Wow, Matt... this is beneath you. Seriously.

The mind of the Yglesias candidate: "The majority of voters in my district are bigots. I'm not one. But I really want to represent the bigots. So... I'll pretend to be one. It'll be worth it because I have good ideas about universal healthcare.

Or maybe I'll be an inside outlaw! I'll act like a bigot and talk like a bigot but I won't legislate like a bigot and I'm sure that the bigots who elected me will be none the wiser. It's not as if I'd get addicted to the power or anything and then become what I abhor but am also pretending to be..."

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I don't disagree with Carville. If you really think people should not have equal rights, then say so.

And I'll add to the chorus -- Matt, your advice is dumb. 

Voters have an uncanny ability to see through a politician's fakery. In fact, you're really promoting the biggest problem Dems today have -- the impression that Dems have no convictions and just listen to polls.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

Universal health care?! No need to worry about a Democrat having the audacity to support health care. How radical! How left wing! How un-Republican! Imagine the evil of health for gays!!

Matt's not saying they should lie, just that if they do lie they should do so convincingly.

"Voters have an uncanny ability to see through a politician's fakery."

If you say so, but that statement sure begs a whole lot of questions.

Agree with you on Kant. But you know, any moral theory will have counterexamples in it. Cosequentialism is riddled with them.

Far be it for a philosopher to agree with Matthew Iglesias on this issue. After all, according to TH we are all full of doo-doo. But obviously you can't be a purist in politics. A purist in politics is a guy who can't get elected as dogcatcher. Good refreshing swift little post Matthew!

Well, I oppose integration, but will accept it if it is enacted by vote and not imposed by judges.

Well,  I oppose women voting, but will accept it if is enacted by vote and not imposed by judges.

Well, I oppose mixed race marriage, but will accept it if it is enacted by vote and not imposed by judges.

Hoppy in Sacramento

MY, maybe they are lying to you and not to the voters.

How about speaking truth to bigots -- and doing so convincingly?

And by the way, Kerry did exactly what you're advising. I don't believe for a minute that he really believed marriage is just too "sacred" for the likes of us lowly homos, but his statements to that effect were "convincing" enough to make me dislike him intensely. Forever. (And it didn't seem to win him many votes among Red State homophobes, did it?)

Today I watched a DVD of a forum where various people discussed the global warming problem.  One of the people was a government employee, obviously a Republcan.  His position was that it is up to each of us as individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not up to the government to do so.  While I sat there fuming about that it occurred to me that the best question for Mr. Government Man would have been:  Is it also up to us as individuals to reduce the rate of abortions?  Or to eliminate same sex marriages?  If so, why the never ending push to make government step in and accept those responsibilites?  If not, then what is the difference that makes for a different response? 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I have a big problem with Matt's approach, quite aside from the immorality of lying, the likelihood of getting caught, or the need to run on principle. It accepts the framing of electability around "values" and of "values" around a rigid worldview most Americans don't really hold. Then it struggles to win by convincing voters that you, too, are rigid.

You're not going to convince anyone that the Democrats are the party of the religious right. And you're not thereby going with this strategy to stem the Rovean spin's real functions. First, he wants to galvanize turnout for his base. Second, he wants to distract everyone else from the disaster known as Republican rule.

Waffling has a bad rap because of the Rovean "flipflop" spin, but this once it could even be necessary. First, many voters no doubt feel at sea with cultural changes that genuinely bother them, but they have other sympathies, too, and may shy away from constitutional changes to boot. Second, many politicians who lean toward gay marriage may have complicated feelings, too. But third and most, the spin is killing us.

How about saying this, and if you're then pressed what you really believe or whether you are a flipflopper, just repeat it over and over and over until you're heard: "I have doubts about gay marriage myself, but I have no doubt that it's distracting us from confronting the real issues facing America, like the GOP's screwing up [your favorite issue here]."

