What is it about having a token minority that excuses having policies that hurt that same minority?
On Pandagon:
When accusing someone of racism, sexism, or homophobia, you’re not supposed to actually look at their politics for fuck’s sake. Politics has no place in politics! Don Surber assures me of this, in an email from a reader who won’t give his name for professional reasons.
OK, Republicans are routinely demonized as a bunch of old rich sexless white homophobic chickenhawks, and now it is discovered that an Hispanic Marine hero Republican was once so (pardon the pun) hard up for cash that he did gay porno flicks, in which his, er, enviable masculinity made him a renowned star.
Exactly what is the negative here for the GOP? We’ve got the mayor in drag, the descendant of polyamists, and now the Marine stud, and somehow we’re supposed to be “anti-sex”? Did I miss something?
Yes, you missed something. It’s called policy.
Having a gay man advocate policies that are anti-gay does put up a rhetorical shield. Who wants to call a gay man homophobic? The same goes for Jews advocating for a closer relationship between Church and State, or Black Americans campaigning against affirmative action. We need to realize it is to call this out, and to do so loudly. The logic here is the same reason simply having a woman President is useless unless her policies make sense: It is always about the policy.
Filed under: Politics, Rhetoric, human rights
huh?
When the right puts up a token minority to advocate for a policy that would end up hurting that same minority, we need to consistently and loudly go on the offensive.
On the same note, we need to be critical when a given minority expects their status as a minority to earn support. It is always their policies and stances that matter.