Hm. I'm also in favor of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, although I haven't thought it through in as much detail as you. Personally, the "patriotism" argument doesn't wash for me, either. But for some people, it might -- and that's okay with me too. One's position on the military is, to me, an inherently political position, and I can respect arguments from a variety of positions. I personally agree that it's been a wildly fucked up institution in most ways for most of the last 50 years; at the same time, I'm personally quite glad that we had a military in WWII, and I'm even glad that we had a military to invade Afghanistan -- however much I may criticize the subsequent conduct of that war, I think it's one that had to be fought. I'm entirely happy to have a respectful arguments with anyone who disagrees with me, either way, on any and all of the above points.
My position on gay rights, however, is much more fundamental than this. I simply despise anti-gay discrimination, and I have never seen an opposing viewpoint that is not comprehensively fucking reprehensible. Because of that, it's not something that I'm willing to throw into a larger package of other political viewpoints, be it feminism, pacifism, or even liberalism as a whole. In this sense, it practically precedes politics, for me. If gay people choose to be fiscally conservative war-mongers who listen to bad country music and can't color-coordinate to save their lives -- well, then they should be able to be out about it, and not discriminated against. Period. Any arguments about war, class, aesthetics, or anything else can be debated secondarily and on their own merits.
This is an ongoing issue for me: in the past decade, I've increasingly withdrawn from general left-wing advocacy, as I see it having a counter-productive totalizing streak. While I like to think that my own political positions form a fairly cohesive and holistic package, I'm deeply suspicious of aiming for holism en masse: that way lies either brainwashed conformity, or, more often, zealous obscurity. This issue became really clarified for me around the run-up to Iraq war (which I of COMPLETELY opposed), in which the protests became a sort of generalized miasma of left-wing positions. You were welcome at the protests provided that you were wearing your anti-establishment, universally pacifist, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, environmentalist, feminist, pro-gay, pro-body modification, etc. etc. etc. credentials on your sleeve. At one of the protests, I recall seeing a solitary old white dude in a suit -- clearly either a banker, or impeccably costumed as such; in any case, his allegiance to all the other assorted causes was not made obvious -- carrying an "I oppose this war" sign. When I saw the frosty reception that he was given, I knew that our cause was lost. Bringing all of those issues under a single roof had not broadened our reach; it had winnowed us down to the common denominator. We had made ourselves as marginal as possible, and as a consequence, we failed to stop the war.
I took that as a lesson in pragmatism, and it's been my guiding principle ever since. If something is *really* important to me, I rigorously resist burdening it with any more philosophy than is absolutely necessary. I focus on what I want to see happen -- and my own underlying philosophy for wanting that -- and am happy to accept help from allies, regardless of what their underlying philosophies might be. I don't have a problem with part-time bedfellows. If my aim is to stop a war, and a racist homophobe wants to help me stop it, then that's okay with me. If a Hummer-driving warmonger wants to help end discrimination, then that's okay with me too. If they're under the impression that it's "patriotic" or something, then, you know, what *ever* -- people think all sorts of funny things. It's the results that matter.
Perhaps, just as the separation of religion and state is a very good idea (however enthusiastic I am about both spirituality and politics), some sort of separation between philosophy and activism --not within one's own person, of course, but within a group -- might also be worthwhile, for similar reasons? It sounds wildly naive when I put it that way... but still...?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-05-25 04:28 pm (UTC)My position on gay rights, however, is much more fundamental than this. I simply despise anti-gay discrimination, and I have never seen an opposing viewpoint that is not comprehensively fucking reprehensible. Because of that, it's not something that I'm willing to throw into a larger package of other political viewpoints, be it feminism, pacifism, or even liberalism as a whole. In this sense, it practically precedes politics, for me. If gay people choose to be fiscally conservative war-mongers who listen to bad country music and can't color-coordinate to save their lives -- well, then they should be able to be out about it, and not discriminated against. Period. Any arguments about war, class, aesthetics, or anything else can be debated secondarily and on their own merits.
This is an ongoing issue for me: in the past decade, I've increasingly withdrawn from general left-wing advocacy, as I see it having a counter-productive totalizing streak. While I like to think that my own political positions form a fairly cohesive and holistic package, I'm deeply suspicious of aiming for holism en masse: that way lies either brainwashed conformity, or, more often, zealous obscurity. This issue became really clarified for me around the run-up to Iraq war (which I of COMPLETELY opposed), in which the protests became a sort of generalized miasma of left-wing positions. You were welcome at the protests provided that you were wearing your anti-establishment, universally pacifist, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, environmentalist, feminist, pro-gay, pro-body modification, etc. etc. etc. credentials on your sleeve. At one of the protests, I recall seeing a solitary old white dude in a suit -- clearly either a banker, or impeccably costumed as such; in any case, his allegiance to all the other assorted causes was not made obvious -- carrying an "I oppose this war" sign. When I saw the frosty reception that he was given, I knew that our cause was lost. Bringing all of those issues under a single roof had not broadened our reach; it had winnowed us down to the common denominator. We had made ourselves as marginal as possible, and as a consequence, we failed to stop the war.
I took that as a lesson in pragmatism, and it's been my guiding principle ever since. If something is *really* important to me, I rigorously resist burdening it with any more philosophy than is absolutely necessary. I focus on what I want to see happen -- and my own underlying philosophy for wanting that -- and am happy to accept help from allies, regardless of what their underlying philosophies might be. I don't have a problem with part-time bedfellows. If my aim is to stop a war, and a racist homophobe wants to help me stop it, then that's okay with me. If a Hummer-driving warmonger wants to help end discrimination, then that's okay with me too. If they're under the impression that it's "patriotic" or something, then, you know, what *ever* -- people think all sorts of funny things. It's the results that matter.
Perhaps, just as the separation of religion and state is a very good idea (however enthusiastic I am about both spirituality and politics), some sort of separation between philosophy and activism --not within one's own person, of course, but within a group -- might also be worthwhile, for similar reasons? It sounds wildly naive when I put it that way... but still...?