We All Sink or Swim Together

As many of you who read my work know, I'm a history buff. I like to look at the lessons of the past and the big-picture for the future. The big-picture includes an understanding of our movement and the conservative movement, which is why I also think it's important to look at all of the tools that can be used to build movements, including things like ballot initiatives. A little over a decade ago, I co-founded, and served as the chair of the board for the first few years, the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. The goal was to help progressives create a long-term strategy on winning ballot initiatives at the state level, because I think too often many of us in progressive politics underestimate how ballot initiatives can impact a movement.

There is one particular initiative I'm especially focused on this year, which is the same-sex marriage ballot initiative in Maine. Earlier this year, the legislature passed -- and Democratic Gov. Baldacci signed -- legislation legalizing same-sex marriage. It was the first fully legislatively-passed measure in the country (Vermont did the same, but the legislature had to override Republican Gov. Douglas' veto). The right-wingers put it on the ballot, and so now there's an election happening this year -- on Nov. 3rd -- to strip rights away from gay couples, like in California last year.

Now, you're probably wondering why a straight guy who grew up in NE, lived in IA for many years, and now lives in MD and works in DC, mostly on national issues, cares very much about an initiative in a little out of the way state that I've only even visited once. You may be thinking that Maine is this little state with two quirky Senators way up who knows where, where the largest city (Portland) is more like a medium-sized town to many of you. You may also be thinking that as a straight person this doesn't impact you, or that if you don't have a lot of gay friends, it's not something you should spend time or money on.

I think that's dead wrong, and here's why.

I have studied the conservative movement for quite some time. The conservative movement feeds off itself, and works together on a wide range of issues. Just like the famed "Wednesday Meeting" run by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist engenders communication, conservative movement victories embolden other parts of the movement. A win to repeal banking regulations, or to put restrictions on a woman's right to choose, or to ban consumer lawsuits, excites and mobilizes the conservative base. It also excites and mobilizes conservative funders to increase their giving. Nothing increases conservative giving like a winning record, and it increases across the board. It's not just the Catholic Church and Focus on the Family that funds anti-marriage equality initiatives. It's a broad spectrum of movement donors, foundations, and activists. They recognize that winning helps their base participate in other ballot initiatives, teabagger rallies, electing conservatives to Congress, and screaming at their member of Congress at town halls. That's why a win in Maine affects the entire playing field. They understand that a headline the day after the Maine initiative about them succeeding at rolling back the gay marriage bill helps them build excitement and momentum, and helps deflate and discourage progressives.

Losing on issues like this hurts our entire movement badly. If you're doubtful, think of how many people you know who said Barack Obama was the first presidential candidate they voted for since Ted Kennedy in 1980, or McGovern in 1972, or Bobby Kennedy in 1968. A lot of progressive folks pulled back out of politics, demoralized. Winning and losing matters. No issue and no constituency is an island, and we all sink or swim together.

In Maine, today (October 15th) is a big campaign finance deadline, as well as the very first day voters can vote early in their polling booths. It's the day when our side will know how much money they have to work with for the fall. In California for Prop 8 last year, there was a last-minute scramble by a lot of celebrities and folks in the netroots to raise money when it was clear we might lose the thing. As we all know, nothing helps our side win more than giving them a clear idea of what they can work with. They've already run some sensational TV ads with their contributions (see here, here and here).

If you can chip in $10, $25 or $50 towards demoralizing the conservative base of activists and donors, I guarantee it will help our movement in the long-run. Stringing victories together on health care, same-sex marriage, the economic stimulus, cap-and-trade, and a few other issues will help knock the wind out of the right wing movement's sails. You can click here to chip in and help notch a win for our movement. And you know, New England is beautiful in the fall- you can look at a lot of beautiful trees and changing leaves while knocking on doors. I hope our entire movement pitches in and helps on this cause.

Comments

[outnow]

Without changing the Fed system of banking, there will be a boom and bust cycle, despite government stimulus spending because it is inflationary. I am all for banking regulation but fractional reserve banking with fiat money does not rerally permit rational control of monetary policy because the Fed itself is NOT democratic; it is beyong democratic or political control because it is PRIVATE.

Social welfare spending and defense spending must continue indefinitely for this system to work because it is based on debasing the value of the dollar through inflationary government spending. That creates the need for an income tax to pay the interest on the government borrowing.

So each of us works for approximately four months each year just to pay interest on the money paid to private bankers. And we still have to use trillions to bail out the bankrupt banks. The MONSTER controls us, not the other way around. Big business wants big government and the Fed.

[research]

Conservatism is the political arm of the plutocracy. Conservatism was formed to fight the Enlightenment and the french revolution, to fight against democracy, against democratic republics like the USA.

The congress is available to the highest bidder, and big corporate and bankster bidders can even use the money they WILL get from the government, to buy that government.

Money is not free speech, that is a BIG LIE.

Money, contributions are Bribery.

Outlay all contributions, give prime time to candidates, and a travel budget.

Completely remove the need to raise money, or even spend money to win elections.

[SonofLiberty1]

As a liberal or moderate I am just about ready to decide NOT TO VOTE anymore.

I don't know about you, but I was born when Abortion was not a "Right" and Same sex marriage wasn't even an unhatched idea.

When you went to church growing up before you could vote.

And going to church had something to do with your upbringing.

And I know that there are a heck of a lot of my generation still alive and voting...


And we haven't died yet.

[juancapez]

but you will die...you will.

[SonofLiberty1]

Oh yes but we will be praying for you!

[research]

"SonofLiberty1 I'm a Fan of SonofLiberty1 I'm a fan of this user 48 fans permalink

Mr. Lawson,

Are you a Democrat or a Republican?

I am a Democrat and yes, I did live in Texas for 6 of the worst years of my life.

If Obama wins the nomination, I will stay home on election day.

Instead of voting FOR Senator McCain, why don't you do the same too?"

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-waldman/john-adams-god-damn-ameri_b_92659.html?page=5&show_comment_id=12057125#comment_12057125

You consistently try to get people not to vote.

[AxelDC]

Ballot initiatives make for bad government.

Loving v. Virginia, 1967, firmly established the right to marriage as a basic civil right. Many states, especially across the South, had popularly established miscegenation laws that prevented interracial marriage. If people in Virginia had voted in 1967, they probably would have kept that ban in place.

The Supreme Court voted 9-0 declaring Virginia's law a violation of basic civil rights.

Gay people shouldn't be subjected to the whims of the majority any more than interracial couples were.

The right to marry your beloved is a basic human right, and the US Constitution was established to protect our basic civil rights from the whims of the masses.

Would you want your marriage put up for a public vote?

[SonofLiberty1]

Sorry I don't get this:

So a black man or white woman wanted to marry a white woman or black man.

Man & Woman get married.

This is not the same as same sex marriage.

And I don't give a dam if you think so or not.

When will some of us start to think before putting a conservative label on it?

[TheMellowFellow]

I want to ask you one question:

How does it affect you at all if two men or two women get married? It shouldn't, unless you're gay.

[alex61]

The process the author described is the same for both sides. It's all about momentum. Liberals use it all the time and fear it only when conservatives do the same.

I am against formal gay marriage. That doesn't make me against gays. My concern is for the larger culture. What will it mean for our country/culture if we redefine formal marriage as being anything other than that of between one man and one woman?

I don't care if gays exist, love each other, or build their lives together. These things are their rights and are none of my business. I wish them well. My concern is that ending the "one man, one woman" standard will open the door to all sorts of other possiblr combinations. I see nothing good coming from that.

Legal unions are fine. Let's solve all these other matters we can. But formal marriage?-uh uh.
However, if the law is written to limit formal marriage to only two adults, and not multiple partners, it's possible that enough people would drop their opposition to gay marriage to change the law.

Most people don't want to bash gays, they only want to maintain a standard to protect the country.

[wmfor]

I know you are trying to present your opposition as a "moderate" stance. No, you don't hate gays, and I suspect you have some gay friends and family members.

That being said, I still think your position fails to take in the matter of Equal Rights and what it means. Plenty of men who said, "I love women. I just don't think we should redefine what democracy has always meant and let them vote. Where will it end? Giving the vote to children? To horses?" were perfectly sincere in their love for woman. They did not wish them ill. They just recognized that women were not men.

Right.

And "Some of my best friends are Jewish." Comes to mind. And "We love our Negroes down South. They know their place."

I know you do not want to be compared to these attitudes. But I cannot help it. Your main reason for denying us the right to marry is that it has always been denied, and that is just not good enough reason, because "tradition" has been the excuse for holding back progress for millennia.

[IrishMale]

So many people are hopelessly ironic in their fear of the future. They look at the decline in morality - a legitimate concern - and they like to blame people who don't think like them. Moral decline must be a function of less church and tradition. For them it's that simple, and no need to explore further. They're the same people who plug their ears and go LALALALALA when they see reports of sexual deviance amongst abstinence pledges.

[SonofLiberty1]

Oh, Baloney squared and cubed....

If you aren't with us your against us?

No...

But I think your head is screwed on the wrong way.

Look.....

You live your life the way you want to.

Don't change everything because you think it needs to be changed...

A rather high proportion of us...are not gay.

And that will never change.

[SonofLiberty1]

So 95% of us, more or less are not gay. And your reason for changing that is what?
Your idea?

Put yourself in our shoes...

And it's more important than jobs or healthcare?

I call it "Tyranny of the minority"

[AxelDC]

You sound like that Louisiana judge that likes black people, but doesn't think they should be allowed to marry whites.

With friends like you, who needs enemies?

[alex61]

Why do liberals have this need to beat up on people? Does it make you feel superior? More enlightened and sophisticated? Every culture requires standards. Democracy is not anarchy. Even under our system, we don't get to do everything we want. There are limits on every right you can think of. That's what makes it democracy and not anarchy.

You want to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a hater. And, of course, you hate the haters. Ironic, isn't it?

You assume that people like me are evil Nazi wannabees. That's sick. Heal thyselves.

[BitterClinger15301]

Well, the Conservative base (of which I am a member) is more motivated and active now, after two straight losing cycles, than it has been in years. Complacency and internal division actually set in during the Bush years, when many of us (unfortunately) thought that our values were being adequately represented in Washington. Now we are reunited and emboldened by a common enemy. As any conservative radio talker will tell you, business is a lot better when the Dems are in charge.

[Awake-and-Sing]

Too bad for your movement that delude yourselves with talk like, "If only we'd been even purer, and ever farther to the far right than we already were, we wouldn't have lost the 2006 and 2008 elections."

Your movement may be more motivated, but they are a bunch of political lemmings who are running faster and faster as the head over the cliff.

[AxelDC]

Too bad they weren't motivated to keep Bush in-line.

Republicans were booted out for Bush's incompetence and brazen dishonesty.

Most people don't care about ideology, they just want a government that works.

[alibeamish]

this commentator divides the country into two groups and it is not so simple.
"Our group' won the election , yet 'we' are not getting what we want, neither are 'they' .
Time to start thinking in a new way.

[Carl Caroli]

In conservative eyes, freedom is the right to tell me what to do.

[melodramy]

Touche'

[Awake-and-Sing]

Thank you, Mike.

I'd also like to point out that on the same day there is an referendum in Washington State which if it fails would repeal domestic partners benefits. We're not even talking marriage here.

In this case, a "Yes on 71" vote would retain domestic partnerships.

If you think that repealing marriage in a blue state will empower conservatives, just think of how empowered they will feel after realizing they can repeal even domestic partnerships in one of the bluest states in the country.

Please support and vote Yes on 71 in Washington State.

http://approvereferendum71.org/

[JohnJames]

Excellent article. Everyone certainly should at least be aware by now of the more blatant way that the right uses anti-gay initiatives to motivate the base to come out and vote, thereby helping to elect right-wing politicians who go on to oppose everything and anything that every liberal and even many less than liberal voters care about. The worst case in its consequences by far may have been the proposition in Nov. 2004 to amend the Ohio constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. Definitely the worst case if, as some speculate, it won Bush Ohio (which won him the election). Not caring about gay rights can really carry a price for everyone. PS. Thanks for the reminder that today is the last day to contribute to keep gay marriage legal in Maine. Will do, for a second time.

