Calvin: Well, Hobbes, I guess there’s a moral to all this.
Hobbes: What’s that?
Calvin: ‘Snow Goons are Bad News’.
Hobbes: That lesson certainly ought to be inapplicable later in life.
Calvin: I like maxims that don’t encourage behavior modification.
The issue is “is Rob Portman still a dick?”
I’m saying Yes, and generalizing from there to show that his character defect is one that applies to conservatives generally.
I don’t feel the need to demonize anyone. But I think explaining the world we see is worth doing.
No, it goes beyond that. I remember a time, back during the 1990s, when conservatives like Jack Kemp felt that there were conservative solutions to poverty and the like.
Kemp and I had policy disagreements, about how to deal with certain problems.
Nowadays, though, the difference is that there are a world of things that most people consider to be problems, but that the GOP considers ‘not a problem.’ And I would aver that the driving force behind that difference is lack of empathy on the part of conservatives.
This is why Down’s Syndrome is a problem in the minds of liberals, George Will, and Sarah Palin, but not a problem in the minds of conservatives generally. This is why ADHD is a problem in the minds of liberals and Mona Charen, but not a problem in the minds of conservatives generally. This is why the fact that gays can’t get married in most states is a problem in the minds of liberals and Rob Portman, but not a problem in the minds of conservatives generally. It’s Not A Problem until it affects a member of their family, and then it’s A Problem.
Of course I can’t respect that. That’s a character defect, not a virtue.
What, a politician acting in a politically expedient manner? Well, I never!
But you know what? Obama and Clinton are for gun control, even though neither of them has had a family member gunned down, because they have empathy for those it’s happened to. It’s A Problem to them; to conservatives, it’s Not A Problem. And that’s true on a bunch of issues.
WARNING: THE UPCOMING POST IS MY HUMBLE OPINION. I AM NOT MAKING A STATEMENT OF FACT.
Seems to me that the “problem” with conservatives, or traditionalists, or republicans or whatever, inasmuch as they have a problem, is that they simply do not or cannot very easily understand other people’s problems or issues. So it’s not surprising at all to learn about a guy like Portman who didn’t understand gay issues at all and frankly didn’t even care about them; the default position then is to support the status quo because The Bible and Tradition and whatnot.
Portman, in changing his mind, is NOT doing the right thing for the wrong reason. He’s doing the right thing for the right reason, that reason being that he now understands gay issues and the importance of marriage equality. Yes, the way he phrased it makes it sound like he’s being a selfish dick, only thinking of his son, but that’s not what has been going through his heart the last couple years since his son came out to him.
I watched this very transformation happen in my father within a few years of coming out to him. He used to be as homophobic and traditional as you can get when it came to issues of sexuality and marriage equality (the term marriage equality didn’t even exist when I came out to him). Yes, his views changed as a direct result of my coming out to him, and as a direct result of him wanting me to be happy and to be able to live a life with someone like he has and like everyone else does.
But that is absolutely not a selfish reason to change your view. It’s just that for some people, people who have a very difficult time understanding other people’s problems without first hand experience, it’s the ONLY way they can ever come around. It’s sad, but them’s the breaks.
I’m still not sure to what extent this is a Conservative tendency, and to what extent it’s just a Human tendency.
Eh, another vote for marriage equality is another vote for marriage equality. I wouldn’t care if the reason was that he hit his head and got amnesia and forgot he’s a conservative.
Maybe he is still a dick, but who cares? I care about the laws he helps pass or repeal. I don’t have to have the guy over for dinner.
That’s fine if you’re a one issue voter, and this happens to be your issue. If you have some other issues, you’re out of luck.
Yes, yes yes. I agree completely.
This sums it up for me.
True, but I believe it is more pronounced in conservatives, who essentially have the mindset of “do not change; change is bad; everything must keep on going the way is has always been going (in my lifetime, by my perceptions)”
When confronted with change, a conservative will frequently say “no” even before considering it. Because it is change, it must be bad.
If the change is for the benefit of the “others” in society, the typical conservative will not change their minds from “no”. It is only when there is a perceived benefit for the conservative themselves (or someone close to them) that they will actually start to look at the facts, and consider the evidence. Otherwise, it is simply “no” without thought.
The thread asks, is Portman a dick? Yes, I think he still is but not because of his reason for changing his position. I’m with several others who said the reason isn’t really important, and I applaud his switch even if it was for selfish reasons.
But I still think he’s a dick beyond this issue if it doesn’t make him reexamine other positions. Can he have compassion for something that doesn’t touch him personally? That’s what I want to see before I’ll say he’s not a dick.
Take the House Democratic Caucus in 2007.
a) How many of them had family members for whom a minimum wage increase would make a tangible difference?
b) How many of them voted for a minimum wage hike anyway?
'Nuff said, I hope.
Good points. I’m not that old, but I’m old enough to have been brought up in a world where being gay was considered a psychological disorder. No one was “out”. Maybe you called some of the weaker kids “queers”, but that had more to do with the way the acted rather than knowing anything about their sexual orientation. I didn’t think about gays. I didn’t worry about them. They were this hidden class of sexual deviants.
It can take awhile to get past that part of a person’s upbringing. As I noted above, my first reaction to the idea of SSM was WTF? I had never considered it, and it seemed preposterous. But then society starts changing, and you start encountering gay people and that changes one’s perspective.
Yup. I don’t think there’s a shred of sincerity in him. His son is too old to ship off to an ex-gay ministry camp for deprogramming while he gets reelected so this is the next best thing.
I hope his constituents toss him out of office at the earliest opportunity.
Let him marinate in it for a few more years and you might see a true change of heart. But for now, I’ll take it.
Eh, most people are wrong about a bunch of shit (both morally and intellectually). This is one less thing he’s wrong about morally, so I’d say it moves him a step in the right direction on the dick continuum.
You know, no one’s actually asking if this is better or worse than continuing to oppose SSM. The question is if he still a dick, and the answer, even from his staunchest defenders, is “Yes.” They’re just quibbling about the type of dick he is now.
I choose “uncircumsized, medium-to-small, hairless ballsack, healthy pink.”
Well, you know what they say:
You can take the homophobia out of a dick, but you can’t take the dick out of a homophobe.
If only more children of Republicans would come out poor…
If you’re a Republican, and you admit to being poor, is that ‘coming out’?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I’d vote for the guy. But on this or probably any other issue that I care about, I care a lot more about which way he’d vote than how good his reasons are.
Unfortunately, a lot of poor people (at least here in Texas) still think Republican is the way to go.