Today's Ludicrously Super Tuesday results will undoubtedly be among the most important primary results for years to come, which is not news to anyone reading this blog, I'm sure. In a few hours, we will know - not officially, of course, but bullshit aside, we will know - the two candidates that will dominate our attention for the next ten months. Duh, I know.
Let's, then, look to the implications of that knowledge. On the base level, as in any series of primaries, no longer will individuals who pretty much agree argue over pedantic points that more or less are irrelevant, but instead the candidates whose culmination of opposite interest groups and support will clash, finding any excuse to divide the country so as to gather the most obtuse popularity. Duh again. But keep reading.
So, the true battle for the presidency developing, the search for excuses will make issues out of things that for the most part should not be partisan, as the partisan issues are for the most part decided. To get straight to the point, DADT will be a very tantalizing target to make a wedge issue.
We cannot let this happen.
In any sort of risky situation, there are times to be zealous, and there are times to keep your mouth shut.
I learned this lesson March-ish of 2002, staying at then-boyfriend Chad's house in Gilroy California on pass. This was not my first weekend away, and in fact my command was well aware of the reasons why I took so many passes, though not from my own lips.
Six in the morning on a Saturday, and I find myself on the phone with my good friend Sarah who reveals that a routine contraband inspection exposed the secret lives of four of my close friends. I rushed back to Monterey, and immediately dispelled any sort of evidence that might overtly place me in the camp of those caught - which incidentally amounted to a photo of Chad sitting a little too close to me in a restraunt.
I was careful. I was smart.
I knew better than to bring the unspoken on post, and I was well aware of the number of unwelcome surprises that turned up in health and welfares. The wave of DADT discharges that were a result of this particular health and welfare were new, which is part of the reason why those discharges found their way into the news and helped bring attention to the number of linguist discharges.
Were these linguists stupid for placing themselves at risk like they did? Absolutely.
But remember that my command was still well aware of my own leanings, and did not proceed with discharge proceedings. The policy coupled with undeniable and unignorable evidence was responsible for the discharges, not the command, as obviously there was no issue before with the presense of gays in the unit. Nevertheless the command recieved a lot of flack for conducting a 'witch hunt,' when in fact no such actions were conducted.
A few months later, a week from graduation, and amidst a weekly Class A uniform inspection, my first sergeant asked me directly about my 'friend' in Gilroy. I responded in just as vague and generic terms, clearly understanding the message my first sergeant was trying to convey: he had no problem with my sexuality, and he appreciated that I never placed him in a position in which he had to respond in the negative.
Back to the elections.
Here's the current status of DADT relative to the primaries:
- After a strong appearance in the initial debates, DADT has pretty much gone unmentioned, or at least been relegated to irrelevant.
- Though somewhat quiet, the initial push to include DADT in the debates has lain a very partisan line on an issue that wasn't necessarily partisan prior to the debates.
A cursory look at the reasoning for such a split would lead to the obvious conclusion that, while trying to gather votes, Republicans must be associated with family while Democrats necessitate a focus on human rights. These are lines that can easily split the voting populous around either candidate, Iraq and Afganistan war be damned.
However, at the moment there is no reason to bring DADT back up, as the economy, healthcare and the wars still are very interesting to all the candidates. Let's not push it.
Otherwise we place the Republican candidate - whoever he may be - in a position in which he would have to respond in the negative.
Which would be stupid.
