As Aviva’s post at Bi-Furious just reminded me, yesterday was National Coming Out Day. So, in the spirit of that (and apologies to Aviva for stealing her question!), what’s your coming out story?

If you came out as any stripe of queer, please do share that. Alternatively, feel free to share any other coming story, i.e. the story of someone else coming out to you (without revealing private information, of course), or of yourself coming out as anything else that’s important to you: as an atheist or as someone with other beliefs, as a liberal, as a vegetarian, with a diagnosis that you have, as an ally to any group, etc. Any part of your identity that you’ve had to reveal to people will do.

Here is the coming out story I left in my comment on Aviva’s afore-linked post:

I had a dear boyfriend for a year or so in middle school, S. We got together both identifying as straight, then both came out to each other as bi. A few moths after we broke up (we remained good friends), the two of us and our female, then-straight-identified best friend, J, decided it would be a good idea to try to form a three-way relationship. We tried very sincerely but couldn’t make it work; J and I kept trying to make out but, despite mutual desire, couldn’t bring ourselves too. (We’re all fifteen at this point.) Anyway, a few weeks later, S the ex-boyfriend comes out to me as gay: I was the first person he told, and our would-be girlfriend was the second. Fast-forward about six months and another boyfriend: I come out as a lesbian to J — she’s the very first person I tell — and then call S, making him the second. Fast-forward another year and a half; J and I start kissing and holding hands and eventually sleeping together, at which point she (belatedly…) realizes she’s bi, telling me first, of course, and then, for tradition’s sake, calling S to tell him second. So it’s a perfect, three-way circle of coming out!

I really like that story.

Posted under Discussion Question, Sexuality

What is the Question?

The question has been raised (obviously elsewhere, but particularly in this forum) about who should should get the vote of undecided voters in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.  What I believe to be the Implicit underlying question is whether to vote for a 3rd-party candidate whose policies are more aligned with popular opinion, such as Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney.  The question should be somewhat more nuanced – not “Who should undecided voters vote for?”, but “Where should voters cast their ballot for a 3rd-party?”.  (For those who are having difficulty deciding between Obama or McCain, this response will likely not be helpful.)

Fellow contributor Uri Strauss continues to make the pitch to vote for Ralph Nader, based on the popularity of his platform and the agreement on “virtually everything” of the Democrat and Republican presidential platforms.  There is no question for him, and for many others, as to who to vote for – the two major parties offer few, if any, differences in policy, and therefore we should choose a 3rd-party candidate.

There is a critical assertion made in this argument which should be repudiated because, once repudiated, it would lead to more effective strategies for enacting popular policies in the country, and the world (by virtue of U.S. power).  That assertion is that the U.S. government is a constitutional democracy.  This assertion is false, both in theory and in practice, and left unrecognized, popular movements will face little, if any, electoral success.

Not Exactly a Democracy

The United States, institutionally, is a democratic representative government – not a democracy.  The difference is stark: a democracy is one in which the population decides policy.  A representative government is one in which (in theory) the population selects representatives to decide policy.  The historical necessities or difficulties of either form of government can be debated, but that there is a significant difference cannot, as it is a matter of fact.

The United States, in practice, is an undemocratic form of government, with representatives of the population beholden to the business/ownership class of the country on all significant policy issues.  This is almost indisputable to a majority of the population, as reflected in disapproval ratings of 75% for Congress, and a 27% approval rating for the President.  Overall trust in government is tied with the lowest point, measured in 1973, with only 26% of the population answering the question “are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed” in the affirmative.   Yet another Gallup poll has the satisfaction with the current course of the country at 17%. These are not new (as the source graphs will show) and in a true democracy, would not be tolerated, and certainly not for such a long time.

Trust in US government at 26%

Our Elections are Rigged

Additionally and unsurprisingly, elections for representatives are not free and democratic.  The Supreme Court has ruled that not only are wealthier citizens entitled to more “free speech”, but that corporations, the largest concentrations of wealth in the country, are allowed to use that wealth to influence elections.  That wealth is perhaps the most dominant factor in elections has been true for some time, however these decisions codified that truth.  Other non-legal forms of exclusion of potentially popular candidates compound the difficulty of being a valid candidate.   Because democracy depends on the exchange of information, and because the ability to convey information (via mail, radio, television) costs vast sums of money, it is self-evident that only candidates with money are able to viably compete in elections.  These facts are so uncontroversial that this year’s record projected costs of $1.2 billion for the presidential campaigns and $1.16 billion for congressional races merely underscore the point.

Elections for political offices in the U.S. are not about who is the best candidate – it is about avoiding the lesser of two evils.  Large legal and class forces push elections in that direction, as does the actual voting mechanism: 1 vote for 1 candidate.  The latter could easily be addressed with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which is in use in parts of the U.S. and around the world, but for obvious reasons faces great difficulty for adoption in higher political office elections.

