<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Endless Chase</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/03/02/the-endless-chase/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/03/02/the-endless-chase/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-endless-chase</link>
	<description>n. the principle of good order&#60;br /&#62;&#60;br /&#62; "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: kevinjjones</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/03/02/the-endless-chase/comment-page-1/#comment-30517</link>
		<dc:creator>kevinjjones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:04:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=8619#comment-30517</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s noteworthy, but expected, that these stories are about Republicans asking how they can turn social conservative Democrats into their partisans. 

If social conservatives were competent at politics, they&#039;d be asking how they can turn similarly-minded Democrats into an effective beachhead within their home party. Partisanship may win some elections, but bipartisanship wins a more permanent political state.

(Certainly politics is secondary to culture, but that doesn&#039;t excuse obvious ineffectiveness in the former.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s noteworthy, but expected, that these stories are about Republicans asking how they can turn social conservative Democrats into their partisans. </p>
<p>If social conservatives were competent at politics, they&#8217;d be asking how they can turn similarly-minded Democrats into an effective beachhead within their home party. Partisanship may win some elections, but bipartisanship wins a more permanent political state.</p>
<p>(Certainly politics is secondary to culture, but that doesn&#8217;t excuse obvious ineffectiveness in the former.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Freddie</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/03/02/the-endless-chase/comment-page-1/#comment-30481</link>
		<dc:creator>Freddie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:00:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=8619#comment-30481</guid>
		<description>This is important also as a matter of correctly understanding what did and didn&#039;t happen when it came to Prop 8. It&#039;s been a little too comforting for many supporters of gay marriage (and I am such a supporter) to say &quot;black Christians defeated it.&quot; The simple fact is that, while black Democrats voted against Prop 8 in far higher percentages than most other Democratic constituencies, even if you removed all black votes, Prop 8 squeaks by. I think part of what&#039;s going on here is that so many white California Democrats look around them, think that there is unanimity among white Californian liberals in supporting gay marriage, and so have to assume that there&#039;s some other group out there hurting Prop 8. But the fact of the matter is that a pretty healthy minority of white Democrats voted in favor of Prop 8 in California. Which leads me to suspect that a lot of them are quietly opposed to gay marriage but feel socially pressured into silence. That speaks, I think, to a certain overly optimistic strain among the members of our coalition, and to the amount of work those of us who favor same sex marriage still need to do.

Anyway-- your larger point is perfectly correct. No, recent immigrants from Mexico and middle class blacks don&#039;t largely support gay marriage. But they (correctly) interpret that single, almost entirely symbolic issue as being not nearly as important as their own economic best interest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is important also as a matter of correctly understanding what did and didn&#8217;t happen when it came to Prop 8. It&#8217;s been a little too comforting for many supporters of gay marriage (and I am such a supporter) to say &#8220;black Christians defeated it.&#8221; The simple fact is that, while black Democrats voted against Prop 8 in far higher percentages than most other Democratic constituencies, even if you removed all black votes, Prop 8 squeaks by. I think part of what&#8217;s going on here is that so many white California Democrats look around them, think that there is unanimity among white Californian liberals in supporting gay marriage, and so have to assume that there&#8217;s some other group out there hurting Prop 8. But the fact of the matter is that a pretty healthy minority of white Democrats voted in favor of Prop 8 in California. Which leads me to suspect that a lot of them are quietly opposed to gay marriage but feel socially pressured into silence. That speaks, I think, to a certain overly optimistic strain among the members of our coalition, and to the amount of work those of us who favor same sex marriage still need to do.</p>
<p>Anyway&#8211; your larger point is perfectly correct. No, recent immigrants from Mexico and middle class blacks don&#8217;t largely support gay marriage. But they (correctly) interpret that single, almost entirely symbolic issue as being not nearly as important as their own economic best interest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

