Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

It was just a matter of time before Illinois Senator–and self-professed Christian–Barack Obama drew heat for his stance on abortion…

Is opposition to same-sex marriage primarily based on the "ick factor"?

Despite the fact that American culture is clearly moving in a libertarian direction with regard to homosexuality, there is still a discomfort in some quarters with the idea of intimacy between members of the same gender. There are plenty of folks who cannot embrace the notion that such intimacy is in any way, shape or form "natural."

However, are those who perceive homosexuality as "not natural" the only ones who reject same-sex matrimony?

It’s inaccurate to say so. The reality is that, while there are those who steadfastly oppose gay marriage because they cannot accept societal approval of behavior they consider unnatural, there are also large numbers of people who reject gay marriage for legal, not moral, reasons.

Supporters of same-sex marriage often claim that the controversial 2003 Goodridge ruling authorizing gay marriage in Massachusetts is nothing more than the modern-day version of the 1967 US Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws forbidding marriage between members of different races. However, as opponents of same-sex marriage frequently point out, the Loving ruling did not fundamentally alter the one man-one woman marriage dynamic.

There is a legitimate concern that, once a precedent redefining the parameters of marriage has been established, further "redefinitions" are inevitable, potentially allowing the legitimization of polygamy and marriages between very close relatives. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made it clear that marriage is a civil right that cannot be restricted because of sexual orientation; if that is indeed the case, then how can the civil right of marriage be restricted because of numbers or familial closeness?

Because American culture leans libertarian in its view of homosexuality, opponents of gay marriage must emphasize that their views are not based on bigotry or the aforementioned "ick factor," but on a reasonable concern about just how far American jurisprudence will go on the matter of marriage. Objecting to same-sex marriage on moral grounds–i.e., not wanting to have society officially approve behavior viewed as morally erroneous–will become increasingly difficult as the society continues to move in a live-or-let-live direction; as Boston political commentator Jon Keller recently suggested, we live in a time in which many heterosexual unions can be considered "unnatural."

In 2006, the burden is not on supporters of same-sex marriage to prove that such marriages benefit society; the burden is on opponents of same-sex marriage to prove that their beliefs are not rooted in anti-gay animus. Thus, supporters of traditional marriage must make it clear that their views are not based on a desire to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens, but to ensure that American jurisprudence is not altered in such a way as to make matrimony meaningless.

UPDATE: Hub Politics on gay marriage in Massachusetts.

SECOND UPDATE: The gay-marriage controversy continues in the Bay State. Plus, the American Spectator on the politics of same-sex marriage.

THIRD UPDATE: The Boston Phoenix condemns a black anti-gay-marriage activist’s role on Mass. Gov.-Elect Deval Patrick’s transition team. I don’t understand the point of the criticism. Patrick made it clear that he wanted to have a diverse transition team. "Diversity," as understood in the modern political sense, means among other things the inclusion of blacks. Many blacks happen to oppose same-sex marriage for various reasons. Thus, if Patrick wants to have a diverse transition team, the law of averages dictates that he will have on that team blacks who oppose same-sex marriage. What is Patrick supposed to do? Not have a racially diverse transition team? More from the AP.

Is Deval Patrick a role model?

It may be too soon to answer that question. However, it’s already obvious that, for some families in Massachusetts, Patrick is seen as the only adult figure suitable for their children to pattern themselves after.

One reason why some Bay Staters are hoping that Patrick does not fail in the Corner Office is that they perceive the Governor-Elect as someone to look up to: a man who made it out of the depravity and despair of Chicago’s South Side to become a corporate titan, a civil rights crusader and the CEO of the Commonwealth. In an age of drug-addled sports heroes, thuggish rappers, deranged comedians and crooked Congressmen, it’s hard to blame these people for hoping that Patrick doesn’t let them down.

Don’t think for a moment that African-Americans are the only ones hoping that Patrick doesn’t drop the ball. There are plenty of whites, Asians and Hispanics who feel that role models are few and far between. They also feel that Patrick could inspire their children to achieve, to excel, to become better.

We live in a culture in which excellence is mistaken for elitism. To be sure, some of Patrick’s supporters have themselves pushed the idea that there is something fundamentally perverse about the concept of being the best, and about the idea of meritocracy.

However, it’s also true that in order to achieve the success he’s enjoyed, Patrick clearly had to be the best. He had to excel. He had to be twice as good. Thus, there are plenty of Bay Staters hoping that he continues to be twice as good in the Corner Office.