So the situation that we are in is one in which tremendous legal and institutional forces, in combination with large concentrations of wealth, shape for us an election in which there are only two viable candidates.  The question then arises: are there significant differences between the two?

Are There Significant Differences?

I’ll leave the discussion as to differences in past elections (Gore vs. Bush, Kerry vs. Bush), but for the current election, I certainly agree that Barack Obama and John McCain are almost on par with the destruction they will wreak in foreign policy, environmental policy, criminal justice policy, drug policy, and many more issues in which they truly are in agreement on “virtually everything”.  However, there are at least three issues which they have nearly oppositional policies which are of great significance to many, if not all, people in this country (and elsewhere).  While this is not a comprehensive description of their differences, those differences are:

• Employee Free Choice Act: Obama is a co-sponsor of this legislation, which would make unionization orders of magnitude easier than current labor law.  With the EFCA, up to 57 million working Americans could form unions, which has historically shown to be tremendous engines of democracy in society.  John McCain opposes this legislation, and would almost certainly veto it.
• Supreme Court and federal courts: The federal courthouses of the U.S. have been filled with extraordinarily right-wing judicial appointments by the Bush administration, as have two seats on the Supreme Court.  The next president will likely nominate between one and three Supreme Court Justices with the three most liberal justices being replace.  Obama has stated that he would replace these judges with ones like them, whereas McCain has stated he would nominate judges similar to the most reactionary Justices on the court now (and in recent history).  These are the highest courts in the land, and no one can reasonably argue that an Obama administration’s choices would be more humane and less rabidly ideological than a McCain administration.
• “Roe v. Wade” and other reproductive rights:  Implicit in the decisions each respective candidate would make regarding the Supreme Court is whether Roe v. Wade will stand another challenge.  In addition, the policies of Obama and McCain regarding other reproductive rights are oppositional on virtually every issue – McCain even continues to support the scientifically-proven fallacy of “abstinence-only education”.  A McCain administration presents a clear danger to women’s civil rights and the basic sexual health of every citizen.

If we are to be rational voters with an interest in doing the least harm to the country, then we must recognize the inconvenient truth that who is elected President will at least have this significant impact on the country.  And if we care about that impact, then we have to do what we reasonably can to get the better candidate elected (Obama, in this case).

This does not apply, of course, if there is a viable 3rd-party candidate.  But, for the reasons given above, and several more, there is not.  Even Ralph Nader does not dispute that he will not win this election.  So we have to consider either Obama or McCain.

Therefore, in states where the election is going to be close (and there’s many this election cycle), “progressives” and everyone else should vote for Obama, and encourage others to do so.  However, in states – such as Massachusetts, with a 55-39% Obama lead – where the vote will likely not be close, folks with an interest in supporting 3rd-party candidates getting a little more even playing field (through access to public funds if they receive 5% of the popular vote) should vote for the Nader/Gonzalez ticket (McKinney/Clemente is not polling anywhere near 5%).

What Really Matters

The real issue at hand is not a single presidential election – it’s what happens in between elections, and far from Washington D.C., that is important.  Real change, rather than silly electoral campaign slogans, come from engaging and changing the hearts and minds of the population.  The U.S. is a fertile ground for grassroots organizing and massive, truly democratic movements.  We should be spending our time and resources (and far less posts debating Obama v. McCain) focusing on coordinating our friends and neighbors to address the issues that face us and the world.  Howard Zinn recently wrote, more eloquently than I, that:

Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.

But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.

…None of this should surprise us. The Democratic Party has broken with its historic conservatism, its pandering to the rich, its predilection for war, only when it has encountered rebellion from below, as in the Thirties and the Sixties. We should not expect that a victory at the ballot box in November will even begin to budge the nation from its twin fundamental illnesses: capitalist greed and militarism.

So we need to free ourselves from the election madness engulfing the entire society, including the left.

Yes, two minutes. Before that, and after that, we should be taking direct action against the obstacles to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Posted under Discussion Question, Politics

In the upcoming US Presidential election, who should undecided voters support, and, most importantly, why? What’s the critical issue that sets your favored candidate apart, and why should uncommitted voters care?

I wanted to throw this out for people to think about; I’ll give my answer in comments later today. I think this question is important because it can seem so damn obvious to politically active folks that we can’t even articulate it to those who are less involved. So what would you say to the thoughtful, undecided voter to win her over to your side?

