Yes, We Can Walk and Chew Gum

May 18, 2012

midnight

One of the most overused metaphors in a writer's arsenal is the one about "walking and chewing gum at the same time." As a hiker and Big League Chew enthusiast, I particularly hate this cliché. Nonetheless, I feel it is fitting right now because it so perfectly summarizes the argument being made by Republicans. They now insist that America cannot simultaneously walk the walk on equal rights and also chew economic gum. In the last week, Colorado was the testing ground for this talking point. At the presidential level, Republican nominee Mitt Romney criticized a Denver television reporter for daring to ask about his position on, among other issues, same-sex marriage. Before restating his opposition, he scoffed at the question, asking: "Aren't there issues of significance that you'd like to talk about [like] the economy? The growth of jobs? The need to put people back to work?" At the same time, Colorado's Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty twice blocked a vote on a bill to legalize civil unions. His rationale? "We should not be spending time on divisive social issues when unemployment remains far too high and (when) far too many Coloradans remain out of work," he said. Echoing that sentiment, the shadowy Republican front group Compass Colorado financed an automated telephone call telling thousands of voters that the push for civil unions was unacceptable because it is "promoting (a) divisive social agenda over Colorado job creation." Obviously, it's perplexing to see the Republican Party allege that social issues are insignificant and "divisive." This is, after all, the party whose most recent presidential nominating contest was dominated by attacks on contraceptionthe same GOP whose politicians have made an art out of riding a "guns, god and gays" focused agenda to electoral victory. But while such naked hypocrisy is enraging, the substance of the Republican rhetoric about gay rights is downright offensive. Essentially, conservatives are asserting that we cannot extend equal rights to all Americans and fix the economy. In the process, they are deliberately insinuating that the twin goals are somehow contradictory. Well, you might ask, do they have a point? History says no. Our country's story is the story of multitaskinga tale of extending the franchise to women while passing progressive legislation to deal with crushing economic inequality, a tale of both passing civil rights legislation and creating Medicare. In light of such achievements, would anyone retroactively argue that America should have opposed the campaign to let women vote because the economy was so bad in the early 20th century? Would anyone insist that lawmakers should have halted civil rights legislation in the 1960s because there was a simultaneous need for a War on Poverty? Probably not, because most of us recognize such arguments for what they are: diversionary non-sequiturs whose real goal is to preserve institutional bigotry and prejudice. That's the same objective of today's GOP when it comes to rights for same sex couples. For proof, just consider the abruptness of the shift: the Republican Party that spent the last decade insisting that we should simultaneously cut taxes, prosecute foreign wars and fight to limit a woman's right to choose an abortion now suddenly says we can't even discuss equal rights because of a recession. The language changed not because the new "can't walk and chew gum" mantra makes sense (seriouslywould any sane person really claim that a bad economy justifies continued persecution of lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people?). It changed because the cause of equal rights is involved. And, clearly, that cause is what today's Republicans are now most committed to stoppingno matter how much their flawed logic indicts their credibility. David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at <a href="http://www.davidsirota.com">www.davidsirota.com</a> © 2012 Creators.com

Friends of the Shepherd

Help support Milwaukee's locally owned free weekly magazine.

LEARN MORE

Comments (1)

Comment Feed

The simple truth is we cannot fix the economy by g...

The simple truth is we cannot fix the economy by government decree. What's needed is a big spender to "donate" money to our economy, or "invest" and not be allowed to ever get it back. Bernie Madoff would have gotten away with his Ponzi scheme as long as none of his investors ever tried to draw out their money, just "let it ride".

Why do I say this? As shown by my Econ 101 training back in the 70's, the "creation of money" is done by the banking system... By allowing them to lend out $80 for every $100 deposited. It's like holding up a mirror in front of another mirror, you can see the reflected reflections going on into infinity, getting smaller all the way. This re-lending 80% makes that $100 stake by the Federal Deficit multiply out to be doing $600 or $700 worth of circulation in the economy. -- The bugaboo they glossed over was that only that $100 was real, the rest was all loans that needed to be paid back someday, with interest! No way can we unwind it all and leave us with more than that $100. Debt must keep growing to keep that circulated economy going.

With "money creation" like that, the one who wins is the one who cashes out before the game ends, leaving OTHER people stuck with a loan to pay off, a bank holding a bad debt to be bailed out by the taxpayer. The top 1% simply want to cash out, send it overseas, and leave the US taxpayer holding that debt.

Is it any wonder they want to shift the focus to "meaningless" social issues?

Oh, for the days of Monica Lewinsky, what a better way to get the American voter to look the other way in 1998 while the bill to repeal Glass-Steagall was being written and debated in Congress?

Anonymous more than 12 years ago