Patrick wasn’t wrong to imply that there are plenty of people who are investing their hopes and dreams in him. In a culture that seems to reward backward behavior, Patrick is being looked upon as a man who could move the culture forward.

One can’t ignore the political double standard involved in the perception of Patrick as a role model. If Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, etc. were all Democrats, they would all be held up as role models as well. The double standard that benefits the likes of Patrick won’t go away anytime soon. Neither will the pressure on the new governor not to let down those who believe in him.

UPDATE: More on Patrick. Plus, what would Deval make of the new controversy concerning the alleged underrepresentation of nonwhite attorneys at big-name American law firms?

SECOND UPDATE: Patrick vs. the press? More from the Boston Herald.

Rapper Snoop Dogg arrested on illegal handgun possession charges in California.

Rapper Snoop Dogg arrested on illegal handgun possession charges in California.

Corrupt federal judge-turned-Congressman Alcee Hastings will not receive a desired chairmanship in the new Congress. More from the New York Times and Washington Post.

Could Kerry Healey re-emerge in 2007 as Deval Patrick’s critic-in-chief?

Patrick’s own desire to preserve his future political career may be enough to prevent him from moving too far to the left, but if it does not, I wouldn’t be surprised if Healey reestablishes herself as a one-woman "watchdog agency" monitoring the Patrick administration.

With nothing to lose, Healey could consistently call Patrick out on his excessive liberalism, possibly setting herself up for a 2010 rematch with the Together We Can Man. While the notion of Healey running for governor again seems far-fetched now, stranger things have happened in Massachusetts politics–and if Patrick repels the electorate by lurching left, Healey will be perfectly positioned to lead the state back in the right direction.

As a Patrick critic, Healey will be able to rehabilitate her image, learning from the mistakes she made on the 2006 campaign trail. If she was too harsh, too negative, too abrasive this year, she’ll be more reasoned, more restrained, more personable–and more appealing to the Bay State electorate.

Everyone assumes that we won’t have Kerry Healey to kick around anymore. Everyone assumes that there are no second acts in Massachusetts politics.

What if everyone’s assuming the wrong thing? What if Healey takes advantage of Patrick’s political mistakes to become the odds-on favorite in an election rematch? What if Healey, four years from now, becomes the candidate seen as no ordinary leader?

Did Kerry Healey really run an excessively negative gubernatorial campaign?

It is now an article of faith in Massachusetts that Healey lost the 2006 gubernatorial race to Deval Patrick because of an unreasonably low-class campaign. According to the conventional wisdom, Healey engaged in off-the-charts demagoguery and borderline race-baiting, while Patrick ran an uplifting, civil campaign appealing to mankind’s better instincts.

Whenever I hear this conventional wisdom being espoused, I can’t help thinking of Hollywood producer Robert Evans’ famous saying: "There are three sides to every story–your side, my side, and the truth." It’s inaccurate to characterize Healey’s campaign as flawless, but it’s also inaccurate to characterize her campaign as the ultimate in political depravity. The truth, as they say, lies somewhere in between.

Healey wasn’t wrong to emphasize Patrick’s attitudes concerning crime and punishment. The issue of crime is never irrelevant, and Patrick’s support of a convicted rapist and his efforts to have a cop-killer removed from death row were pertinent issues. Healey ran an effective commercial highlighting Patrick’s involvement in the Carl Ray Songer cop-killer case, and a highly controversial spot focusing on Patrick’s efforts in the Ben LaGuer rape case. Looking back, it seems that the LaGuer commercial, now commonly referred to as the "garage ad," missed the mark and hurt Healey’s campaign–but not for the reason everyone seems to believe.

Contrary to the ridiculous claims of figures such as former Patrick adviser Dan Payne, the "garage ad" represented neither deliberate nor unintentional race-baiting. However, the ad likely turned viewers off because it reminded victims of crime and their friends and relatives of the trauma they went through. Instead of turning those viewers against Patrick (because of his actions in the LaGuer case), the ad caused those viewers to perceive Healey as a candidate willing to exploit real-life crimes to gain political advantage.

Healey also wasn’t wrong to label Patrick a "tax-and-spend liberal"; considering Patrick’s well-documented scorn of tax cuts, such a depiction was not inappropriate. However, Healey failed to come up with a response to those who argued that Patrick’s corporate background made him an unlikely tax-and-spender. She never emphasized that there are plenty of hardcore left-wingers in the corridors of corporate America (Ted Turner, anyone?) and that Patrick’s private-sector success did not mean he wouldn’t be a public-sector failure.

