Gay Rights Rhetoric

Daisy at Our Descent Into Madness has hit upon a rhetorical tactic I think can be extended to many liberal positions.  (Emphasis mine):

If he’s going to claim to support equality, he should support full equality. If he’s not going to that — and he doesn’t seem about to — I’d like him to at least have the guts to look someone like me in the face and admit that when he talks about justice and equality, he is only partially including me.

Through the youtube debates, as well as the scripted political theater run by the major news networks under the same name, there are occasions where actual liberals slip in and are allowed to frame questions at our would be leaders.  I cannot think of a more savvy approach than to make that question an immediate confrontation, a bare soul to soul meeting wherein a candidate is trapped into responding to the humanity of the questioner.

Candidates who bow to religious bigotry against homosexuals, and that’s nearly all of them, have placed themselves in a weak position.  What a brilliant way to exploit that and strike deep into the illogical heart of inequality.


2 Responses

  1. I agree. This seems to be in the tradition of Gandhi’s Ahimsa, where the idea was to literally confront your oppressor with injustice (and hopefully spur an inner transformation from this encounter between two human beings).

  2. The inner transformation part of it has been largely lost. I do see the potential for an ethical awakening here, but it is as small as the receptiveness of the people it is directed to. And in a debate, you are generally in battle mode. Even a shock like this might not be enough to break through that.

    If anything modern rhetoric is fought in a manner that recalls “Thank You For Smoking”. The scene where Nick explains to his son “I’m not after you, I’m after them“. Largely, we engage our audience, not our opponent.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: