“No on 8” – When Reactive Politics Become Losing Politics

JI7

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Nov-06-08 01:39 AM
Original message

“No on 8” – When Reactive Politics Become Losing Politics

<It pains me to describe it this way, but “No on 8” – like Michael Dukakis – blew a seventeen-point lead. Progressives were lulled into complacency by early poll numbers, and distracted by the Barack Obama campaign – even after it became apparent he would win.

The problem happened when the Prop 8 campaign—through blatant lies and deceit—changed the subject into gays and lesbians imposing their agenda on our elementary school children. Suddenly, the people who were “indoctrinating” people who have a “live and let live” attitude was the homosexual agenda. It became apparent to me a few weeks ago when I was phone-banking for “No on 8.” I spoke to a black woman in San Francisco’s Western Addition who was dead-set against gay marriage now that she had been scared into believing we were imposing our lifestyle on her. And when people are afraid, it’s hard to make them listen to facts—especially if they don’t know you.

One of the basic lessons in activism is to not react to a problem when it comes up, but to be pro-active and frame the agenda. It’s not like right-wing extremists haven’t used the “gay marriage will be taught in our schools” line before, and the campaign should have been ready to anticipate such attacks. As far back as 1998, the first ballot proposition to ban marriage equality in Hawaii had a TV spot with a small child reading a book about two fathers—and he then gets confused. The message back then for swing voters was the same message California swing voters got now—“will my kids have to learn about it?”

Another basic rule is to anticipate what strategies the opposition will come up with to lure voters, and to preempt them with your own overtures. Gay marriage supporters were not happy that Barack Obama said he believes marriage is “between a man and a woman,” but he rarely got credit for going further than any presidential candidate had gone before. He supports fully repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and – more importantly – he came out against California’s Proposition 8. Knowing that Obama was going to win the state comfortably, “No on 8” should have stressed Obama’s opposition from Day One.

Instead, “No on 8” waited until the other side made their own hit piece that implied an Obama endorsement of Prop 8. By then, we were being reactive.

Finally, I did go to the “No on 8” campaign office in the Castro as often as I could—but quickly became frustrated at what they were asking volunteers to do. I was happy talking on the phone with swing voters—which was useful and effective—but they seemed more interested in having us do visibility in San Francisco, going to strongly liberal (even gay) parts of town to make sure our base knew they had to vote “no.” Rather than preaching to the choir, we were told this was useful because much of our base was confused—that some supporters think they’re supposed to vote “yes” on Prop 8 to affirm gay marriage.

I don’t doubt there were a few cases of gay people in San Francisco who were confused, and accidentally voted for Prop 8. But this appeared excessively anecdotal and reactive, when I was far more interested in being pro-active and effective in getting work done. Ironically, it turns out that a percentage of our opposition was equally confused—if not more so, which made the issue a wash. When I dropped “No on 8” literature in East Oakland, I ran into an African-American woman—who said she would vote “no” on Prop 8 because she “really didn’t want” gay marriage being taught in public schools.>

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/_No_on_8_When_Reactive_Politics_Become_Losing_Politics_6262.html