Is Thom Hartmann a Fool or Tool?

On most occasions Thom Hartmann -- arguably among the more reasoned and least offensive of syndicated radio talkers -- uses his head. At his best debating Libertarians or corporate flacks, he exposes the fallacies of their arguments with syllogistic precision. This is Hartmann as champion of the middle-class, as a populist Sigfried.

But, less frequently, Hartmann shuts off his brain and thinks with his heart. A Liberal heart; its beat resonates with the poor, the disenfranchised and dispossessed.

But the middle-class aren’t always in synchronicity with Liberal sentiments.

And, historically, a large percentage of that middle-class votes. And how they vote depends upon economic considerations and -- to a lesser extent -- “social” issues, especially Red Button ones. And if the button is crimson -- gay rights, for example --
they’ll reverse priorities and vote against their own self interests.

If Hartmann expects Democrats to hold a Congressional majority, he must choose between the middle-class or issues which that group finds repugnant. Put another way, Hartmann must come out as a populist or Liberal.

Last week Hartmann argued in favor of Judge Vaughn Walker’s overturning of Proposition 8, the California gay marriage ban. Then he proposed that the Mormon church be forced to pay for same-sex weddings and that the public be taxed to fund reparations to homosexuals who’ve suffered past discrimination.

To be fair to Hartmann, Prop. 8 received but a tiny majority of voter approval. And a case can be made that it violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment, and that gay couples raise fine children.

On the other hand, the people’s will in California was overturned by one judge, a gay one at that. And that’s enough to prompt revenge come election time. Voters, even if it means acting contrary to their own interests, wont care a whit about Hartmann’s reasoned arguments or about constitutional or case law. Nor will they agree that gay couples raise kids better than they do. What they will do is this; they’ll vote Republican.

Back in March, 2004, San Francisco’s mayor pressed the Red Button when he ordered that marriage licenses be issued to same-sex couples. Resulting publicity, including photos of couples embracing and kissing, went international. Two month later Massachusetts followed the City By The Bay by sanctioning homosexual marriages.

This was the political equivalent of stuffing an arm into a hornets nest. Republican consultant Ed Rollins understood this. So did Democrat Barney Frank.

Incumbent President G.W. Bush, whose foreign policy actions were being exposed as major deceptions, voiced strong disapproval of same-sex marriages. And he attained renewed popularity as champion of Conservative “social values.” And he beat John Kerry in November. But only by thirty-five electoral votes. Had Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and Colorado, where the vote was close, gone for Kerry, Bush would have been retired in early 2005.

It cannot be proved that the legally sanctioned gay marriages ensured Democratic losses in 2004. But a number of Republican strategists feel the issue had an effect. And even a small tremor could have turned the presidential and several House and Senate races.

Now, as the nation approaches the primaries leading into the November mid-term elections, the issue has arisen again. Any thoughtful observer should be suspicious of the timing and concerned regarding its political impact.

Hartmann is a thoughtful observer. He understands that a sizable number of “Tea-baggers,” should they understand their economic interests, could be brought over to the Progressive side. But he also knows -- he’s spoken of it -- that these same people are subject to angry emotional persuasion to their “lesser” natures.

So, why would Hartmann, a respected radio talker with a national audience, demand that a large and influential church congregation pay for gay weddings in California? Why would he call for legislation to force all Americans to pay reparations to homosexuals for past discrimination? Such rhetoric outdoes anything that Fox News could do in pulling the “Silent Majority” over to the Republicans.

LEARN TO LIKE YOUR NEIGHBOR

LEARN TO LIKE YOUR NEIGHBOR

It seems to me a mystery when neighbors -- of similar backgrounds and income, living in like bungalos behind picket fences -- become angry over politics.

Granted; argueing politics can be fun when we’re too rickety for kung-fu or karate; but I’m referring to the eye-popping, blood pressure elevating screaming matches that result in broken friendships ... or worse.

One doesn’t need to be an economic determinist to recognize that neighbors will likely benefit or suffer equally should a particular party win or bill be passed. So, any dispute between them will be one of means and not ends. And that is simply a debate.

ETS

”LIBERTY BELL LECTURES: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TODAY'S ISSUES”


HEAR HOW ONE FOOD CHANGED THE WORLD