Magazine Article	Articles Archive

Across the country, hopeful bumper stickers proclaim '1/20/09 -- End of an Error,' a reference to the inauguration date of the next president and a comment on the political dark ages of the past eight years.

Given the Bush administration's hostility to civil rights -- and indeed, to the rule of law -- gay people have a special interest in the outcome of November's elections. We asked four contributors to comment on what a new president will mean and what will be needed to make January 20, 2009, the beginning of a better era for us.

View our poll archive

Would an Obama victory open travel vistas?

Richard Brower

Recent events remind us that tourism is a volatile industry. Terrorism and the fear-engendered restrictions it prompts, rising fuel prices, shifting currency values, and a tottering airline industry all can affect travel.

With all these forces at work, it may come as a surprise that the world of gay travel is considerably more stable. According to a study by Harris Interactive and Witeck-Combs Communications, despite an economy teetering into recession, "more lesbians and gays plan travel" and "cut back spending less than heterosexual travelers." Another similar study in 2002 found that after the terrorist attacks, gays and lesbians were the first in line to get back on planes and start traveling again.

So, how will the November presidential election effect gay travel?

A win for Obama could augur well for tourism. If his tax breaks help the economy and his commitment to new energy becomes a reality, more travel opportunities will arise. Biden's experience in international affairs might help ease visa restrictions and create a more open, welcoming America. Obama's convention commitment to making America better respected in the global community could translate into overseas visitors and an economic boost.

A win for McCain would most likely see few changes in the world of travel. His alignment with Bush's "secure borders" policies and his conservative economic policies will most likely mean that the global community will see a vote for McCain as a vote for Bush -- and will cause respect for America to fall even further.

GLBT travel is likely to feel different if Obama wins. It could mean going out in Brazil or Spain and not having to endure terse political discussions about why the U.S. government makes it so difficult to get a visa. An Obama victory might include an increased ability to travel under new economic principles, and new airlines and flight routes to take us to India, South Africa, and New Zealand.

A win for McCain would likely mean another four years of trying to explain to people in a bar in Paris why the American people are so conservative.

GLBT tourism will survive and grow whatever the election's outcome, but many would no doubt find a shifting of the political winds pleasant.

Richard Brower has a master's in Tourism Administration from George Washington University and works for the International Gay & Lesbian Travel Association.

And what did you do on your summer vacation?

Kaj Hasselriis

For years, so-called "voluntourists" have been flooding into developing countries, sacrificing precious holiday time to help build schools and dig wells.

This year, the country that needs a hand is the United States. But the problem isn't lack of infrastructure. It's the government. Thanks to the mismanagement of George Bush and his right-wing cabal, there's a new industry popping up in the U.S.: political tourism. And there are an awful lot of Canadians signing up.

Earlier this year, I became a political tourism pioneer when I gave up my winter holiday to drive from Ottawa to New Hampshire and campaign in the state's Democratic primary. For a week and half, I knocked on doors and worked the phones for John Edwards. In exchange, his campaign gave me all the pizza I could handle along with a totally cool crash pad. I got to stay at the home of one of Edwards's top supporters: Joe Foster, the state's senate majority leader.

I decided to make the trip because I felt the U.S. needed a strong, progressive presidential candidate who could kick the Republicans out of the White House. Not just for the good of your country, but for my own country and the rest of the world, too.

Turns out I wasn't the only Canadian who felt the same way, and acted as I did. While I was struggling over snowbanks in New Hampshire to spread the word about Edwards, I met another guy from Ottawa who came down to support Barack Obama. I also ran into a couple of political junkies from southern Ontario. One day, we teamed up to tour the state and catch as many campaign rallies as possible. I wound up seeing Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and even Mike Huckabee.

Ever since I got back, my Canadian friends have been asking for advice on how they, too, can sign for a stint as political tourists. As a result, my pal Alex flew to Philadelphia to help Clinton win the gay vote in the Pennsylvania primary. My buddy Brent and a group of his friends got in touch with the Obama campaign, so they're heading down to Milwaukee for a couple of weeks in October. And just the other day, another friend, Pierric, called to ask how he can hook up with Obama, too.

So, what's my advice? When I first decided to go down to the States, I thought I would need contacts. I tried to get in touch with U.S. acquaintances who have connections to politicians and parties. That went nowhere, so I went online and discovered that the campaigns are actually eager to recruit volunteers from abroad. I filled out a form on Edwards's website and within 24 hours, a volunteer coordinator got in touch with me. She thanked me and told me where to go and where to stay. That's exactly what happened when Alex went to Clinton's site and Brent visited Obama's.

I'm sure you'd have the same experience. So what are you waiting for? Save the U.S. from four more years of war, recession, and gay-baiting. Wherever you live in the world, make a run for the border or your airport and help a progressive candidate run for office.

Kaj Hasselriis is a writer and political junkie living in Canada.