[AxelDC]

I call it, "Voting against your own economic interests because Jesus doesn't want gays to marry."

[Aslanspal]

Your Political Science is spot on, after the Obama win the extreme right found solace in the Prop 8 win in California, in fact the put a magnifying glass over it to keep things alive for them.

[SewaneeLeftist]

Let's hope marriage equality stands the test in Maine. Happily-married straight guys like me know how great it is to be married, and how unfair -- and how illegal, really -- it is to deny this basic human opportunity to others. Full equal protection under the law for everyone!

[GardenerNorCal]

I am with you.

[narrowway]

There is no right to same-sex marriage. It doesn't exist. This idea that liberals have a "right" to whatever it is they want is a lie.

[SewaneeLeftist]

It WOULD be a lie if liberals claimed that they have a right to whatever they want. It's also a lie that liberals believe rights work that way.

But it's interesting that you think equal protection under the law is a liberal idea... last I looked, it was in the Constitution in the 14th Amendment, where it says that no state can "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws."

[TryToBeFlexible]

Yes, remember Obama's first action was to invite gay hater/basher Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration. And see how things have gone since. Gays are the canary in the progressive coal mine. If you think "they don't matter", and throw them under the bus, then you are opening the door to further progressive erosion. If you draw the line at bashing gays, you pretty much keep the war from reaching your own (straight) progressive agendas, in many cases.

How you treat the weakest and most vulnerable in your society says alot about you. Only bullies target the weakest and most vulnerable. The GOP as a party is a classic example of cowardly bullies.

[GardenerNorCal]

I still have a real problem with him inviting a media pastor to officiate at his innauguration. I don't trust any of them any further than I trust Wall St., if he didn't have a personal pastor a military chaplin would have been a better choice. I can't believe Rick Warren actually performed in person, most churches sell his spiel through video tapes, but then he probably got paid well.

[IrishMale]

You should see the Rick Warren choice for what it was - Obama's first attempt to reach across the aisle - and nothing more. Warren hasn't played a part in legislation, or federal decision-making, not before or since. Right or wrong, he was trying to show that he wasn't all about his own opinions. Don't give Warren more credit than he deserves.

[slowtono]

Thta's alot of jive not about the issue. The issue is HEY It"s unnatral. And talk, as such, is the truth about who's dividing what in the country. In my part of the country this is called "trickster" politics and it's saying one thing and doing another. It's about gaining certain power only to misuse the privilege. The issue is that nature chose there to be a man and a women. A male and a female, counter parts to complete a circle. Opposites united. You can choose not to join jn but you don't get to be part of the circle. You stand out side because you chose to. You need to let people CHOOSE, Thats hard for you to imagine because your about self and oneness, better look around theres others everywhere who see through different eyes and you deny them choice.

[IrishMale]

Gay marriage rights don't take anyone else's rights or choices away. Not one bit. It doesn't even take away your right to judge other people without the slightest grasp of who they are or why they're doing what they're doing.

If you're going to bury your head in the sand, bury your opinions there too.

[PlaceboStudman]

Come on, folks! We all know money talks! So let's make sure our money screams and chants as if we were doing a March on Maine (Damn what a title!). As much of a win as this would be for Republicans, this will be as big a loss for everyone else, and the gap will widen and this country split farther apart if the Neo-con religiocon­servatives reassert their grip into the flesh of Maine.

Just because they elected a liberal progressive Independent senator (Bernie Sanders) doesn't mean that the people are wildly progressive. This is going to be a hard fought battle. Maybe harder than California, and we saw what happened there

So let's get out and get active and help our Maine residents push not only for equality but for more rejection of anti-intellectual Neo-con ideology

[SonofLiberty1]

Same sex marriage is just as anti intellectual as abortion rights.

[Awake-and-Sing]

And just as anti-intellectual as the failed conservative policies which led us over a cliff.

[PlaceboStudman]

And believing in an invisible man in the sky zombie ghost who simultaneously holds the 3 forms of matter aka The Holy Trinity *IS* intellectual?

Dont think so....Sorry, the first orbital satellites more than 50 years ago proved there was no "heaven above"