Posted under Discussion Question, Politics

In a big surprise this afternoon, the Wall Street bail-out package that has been the subject of such scrutiny since originally introduced by the Bush administration (re: Secretary of the Treasury Paulson), has been shot down by the House of Representatives, in a narrow vote of 206-227 (Note: different reports have the vote at “207-226, 205-228“).  This has caused a shakeup within the ranks of the Republican party, and caused headlines like “U.S. stocks plunge as global credit crisis spreads” to start showing up on the news wire.

Now, the leadership who brought this bill are likely going to urge people that all is not lost – another bill can be reconsidered, and even this particular bill can be re-voted on.  But that’s not going to come for at least a couple of days, and we don’t know whether legislators are going to (1) succumb to their voters and further distance themselves away from a bailout or (2) come together after having made a poignant political point.

As just reported on CBS news (a special televised report), the bottom fell out when House Republicans, supposedly upset at being kept out of high-level negotiations (mostly done by the Senate) largely voted against the bill, with 67%  of those Republicans casting ballots opposed.  House Democrats, on the other hand, were recorded as voting only 40% opposed, with 60% of Democrat members of the House voting in favor of the plan.

Was this a political opportunity for House Republicans, in a very bad election environment for them, to strike a blow against Bush and the Democrats to distinguish themselves as being “for the average citizen”?  The financial crisis on Wall Street certainly presents an opportunity to take the populist road and, incidentally, the right thing in refusing to issue a blank check to Wall Street.  The question is: will Democrats follow suit and listen to their constituents, leading to a bail-out that nationalizes the banks or protects homeowners, or is this just a temporary ploy on party of the electorally-starved Republican party?

UPDATE (2:49pm EST): As news of the defeat of the bailout plan spreads, the stock market has begun to plummet, with the Dow falling 600 points in course of 30 minutes (including falling an additional 200 points when I began updating this post).  Stories such as “Stocks Tumble as Bailout Plan Fails in House” are beginning to crop up on major news outlets, and many more are likely to come. The question is: How low will it go?

Posted under Discussion Question, Economy, People, Politics

A note to my co-bloggers: I wasn’t at all sure how to categorize this post. Please let me know if anybody thinks it would be more appropriate somewhere else. An “Ethics” category perhaps? And I added the tag under the assumption that there will be a series, which it would be useful to connect — I have no qualms about deleting it if others feel it’s unnecessary or undesirable.

It occurred to me that it might be fun to post a discussion question or several as jumping off points for conversations, especially in these first few weeks. And the “question of the day” is a neat tradition at some other blogs, so why not here as well, especially since we’d like this to be a discussion-oriented space (I think)? I’m sure I’ll think of at least a few (assuming this one is successful), and co-bloggers — do post your own if the spirit moves you.

So, readers and fellow Revolutionary Act bloggers, I invite you to answer this question, provided you find it sufficiently interesting:

What one value or quality is important to you above all others? That is, if you had to reduce your value system to one fundamental principle from which all others flow, what world it be? Or, to come at it from another angle, if you had to rank virtues and qualities, which one would you deem most essential, most worthy of praise?

I think the question is an interesting one for a group of progressives, because I’m quite sure we can all work our way to the same (or similar) positions and priorities from many different starting points.

As I was thinking about this, I found myself weighing the competing values of justice and compassion, as I frequently do. I think striking a balance between those two may be one of the essential question of my life. It is clear to me that horrible damage can be done when one over-emphasizes justice, losing sight of compassion — yet I am no Gandhi, no Christ. Justice is profoundly important to me. Like most of us, I am sometimes deficient in mercy. (I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing.)

The balance I have struck between the two today (the best I’ve found so far, I think) is responsibility. Responsibility is the quality that is important to me above all others — the importance of our immense obligations as human beings and as adults. The root of most of my outrage is my sense that people have failed to meet their critical responsibilities. This is what infuriates me about global warming and pollution, about corruption, about war, about rape and abuse, and so many other things. I believe in the marrow of my bones that each of us has a tremendously important obligation to protect those weaker than ourselves, to use resources wisely and allot them fairly, and to save a life if ever we are in a position to do so — and if we do not meet these responsibilities, we have, in a profound sense, failed as adults, as human beings.

I recognize that it’s more complex than just “responsibility,” because I do have a very specific sense of what our responsibilities are. Ultimately, though, I think that’s the best way to sum it up: that we have duties and must meet them, that we must be accountable if we fail to do so. Justice and compassion both, for me, are derivatives of that: compassion is amongst our responsibilities, and justice a result of meeting them.

(As an aside, my value system has clearly been influenced immeasurably by my Jewish upbringing. The weight of the importance of our sacred obligations is a physical pressure on my back and in my gut.)

This way of looking at things is, of course, very subjective and specific to me. So what do you folks think? Is it mercy, is it fairness, is it something else entirely?

Posted under Discussion Question, Politics