Kristian Williams

The real significance of the 2008 elections quite probably lies, not with the victory of one candidate over the other, but in the wave of liberal disappointment that will almost certainly follow -- no matter who wins.

If McCain wins, then we'll face the unpleasant prospect of another four years of Republican administration. But if Obama wins, liberals are likely to be even more disappointed.

Obama has urged hope, and has raised expectations. And many of the public, desperate after eight years of Bush's misrule, have projected onto the candidate their own opinions and aspirations -- whether in terms of the economy, or foreign policy, or civil liberties, or health care or gay rights. But those who pin their hopes on the Democrats are sure to be frustrated -- at the very least, with the pace of change, but also, likely, with its scale, and perhaps even with its direction.

A few blocks from where I live, in a traditionally Black neighborhood in Portland, Oregon, there's a street vendor selling Obama t-shirts. One of these shirts features the famous photograph of Malcolm X shaking hands with Martin Luther King, Jr.; Barack Obama has been digitally inserted into the picture, standing with the historic Black leaders.

There is literally nothing that he can do to live up to that image.

And he knows it, whether his fans do or not. During the Democratic primaries the candidates were asked who King would endorse if he were alive today. Obama replied:

"Well, I don't think Dr. King would endorse any of us. I think what he would call upon the American people to do is to hold us accountable.... [C]hange does not happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up.... Arguing, mobilizing, agitating, and ultimately forcing elected officials to be accountable, I think that's the key."

Good answer.

If we want social change -- for sexual liberation, civil rights, workers' rights, environmental protection, or ending the war -- we need to recognize it won't happen by cheerleading our favorite candidate or trusting him to do the right thing once elected. We need to apply pressure. Lots of pressure. Act-Up-style pressure. Stonewall-style pressure. After the election.

Disappointment is practically inevitable. The question is whether it will manifest in outrage or apathy. Will people take to the streets, or turn inward? Will they give up on politicians, or will they give up on politics altogether?

The answer doesn't depend on the candidates or their parties. It's up to us.

Change is possible, but only if social movements present real alternatives to post-election passivity. We can't afford to wait four more years and then try the same pointless ritual again.

Kristian Williams is the author of Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America and American Methods: Torture and the Logic of Domination (both from South End Press).

Yasmin Nair

"Lunch-bucket Joe." The term's being used to describe Joe Biden, and it emerges breathlessly from the lips of Democrats thrilled at having found someone who can, supposedly, represent the working-class stiff whose vote once seemed locked in favor of Hillary Clinton. That would be Clinton of the "Sisterhood of the traveling (raw silk) pantsuits," the millionaire who downed shots to demonstrate her connection to the boys in the working class.

On the Republican side, we have the spectacle of John McCain, who can't remember how many houses he owns, at Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in a checked shirt and a baseball cap declaring that he prefers the sound of 150 Harleys to the applause of Berliners (after Obama's overseas tour). John McCain, biker dude.

Obama, who has the temerity to speak well in English, is being criticized for not being folksy enough in his speeches. In a recent New York Times op-ed, Roger Cohen reports standing next to a man at a January rally who kept correcting the candidate's use of "isn't": "Ain't right, Barack, ain't right."

So here we are. Forty-six million Americans are uninsured, and 37.3 million live in poverty. And our biggest concern about the Presidential candidates is whether or not they can speak authentically like, and to, the "average Joe."

This is class in drag. Our sentimentality about the "working class" allows us to forget the depth of the inequality we face. To speak of the "working class" allows us to forget that many of are just plain poor. Class categories have always been fictitious signposts on the highway to a vaunted class mobility, the kind that allows us to imagine ourselves as different from snooty Europeans or caste-bound Asians. Ironically, most of those dubbed "lunch-bucket Joes," would probably rather see themselves as "middle-class." But nobody identifies themselves as poor, despite ample evidence that poverty is on the rise.

When we argue about which candidate speaks for the working man, we're conveniently forgetting that only the elites can afford to run for office these days. Sadly, it's the conservative George Will who put it precisely when he said, and I paraphrase, that Americans ought to stop being sentimental about being ruled by elites and simply ask themselves which elites might rule.

To speak of the "lunch-bucket crowd" is just one more way to distance ourselves from the realities of inequality. The figure of the working-class man can be taken up with impunity by men like Biden who've spent most of their lives in the privileged halls of power. It haunts a candidate like Obama, who must prove that he's not black like Jesse Jackson but can talk like a working-class white man.

Will we ever get beyond our sentimental attachment to a caricature of the lunch-bucket Joes and actually address the issue of inequality? It ain't gonna happen -- unless we realize that allowing Washington elites to dress up as the "rest of us" under the guise of effecting change is as bad as the "rest of us" forgetting that we're often actually poor.

Yasmin Nair is a writer and activist based in Chicago. Her work can be found at Yasminnair.net.