Internal Struggle

Whiskey Bar has a very good post on the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court regarding gay and lesbian marriage. He likens the controversy, correctly, to the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s: what stance should a progressive person take? To support gay and lesbian marriage right now will play into the hands of the Cro-Magnons that run the Republican Party; to suggest waiting until the political scene is safer is copping out.

Civil Rights, without a doubt, drove a gigantic wedge between various factions within the Democratic party during the previous generation--in exchange for the most important victory this generation has seen in the ongoing struggle for individual freedom and dignity, the progressive agenda has been sabotaged by the sinister coalition of Southern racists and Republican monied interests. Call it what you will--the Southern Strategy, the Reagan coalition, whatever--but, as much as possible, this alliance has attempted to gut the gains made since the New Deal.

Medicare is now on the slippery slope, thanks to terrible legislation. And, if economic trends continue, Grover Norquist's dream of strangling the "baby" will become all too real.

So, what battles should progressives fight, and when should we fight them? That is part and parcel to a larger trend I've noticed of late: for instance, in the battle against the war in Iraq, Antiwar.com has made some very good points--that said, they represent Pat Buchanan-type libertarianism. The Black Commentator writes about Al Sharpton working with far-right consultant Roger Stone, becoming, in his words, "a hapless stooge of the worst elements of the GOP," although, a few paragraphs later, Tucker Carlson is quoted as noting that "[Stone and Sharpton are motivated by a] disdain for white liberals."

Ten years ago, Bill Clinton allied himself against the interests of the working class when he embraced NAFTA, while Ross Perot, not exactly a civil libertarian, embraced a populist position against the legislation. And, lest we forget, is there any more bizarre of a coalition than the one cobbled together by the GOP? Racist white Southerners, the religious wackos, and Wall Street working together? How weird is that?

Without trying to waste too much space, I think the next ten years or so could become most interesting--the traditional factions comprising the Democratic and Republican parties could very well get rearranged in a shuffle--look at Soros, for instance. Ten, fifteen years ago, there's no way this guy would be trying to throw a Republican out of office. Same with the Buchananites. Additionally, the Racists and Religious Zanies in the GOP are, I believe, sick and tired of being told to wait for their own extreme agenda to be adopted (one reason why I think they'll be pushing HARD for Bush--he's their last chance).

So, again, do progressives wait until the deck has been shuffled? If so, what about the very real issues facing the country--as Billmon notes, a "Defense of Marriage" amendment would be the first since Prohibition to LIMIT freedom. On the other hand, legalization of gay marriage RIGHT NOW might be the one thing that would motivate the yahoos to the extent that any progessive agenda could be buried under an avalanche of "moral values" legislation pushed forth by a revitalized right-wing movement...

Just thinking out loud...