The New York Times has published three articles last week that reminded me - of all things - of my recent trip to Toronto, Ontario.
In Poll, G.O.P. Slips as a Friend of Religion (August 25, 2006)
F.D.A. Approves Broader Access to Next-Day Pill (August 25, 2006)
Stem Cell News Could Intensify Political Debate (August 24, 2006)
"Why Toronto?" you're probably asking. I mean, those articles are about as American as American politics can get. It's true that Canada isn't even mentioned in any of them, but do you know what they do mention?
God.
Not directly or anything. But religion is, obviously, a topic of the first. Clergy are quoted in the second and third. And the main topic of all three is primarily political and/or scientific with religion as just one cultural - not political or scientific - aspect of the debate.
Which brings me back to Canada.
When I was visiting our lovely neighbors to the North, I watched CBC News instead of CNN and The Globe and Mail were delivered to my hotel room each day. I thought it would be worthwhile to learn what was going on around me, if only for a week. Of course, I had the usual American reaction to non-American news, "Wow! This coverage is so much more international!" but as the days went on I began to realize something else about Canada's political debates:
They were actually political.
Canadian news was actually about current events. They talked about social issues relevant to Canada and Canadians: energy, the environment, welfare, preventing a repeat of the 2003 blackout. They discussesd solutions that would benefit all their countrymen. They heard differing points of view and came to a consensus.
In other words, they weren't spending 20 out of 24 news hours debating abortion and queers, religious conservatives weren't the ones determining the topics of debate and the ways of debating those topics, and the big "US" of all Canadians was more important in their governing body than the little "us" of any one fringe group.
Hearing the news in another country really made me realize how much of the American conversation is determined by 9% of the voting population. Imagine if GLBT people took over the debate; we are after all 10% of the US population in theory. Even the idea of it is absurd. So why do we - not just straight people, queer people, too - allow such a small group to decide how everything in our government, goes?
Because they vote.
They believe the government will do as they say, and so they go to the polls, and so it does. Keep it in mind as November approaches.
And to all you politicians out there (because I'm sure you're reading Big Quuer - NOT!), I think that first article can teach you a thing or two. Cater to one group and you become beholden to them. Considering the degree to which you've alienated centrist conservatives and liberals, the middle and working classes, people of color, and queers I find it hard to believe that you'll be able to put together broad coalitions of constituents should the religious right bail on you entirely. And that's something I'll happily keep in mind as November approaches.