Frankly, as Patrick would say, Healey was doomed. Anti-Mitt Romney sentiment in this state was at the boiling point, and nothing was going to stop Healey from being scalded. Even if she had forcefully condemned Romney’s anti-Massachusetts remarks, it would not have been enough to dampen voter enthusiasm for Patrick.

Healey was linked to the Legacy of Mitt–and as it turned out, fifty-six percent of the electorate considered that legacy a bitter one. While she clearly made significant mistakes in her campaign, it’s a distortion to claim that her "over-the-top negativity" was the primary factor in her loss. She did not become our next governor principally because of the Bay State’s contempt for the man who could become our next President.

A new voice takes over for longtime Boston radio newsman Gary LaPierre. More from the Boston Herald and Globe.

Novelist Bebe Moore Campbell passes away at 56.

If there’s one thing that will prevent Massachusetts Governor-Elect Deval Patrick from going too far to the left once he’s in office, it’s the knowledge that if he does so, not only will he restrict himself to one term, he could possibly end up undoing Democrat dominance of Bay State politics.

Patrick is actually in a very precarious position as he heads into the Corner Office. While progressive activists are hoping that he fulfills all of their blue-state desires, Patrick is under internal pressure not to damage his future political career by turning himself into Mike Dukakis Jr. If Patrick does give in to fierce external pressure and governs from the hard left, not only will he wreck the state’s economic, educational and legal system, he will also create the circumstances necessary for a GOP resurgence in the Commonwealth.

Prior to Patrick’s victory, the Bay State right warned the electorate about what happened to this state during the dark Dukakis years. If Patrick allows "moonbat mania" to run wild during his first term, voters who didn’t buy the "Deval is a whacko" argument will be so horrified that they’ll turn to a revived state GOP for real change and real leadership. (Of course, the state GOP must have the right leadership in place for that to happen.)

A far-left Deval plus a far-left state Legislature will inevitably equal more Republican representatives and senators, along with another GOP governor. The last thing Patrick wants is to be the person blamed by history for allowing such an event to happen.

It can be argued that Patrick’s history indicates that once in office he will not be able to resist the urge to govern from the hard left. Yet one cannot underestimate Patrick’s intelligence. Would he really want to undo his party’s dominion over state politics by going crazy-left? If so, he’d be the dumbest Democrat in decades.

Remember how Chris Gabrieli appeared to gain momentum in the Democrat primary by promising centrist leadership and claiming that it didn’t matter whether an idea was a Democrat or Republican idea, so long as it was a good idea that generated results? Don’t be surprised if Patrick decides to govern as Gabrieli would have governed. Do be surprised if he dictates his own downfall by duplicating Dukakis.

UPDATE: Virginia Buckingham on Patrick.

The New York Times asks: What happened to the Republican Party in New England?

Happy Feet remains on top.

The Washington Post launches a preemptive strike against potential 2008 GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

UPDATE: Will Romney’s past attempts to attract pro-choice and pro-gay-rights voters hurt him in 2008–or will those attempts be dismissed by the GOP base as steps Romney had to take to win in "moonbat Massachusetts"? More from the Wall Street Journal and Jon Keller.

Is there anything more shortsighted than the notion that the actions of Massachusetts Governor-Elect Deval Patrick will do anything to stem the tide of black-on-black violence in Boston?

"Community activists" and progressive ministers are already hoping that Patrick will make it a priority to combat urban violence. Their intentions are pure, of course, but even if Patrick does make the reduction of urban violence a priority, it doesn’t mean it will necessarily happen.

Despite what these community activists and progressive ministers imply, money alone will not solve this problem. Government alone cannot solve this problem. Hate to get all Bill Cosby on you, but this a problem that goes much deeper.

Patrick can pump the entire Massachusetts budget into "violence prevention programs," and it won’t do a goddamn thing until we start teaching young people of color that they have a chance and a place in this society. As long as young black men and women are led to believe that their lives are worthless and that their value to society is negligible, they will continue to slaughter each other.

I know Rush Limbaugh isn’t what you’d call a popular figure in this state, but on November 20, in a discussion about a controversial column by New York Daily News author Stanley Crouch, he noted:

"…Let me just share with you some of what Stanley Crouch says: ‘Last week, I was in a studio in midtown [in Manhattan] where a popular program for black youths was being filmed. I found myself surrounded by black men, ages 18 to 35, and I was appalled. As a father with a daughter nearly 30 years old who has never been close to marrying anyone, I was once more struck by what my offspring describes as ‘a lack of suitable men.’ She has complained often about the adolescent tendencies of young black men, as will just about any young black woman when the subject comes up. Those who believe that America is perpetually adolescent will point at the dominance of frat-boy attitudes among successful white men and will say of the black hip-hop generation, ‘So what? How could they not be adolescent? They are not surrounded by examples of celebrated maturity. The society worships movie stars, wealthy athletes and talk show hosts. These are not the wisest and most mature of people.’

