|
You can see much of his thinking in this one answer:
"Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it’s something that I care about. But if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it’s less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state. Now, it’s not for me to suggest that you shouldn’t be troubled by these issues. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day to day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country."
This is the problem with metaphors, or similies, in these kinds of discussions, they only apply in fairly narrow points and once you move out of those confines, they usefulness breaks down.
He is right that in 1961 it would have been much more applicable and important for the civil rights movement to focus on voting rights and employment discrimination, than on any issue of interracial marriage. But of course the point of the comparison wasn't about tactics, but about philosophy. Why is it okay to keep gay marriage "separate but equal" but not interracial marriage? Instead, he makes it about strategy. But in that context, the comparison doesn't work. Gays already vote. If he wants to make the case that ENDA is more important than Prop 8 repeal, okay. And also, the vast majority of blacks weren't blocked from getting married, unless it was interracial. Even then it was only in a handful of states. But ALL gays cannot marry anyone, EXCEPT in a state or two. And when they do, they run head long into DOMA. So if you want to talk strategy, the metaphor just doesn't work. It's a different problem requiring a different strategy.
When ever Obama starts an answer with "Look..." I always know he's going to avoid the question, in some cases like he does here by shifting the point of the question from the one he doesn't want to answer (one of philosophy) to one he does (one of strategy).
And he vastly prefers to answer strategy questions, because it is in that context where compromise and accomodation have their most value. It's all a negotiation when one is discussing strategy. During the civil rights movement, SLCC and SNIC used to argue with the NAACP all the time about strategy. The NAACP was always calmouring to "go slow". They were dominated by business men who ran it more like a Negro Chamber of Commerce or something. SLCC was fighting for a principal and strategy was a means to those ends. NAACP had longer term views and strategy was their primary concern. When SLCC left town, the local NAACP was still going to be there, trying to work out things with the local leaders.
His roots are in community organizing. He comes upon a pile of materials and asks "what can I make out of this?". It is conflicting with people who already know what they want to build, and are trying to get the materials they need. They'd rather search the pile for what they need, and move the rest out of the way. He'd rather keep the materials and build something, than risk trying to build what we need, and not being able to get the materials. Neither is wrong. One is just kind of reactionary, and the other is visionary.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
