InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Amy Lee is God"

Phoenix (凤凰) (spacelogic) wrote,
@ 2009-10-14 14:47:00

Current mood:

irritated

false choices: Obama vs. Schwarzenegger
I read today a post over at the Bilerico Project arguing against the assertion that Arnold Schwarzenegger is more gay-friendly than Barack Obama. Now, the argument for Schwarzenegger is bullshit: he approved Harvey Milk Day, as far as I can determine, primarily because of the movie (he vetoed it before, as he does damn' near everything, on a flimsy excuse) and not out of any concern over its actual merits, and the other act referenced is non-controversial and hardly revolutionary (though positive.) His anti-gay overall position, which the counter-post hardly touched, and unwillingness to sign anything remotely controversial combine to speak much louder.

My issue with the entire discussion is, however, that comparing the Governator to the President here can be done a number of ways. First, in terms of overall attitude, Obama edges ahead slightly. In terms of attitude relative to respective party, the reverse is true: Schwarzenegger is incredibly gay-friendly for a Republican, while Obama matches the typical Democrat unremarkably and might even be a little to the right of the standard. If we look at number of gay-affirming actions taken while in executive office, Schwarzenegger wins; if we weigh number and significance of pro- vs. anti-gay measures, he probably comes up negative while Obama's nearer to zero. If we factor in Obama's senate record, he edges ahead a little. So the comparison is pretty complicated.

The biggest complaint I have is that it's a pointless comparison, obviously intending to rile up Obama supporters by comparing him to a Republican whose popularity is dwindling (and it's high time, says this longtime opponent of said Republican bitterly,) but not doing so in a meaningful way. The two men are in opposite situations: Obama is a moderate officially affiliated with the left, trying to keep the right mellow, and has a Democratic Congress backing him up, while Schwarzenegger is a moderate officially affiliated with the right, with a Republican minority that he occasionally clashes with in the Legislature and a Democratic majority to contend with. Comparing their actions just makes things confusing, which is of course a good move if you're basically just trying to stir up shit. Shit-stirring, however, is not the right way to do politics.

(My spellchecker recognizes "Schwarzenegger" as a word, but underlines "Obama." How long do you suppose that will last?)

(Post a new comment)

beccastareyes
2009-10-14 10:04 pm UTC (link)

I can never tell how controversial anything is any more, since there's always the 'tell both sides'. It gets to the point when I see an article on a satellite measuring the gravity harmonics of the Earth to have a quote from the Flat Earth Society.

(We in New York are going through the same thing -- with a governor that approved 'recognition of foreign/out of state same-sex marriages'*, which is now going through the courts -- granted, the courts are saying 'he was within his rights', but...)

* We're surrounded on three of four sides by places that allow same-sex marriage. It also appears that we and New Mexico are the only states that neither forbid nor allow same-sex marriage.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

spacelogic
2009-10-14 10:20 pm UTC (link)

I think "controversies" should be eliminated from all reputable press coverage, because the implied even split with nonexistent moderates and the "tell both sides" thing is seriously pathetic. (Other bans I want to propose include describing violent crimes using the passive voice and reporting people's words without including an evaluation of their factuality on any matter where factuality is determinable.) But since Schwarzenegger's actions are motivated, as far as I can tell, by what the press and his party would say, I think it's an accurate word to use in this case.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

beccastareyes
2009-10-14 10:32 pm UTC (link)

Fair enough. Or at least reserved when there actually is some form of conflict and you can quote both parties involved, rather than seeking out someone to comment -- for example, I would not be averse to an article about a bill in the State Legislature that spoke to several congresspeople who were vocal about their opinion, since the article would be about 'legislators debate about a bill'.

(Reply to this) (Parent)