote for Reagan, but especially to closet Republicans, [Ll]ibertarians, and gay people. (The views expressed herein are my own, & not those of my employer.) PART TWO Fagbaiting continues to be a Reagan campaign tactic. This year & in 1980 against Jimmy Carter, it took the indirect but unsubtle form of lambasting opponents who supported civil rights legislation for gay people (or "gay rights", to use a phrase whose linguistic ambiguity bigots & Republican campaign-workers haven't hesitated to exploit). But that isn't really fagbaiting, you say; eg, principled people, such as libertarians, reject civil rights legislation for minorities as oppressive & wrongheaded. (Politicians aren't "principled people", ipso facto! :=( ) Yet when a politician uses it in a campaign, he/she knows "gay rights" works as a codeword (like "forced busing" in overtly racist white communities) for homosexuality in a by-&-large still homo- phobic electorate, and, even if abysmally stupid, is perfectly aware of the phrase's basic effect: to rouse the public's bigotry & its opposi- tion to gays, with the desired side effect of endorsing his/her party's position. Claims about Reagan's isolation from dirty politics or cynical tactics (1. Nice Guy) or his individual integrity (2. Staunch Defender) are pretty silly in light of this, & how an administration that routinely and deliberately stimulates public homophobia can help gay people (3. Good Effect) is, to put it mildly, hard to see. Maybe Reagan doesn't know? After two year-long campaigns & 3 interim years (1981-83) of wooing "conservatives" [sic.] in which this tactic was employed, such a claim is absurd. Maybe it's dictated by his campaign managers (presidents are always on campaign) against his will; candidates shouldn't meddle with the strategies PR devises for them? Then he's a moral coward, in stark contrast to most of his Democratic opponents, who at least include "gay rights" in their platform despite rightwing slings. Ignoring this last point, maybe Reagan is forced to it by expediency, in hock to the extreme right for its substantial support? But MANY issues (abortion, anticommunism, law & order, less gov't, taxcuts, etc.) tie him to the New Right, and some already SEPARATE him from it. He could well afford to drop homophobia. In fact, for some time now, self-appointed New Right kingmakers (Richard Viguerie, Howard Phillips, etc.) have publically discussed dropping Reagan & wresting party control from him & his less extreme supporters. This isn't an idle threat: although New Right influence on elections has been "much exaggerated" (for an analysis see the essays in Part 4 of NEW CHRISTIAN POLITICS, David Bromley & Anson Shupe eds, Mercer U P, 1984), the GOP is far more divided & bitter than the Democrats. Only the personality of Reagan gives the illusion of unity & prevents factions from tearing each other apart, & THAT, by general GOP consensus, will end on November 7th, when a fullscale power struggle begins for party control. Even worse, most faction heads believe Reagan will die in office (his health will collapse), & at the very least expect him to take no interest in party affairs once reelected, relinquishing any control he now has (for this & more, see the 9/10/84 NYTimes Sunday Magazine for an inside portrait of the Republican Party). Even worse, a number of economists & political observers believe a reelected Reagan with a "mandate" will try to enforce Reaganomics again, bringing about an economic disaster, but they disagree on timing (in the 2nd or 3rd year?) and impact (will Democrats or "radi- cal populists" or the far right?). If so, such a crisis could pro- vide fertile ground for the "radical populism" of the New Right. Whatever the New Right lacks in voter appeal, it makes up for in vast resources (of $$, minions, organizational muscle, & direct mail) for waging a successful power struggle within an organization like the GOP. A vote for Reagan may translate into support for New Right ascendancy; at any rate, such a vote can't forestall a relatively "Reaganless" GOP with all the uncertainty which that brings for marginal groups like gays. Not only could Reagan have resisted New Right demands; for the sake of the GOP's future, he should have. But he DIDN'T. As a result, it's too late to dislodge the New Right from its position within the GOP. In current political conditions, a vote for Ronnie at the very least keeps alive the far right's bid for national political power,. CONTINUED: MORE DIRT SOON Cheers, Ron Rizzo "Why, dahling! The Left is what's left over, the Right is what's wrong, & the Middle-Of-The-Road is no place for a lady." -- Electra Collage, Miss Ballot-box of 1947 Washington, AC/DC
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/28/84)
Hmmm, what have you been smoking lately? Milo