I'm so ashamed. I'm not ashamed of myself; I'm ashamed of my party and to whom it panders. I'm doing some serious political existentialist thinking, and I'm considering abandoning any party affiliation altogether.
Allow me to explain. I grew up in a semi-affluent household headed by a professional. I was reared to enter a profession; it stuck. Both my siblings are professionals, as am I. My hometown, in which I have lived exclusively except for 7 years while I attended out of state schools, and for a 6 week period abroad, has played a large role in my political affiliation. My hometown is populated by an inordinate number of highly educated rocket scientists (literally--that's why it's called "The Rocket City"). Two or three generations after Dr. Werner von Braun's original rocket scientists arrived from Germany, we have their descendents, literally and figuratively, engaged in more of the same, and also in avionics, electronics in a broader sense, optics, and computer hardware and software. As one might guess, such demographics skews the city's politics to the right.
Thus, I was bound to become a ....a.....Republican. All snickering aside, I am very much a Republican of the P.J. O'Rourke libertarian stripe, not of the old-money fuck-anyone-without-a-trust-fund stripe. Remember that O'Rourke used to be a dope-smoking hippie journalist for Rolling Stone magazine. Now he writes for The Atlantic Monthly. Now he appears for the right on Bill Maher's show (whatever it's called this week).
(Irrelevant aside: I met O'Rourke on a plane about 4 years ago. As I was boarding, I noticed him seated and reading a paper just to my right. I tapped him lightly on the arm and said "Hey, I really like your books." He looked up from his paper, smiled, and said graciously, "Oh. Thank you.")
Back to the topic. I'm ashamed because my candidate is a poor speaker and thinker on his feet. He is no debater. After watching as much of the Friday night debate as I could stomach, I was ashamed again. It wasn't so much that Kerry beat Bush in the debate as much as it was that Bush beat himself. Bush is right about many of his criticisms of Kerry, and listening to Kerry makes me want to throw sharp pointed things at him, but damn it, W just sucks at public speaking (I didn't even vote for him in 2000. I voted for Harry Browne as a vote for the viability of third parties in general, and as a sort of no confidence vote against Bush. Let's be real; I'm not anti-conservative enough even to consider casting a vote for Gore/nostalgia vote for the Clintons).
I'm ashamed because W, like most politicians, panders to what his handlers tell him is his core constituency. In this case, apparently his handlers (OK, Karl Grove) tell him to pander to the religious right. Thus, we hear him drop certain key buzzwords into his speeches and debate "talking points." I offer as illustrations "Dred Scott decision," "sanctity of marriage," and "stem-cell research." These are all bullshit rhetorical devices designed to awaken strong, deep-seated fears and beliefs in the target audience. It's demagoguery. Ugh.
I'm ashamed because my political cherry has been burst this year with my agreeing to serve in my friend's campaign for local district attorney. He is running as a Republican against the two-term incumbent Democrat. My friend is a terrific guy; he also happens to be a poster child for local Republican Party politics. He's married to a full-time wife and mother of three young children, he attends local high school football games every Friday night, and he's active in his church and loves Jesus (never mind that he's from upstate New York and we live in Alabama).
This campaigning business caused me to find myself at a small chapter meeting of the Republican Party at 8 a.m. on Saturday. The speaker was my state's new attorney general. He is a professional colleague of my own age, give or take a year, from my own state, and he and I are members of the same party. Nevertheless, we could not be more different in our beliefs, or at least those that we profess. Although Troy King is a very skilled and engaging speaker, I cringed each time I heard him drop a political buzzword into one of his carefully crafted, down home stories. I cringed also because I disagree strongly with nearly every political point he made on Saturday, except for the non-partisan belief that our citizens shouldn't go around murdering (did he actually say "assassinating?") our local sheriffs (conveniently nodding to our own sheriff two feet away from him).
In particular, I cringed at King's boasting that The Washington Post noted in its pages that he was the first state attorney general to proclaim that he would advise his state not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states (Massachusetts for now of course, which plays well for the anti-Kennedy, anti-Kerry crowd, and is conveniently relevant and topical). I don't know when the Post mentioned him and his public stance, but this is essentially what he said at Saturday's breakfast meeting:
"We don't think that Alabama has any obligation to recognize homosexual marriages," King said in an interview. "State law would prevent us from doing that." If a same-sex couple married in another state moves to Alabama and then files a joint state tax return, that will be challenged, he said. "I would advise the Revenue Department they're not entitled to do that," King said. "Those marriages are not valid as marriages in the state of Alabama." Another issue that could arise is spousal benefits, in areas such as Social Security or worker's compensation. "Anywhere that a spouse attains benefits under state law could be impacted," King said. "They're not spouses. We will be there to defend state law."
The Birmingham News, May 18, 2004, online at
Troy King article
This struck me as nearly identical to what W said on Friday about same sex marriages. States are not required to recognize marriages from other states (Did W's people get this from King's people?). My jaw nearly hit the floor when I heard W say it on Friday, and again when I heard Mr. King say it on Saturday. Such a notion should be preposterous to any student of the Constitution, and particularly so to any 2nd-year law school student studying constitutional law. Here's why.
Article IV, Section 1, U.S. Constitution states in pertinent part:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State;"
This is widely-known as the "full faith and credit" clause. It means precisely the opposite of what W and Mr. King claim the law allows and/or requires states to do. It means that state-sanctioned marriages, which definitely fall under the category of public acts and records of states, must be recognized by all other states. I counted no less than 7 other lawyers that I know, besides Mr. King, in the room on Saturday. That he could make such a ridiculously and patently false claim while looking us directly in the eye was astonishing. It's astonishing to me not only that he could speak so insincerely while sounding so genuine and folksy, but also that I could find such remarks from a known politician to be remarkable. I was as astonished at my political naivete as I was at his ease with the insincere. I was astonished also that he would actually boast about arriving at such a conclusion, and about being derided for it in such a respected and renowned newspaper as The Washington Post.
I was also reminded of how repulsed I was upon hearing former Chief Justice Roy Moore (thank reason for his being "former") use the same tired and unsophisticated states' rights argument that didn't work when George Wallace used it in 1964.
Thus, against this backdrop, I find myself shaking my head in disgust. I'm disgusted not only by my party, but also because I have been fighting a losing battle. Because I was reared in a city that is quite anomalous within the state, in one that is actually very progressive not only technologically, but also socially--at least compared to other cities in the state and region--I found myself defending against the tired, old stereotypes so many people outside the Southern U.S. seem to harbor about Alabama. I believed the arguments I used in defense of my contention that Alabama is not quite as backwards as everyone seems to believe, that it has actually moved out of the 1930s and into the ....1970s.
While I was vigorously defending my state against such stereotypes, along came Roy Moore to play into every one of them, and now along comes Troy King to pick up that banner and do more of the same in Moore's absence. Enough, goddamn it!
Shit. Personal obligations require that I maintain the front and the good fight throughout this election. I must see that my friend gets elected. After that, however, I suspect I will find myself to be a Man Without a Party.
I can't stomach Republicans anymore. I can't stomach Democrats even more, so I'll content myself with remaining firmly on the sidelines from now on. I envy P.J. I want to be able to poke fun at the lot of them honestly and sincerely, while remaining true to my principles and beliefs. It would be gravy if I were paid as handsomely for doing so as he is. I have just experienced the very quick birth and death of myself as a politico. Hell, I've always poked fun at politicos of all stripes anyway, so it's really no big deal. In fact, I'm quite relieved, as I was never comfortable wearing those stripes.
Cool Hand