Quoth Jim D, in part:
> So instead of saying "we're in favor of the family" and then redefining the
> "family" as any set of two or more individuals who live together (or
> whatever), the point is that we're in favor of helping and protecting
> children, providing health care to everyone (whether they're in a "family"
> or not, whether they're "domestic partners" or not), etc. Of course such a
> program cannot simply be [im]posed on the scattered and small
> insurgent-left-progressive-populist-socialist-feminist-antiracist
> movements. It has to be agreed to democratically.
Establishing policy tie-ins is the least of it, Jim. Remember first of
all that the heartland image of "the leftists" has not changed since the
Sixties; away from the coasts the term still evokes druggy long-hairs
spitting on returning vets and fucking in public at Woodstock. The folks
get sandbagged with these recycled images before the real meaning of Marx
ever gets to the floor. Why not let them know that - Guess what? - they
have no monopoly on familial origins: We all came from two properly
gendered humans that we still see on holidays, we know who our siblings
are, and quite a few of us have started families of our own that we
wouldn't be ashamed to let conservatives see.
No kidding, class, if you don't tell them, they'll just never know or
suspect, and the Madison Avenue washouts who control their political
consciousness will just go on winning by default!
valis