‘There is more than a little bit right about that. Our culture has been overwhelmed by the adolescent cult of rebellion that emerges in a particularly stunted way from the world of rock ‘n’ roll. That simpleminded sense of rebelling against authority descended even further when hip hop fell upon us from the bottom of the cultural slop bucket in which punk rock curdled. Hip hop began as some sort of Afro protest doggerel and was very quickly taken over by the gangster rappers, who emphasized the crudest materialism in which the ultimate goal was money and it did not matter how one got it.

‘The street thug, the gang member, the drug dealer and the pimp became icons of sensibility and success. Then the attitudes of pimps took a high position and the pornographic version of hip hop in which women become indistinguishable bitches and hos made a full-court press on the rap ‘aesthetic.’ At the television studio, as I watched and listened to those young men, each of whom seemed to be auditioning for a lifelong part as a ‘man-child,’ I discussed this phenomenon with a black woman in her 40s who is a writer. She had worked for rap magazines, magazines that had focused on black women and in black television.

‘Her analysis was quite direct and could be profoundly true. Her profession and being the mother of a teenage daughter has made her pay close attention and forced her to give these issues a good deal of thought. The way she understood it was that these young black men do not see growing up as having any advantages to it. One is either current or old-fashioned and outdated. The only success they think they can believe in is had by either athletes or rappers. Young black men. So they hold on to adolescence and adolescent ways as long as they can.

‘The writer also said, ‘I am sure many knew of Ed Bradley but they did not identify with him. He was too sophisticated. They identify with the overgrown boy, who is everywhere and who is getting over. He’s got a lot of cash, plenty of girls, lots of jewelry, an expensive car. To them, that’s the world. Or it’s the world they want to be a part of.’ So what can be done to make adulthood seem attractive to these young black men? Good question. From one end of the country…" Listen to this, now: "From one end of the country to the other, adults sleep in the street for nights on end as though they are homeless in order to have choice places in line when PlayStations go on sale. That alone gives us more than an indication of how great a problem we find ourselves facing.’

…Crouch’s point here is that certain people among us aren’t, because for whatever reason they don’t want to live long or they don’t think they will, and so they have to get it all now. You want to talk about this in great detail? Why is that? Is it really fair to blame rap music? Or is rap music just a symptom? How about if you were a impressionable, susceptible young black person in this country the last 30 years and your parents happened to think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and the civil rights movement are the beginning and end of the world. What do you think you’re going to hear growing up about your country, about your past, and about your future?

Do you think you might have a little anger and rage, and do you think, ‘Well, I can’t get what I want [by]  going to college. I can’t take the prescriptions that this country is offering for everybody else because I’m going to be beaten down and I’m going to be stopped by racism, and there’s going to be a cross-burning in my front yard’ or what have you? So the path of least resistance is what you see on TV. ‘Well, hey, these guys have made it, and they’ve made it as a counterculture act: rap, gangsta rap and so forth.’ So it becomes a sick form of, I don’t know, motivation, inspiration for people, and they see that route because they don’t think they have a chance of getting there any other way…"

Even if you disagree with Limbaugh’s assessment of Jackson and Sharpton, it’s impossible to deny that, for many young black men and women in Massachusetts and elsewhere, there are few, if any, figures who can inspire them to hope for a better tomorrow. As Patrick frequently noted on the campaign trail, his grandmother instilled in him a belief that he should hope for the best and work for it. Honestly, how many people are instilling that belief into young black men and women today?

We have a generation of young black men and women who don’t just believe that there is no tomorrow, but that there is no tonight. When no one is there to teach you that life means something, you will naturally believe that life means nothing.

All the money, all the programs, all the expenditures in the world will not reduce urban violence. If one gangbanger who doesn’t value life decides to kill another gangbanger who doesn’t value life, is a social program going to stop him?

Encouraging Patrick to spend money on "violence prevention" is easy. Changing the nihilistic culture of the inner city is hard, damn hard. Until and unless there is a commitment by all of us to change that culture, neither Governor Patrick nor anyone else will be able to stop black-on-black bloodshed.