small starts

a question got answered for me yesterday: how did gay rights find its way into / onto the democratic party's national platform? same way i learned to calculate...baby steps.

it started with a precinct committee person joining with another to form a caucus which permitted them to have a voice, which was used to make a louder voice which eventually everyone can hear.

I guess it's the same way the religious right took over the republicans...

this news was delivered to me at the lgc meeting this weekend by a woman who stood in front of us and said "I'm Gay" and this is how my right to marry is part of the democratic platform. She did an incredible job explaining it and hopefully it will be published over there.

So while the lgc is having its meeting in Portland this past weekend, CeaseFire Oregon is doing a much publicized "Gun Buy Back" across town...except that a bunch of collectors gathered on the other side of the street and offered more money than the $75.00 gift card CFO was handing out...without limits...another way to get one's message out while screwing up the other guys.

I am rattling about this because the voices of gun control are ramping up again, mostly on the left....but a few on the right too, and without voices to counter them they will be heard.

In Oregon I am told, the second amendment is protected by even stronger language in the Oregon Constitution...language inserted by the steadfast persistence of one guy who figured out how to work within the system to change the system. They'll try of course, and again they'll meet with a bunch who effectively undercut their message.

think for a second on how long LGBT have been an issue that would gain national attention in such a fashion that it would find itself on the platform committee of the DNC? not very, right? Organization has something to do with that.

voices are necessary if anyone is ever to get loud enough to be heard. nothing I have to say is going to reach into the offices of the party bosses, but by being within the party a group of us can form a caucus that the party bosses have to hear out. This past legislative session was an example of that in Oregon.

The left wanted my name...they wanted the identity of every person in Oregon who is licensed to carry...for some reason, this was of interest to the New York Times. Enter a single senator in the state legislature who disagrees with members of her own party, who hangs a bandolier of fake .30 cal ammunition on the coat rack outside the office of a rabid anti gun senator of her own party, just to fuck with her...she gets her strength to battle her own party ...lead a revolt if you will , and blocks her own party from moving forward on evil guns, from us...the members of the gun owners caucus of the democratic party of Oregon.

it's the little shit that counts. I thought that rather impressive.

It is the small action that matters. The big stuff, like the marches and such are good for the media to pick up, but the phone calls to the local legislators, the educational lunches and range sessions, the letter writing, and the personal advocacy are what makes the real difference.

And money.
Some people who have cartoon notions of what socialists are supposed to act like think we should not handle money.
That's crap.
The Bolsheviks used to rob stages and banks. That's taking it to the extreme, but it is a good example as to how important sufficient moneyflow was to maintain their political campaign.
I could see a day when socialists would run cooperatives for profit to feed their political machine.
The bourgeoise parties do it, why not us?

comedian wrote:
The Bolsheviks used to rob stages and banks.

I knew there was a reason I liked these guys for reasons greater than policy...

actions speak louder than words.

but...I do not advocate violence or mayhem...those days are gone.

Involvement, commitment, sacrifice for purposes beyond one's self. these are good and provide measurable results...gendo knows, he has a degree in the science of measurement.

Gay rights used to be a pretty radical concept (similar to how Trans rights are today), but the Democratic party (the hub for Social Democracy) has effectively co-opted the Gay Rights movement in its ever adapting attempts to gain credibility (and de-legitimize radical politics). Social Democracy will move further to the left and adopt a more progressive line in order to buy the necessary credibility to stabilize bourgeois rule. Speaking of Bolsheviks... the Social Democrats of that time were the Mensheviks.. and they were willing to move so far to the left that they would take up arms and literally fight the state to prevent overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

Art Francisco wrote:Gay rights used to be a pretty radical concept (similar to how Trans rights are today), but the Democratic party (the hub for Social Democracy) has effectively co-opted the Gay Rights movement in its ever adapting attempts to gain credibility (and de-legitimize radical politics). Social Democracy will move further to the left and adopt a more progressive line in order to buy the necessary credibility to stabilize bourgeois rule. Speaking of Bolsheviks... the Social Democrats of that time were the Mensheviks.. and they were willing to move so far to the left that they would take up arms and literally fight the state to prevent overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

Yes, but it would be more accurate to describe the confluence of the gay rights movement with the Democratic party as a simultaneous movement within the democratic party towards acceptance, but also a bourgeois assimilationist element within the gay rights movement. In queer circles, this element of mostly white middle class gay men and a smaller number of mostly white middle class lesbians is the same element that is always ready to throw trans folks under the bus to get what they want. This is despite the fact that trans people started the gay rights movement (even if language describing identity then was different from what it is now).