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

There are truly good people that are generally liberal or progressive who have problems with this issue because of their religious beliefs. They see no reason to discriminate against homosexuals in regards to employment, but feel that marriage is more than an economic union and as such is a different animal.

It will do nothing but insult them to tell them that their beliefs are wrong (whether they are or are not) and in either case, it only makes them feel more marginalized. So I think especially regionally, that different answers are required in different places. Integration didn't happen all at once, neither did interacial marriage, maybe it should have, but it didn't and achieved a more lasting effect that way.

I think you can look at this particular debate in the same way--it's going to happen, but not all at once and forcing the issue do people's throats makes for a lot of resistance. Sometimes that approach is justified where there will clearly be no change otherwise, or when there need be only a little forcing to make a break through, but it should be an approach best used with caution.

Anyhow, as for what Matt actually wrote--you really should say what you believe but if you for some reason feel you must lie, then lie well enough not to get caught so you don't make the rest of us look bad.

Matt,
This is one of your worst posts ever and certainly makes a mockery of Andrew Sullivan's award in your name (for honesty I believe). Shame on you. You should seriously consider resigning from the blog.

What else do you think it is okay to lie about? How about speaking in favor of a war to seem strong on national security? Is that wrong? Because I seem to remember you castigating some polticians for that.

So you'd prefer to lose elections with a clean conscience? Or should pols just duck the question rather than lie? There just aren't all that many disctricts where favoring gay marriage won't be a severe handicap to the candidate.

Edit: there is a third option. Candidates who think gay marriage is OK can refuse to run in districts where that's an unpopular position. Then everyone really can be honest and say what he thinks. Of course, it will drive the party even further to the right, but we're all about the purity here, right?

if moral imperatives emanate from idividuals and if individuals have different standards, then we are in the swamp of relativism. Sorry. Sounds good to talk about where morality "emanates" until you realize that morality is not some excretion from the material world.

One can oppose gay marriage, which I do not, and not be a bigot or a homophobe. Surely you recognize this. Is it okay to lie to those people. The issue here is not gay marriage but when it is okay to conciously lie and mislead in order to win.

It depends on how you perceive the "big tent". If you view the "big tent" as the nations that make up Western civilization from Canada to Europe to Australia, the views of we "blue" Americans are the majority on most issues. It's only in our own country that we are expected to surrender to bigots and have "democracy" consistof 2 major right-wing political parties searching to find the lowest common denominator in Mississippi.

I have conflicted views on gay marriage as I expect many Americans do. I believe marriage rules and regs ought to be left to faith communities and a growing number accept gay marriage.

But this is just one more issue on which Americans are to be given no choice -- you can have right-wing-born-again-party-A or right-wing-born-again-party-B. No thinking allowed. And all the while we grow further and further from the views of other nations, more isolated, more insular, more fearful and more afraid to think, study, debate, influence, or convert others to a broader view of the world.

Moral issues should affect what we do, not what we want to force others to do.  So, if I am opposed to gay marriage I should not marry a man, nor should I participate in a gay marriage ceremony.  If I oppose abortion (assuming I am female, and I'm not) I shouldn't have an abortion or counsel other women to do so.  But, it is inherently immoral to insist that the government make my morals the standard for everyone else, by passing laws requiring others to follow my morals.  For that reason and that reason only, all Democrats should be against laws forbidding gay marriages or abortions, among lots of other things.

Others have asked me why not let individuals follow their morals where murder, robbery, or incest are involved.  Surely the answer to that is obvious? 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I didn't mean a set of rules for choosing actions, which of course any person or group can propose and promote or try to enforce. I meant "imperative" as in atomically inseparable from our actions, which arise from our uniquely personal cosmologies as opposed to what others may encourage us to do or judge us for not doing.

Indeed, the answer is obvious, and it obviously applies to the case of (at least some) abortions.

Yeah but, assuming for argument's sake that we are going to go along with the "Voters aren't ready so we won't push it" strategy, isn't not prtending that we think same sex marriage will destroy the country but making it clear we respect the feelings of the voters the best way to go?