I’m really pulling for Buttigieg or Kelly. I think I like Buttigieg just slightly better, but Kelly - Gabi, rather - pulls the rug out from under most who would try to make political hay out of the assassination attempt. A cynical take, I know, but keeping the white house matters. Kelly is also a fucking astronaut who looks like Mr Clean. It really makes an immediate mockery of any ‘strongman’ rhetoric coming from a geriatric sleaze ball and a paunchy tech douche who, admittedly has eyes that are limpid glistening pools framed in dusk.
Buttigieg being gay is unfortunately a huge strike against him because in the international community, the acceptance of gay folk is still not there. Many countries still have some very strict laws against being gay and that complicates things.
But man, that guy is a wolf. Watching him deal with hecklers or just debating someone, he’s just a straight up shark. He can smell the blood and wreck someone in one bite.
I get this concern, but only to a point. How does this risk manifest itself in reality?
Consider:
What kind of foreign policy role is a Harris VP likely to play? Maybe a lot, though not sure what Mayor Pete brings to the table here, much as I love him
Who are the countries that are going to risk offending the United States of America by snubbing (at best) their deputy head of state? Are they going to stop trading with us? Who are these economic powerhouses?
If the USA, the largest economy on the planet, containing within us states that would themselves be among the largest economies on the planet, with military spending that literally dwarfs the next ten countries combined, if that country -modern economic empire, really- can’t risk having an openly gay deputy head of state, how is it that San Marino (91% Christian), Latvia (64% Christian), Serbia (87% Christian), Iceland, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Ireland1 are all able to weather the international uproar? Is it because they have less to lose?
I actually think the US is lagging much of the rest of the developed world, but even if that weren’t the case, no one is better positioned to set an example than we are, and, y’know, shining city on a hill, and all that.
Well, yeah. As much as I push back on the idea that homophobia makes him a liability internationally, I fully agree that it is problematic for him domestically. At least in comparison to Kelly.
I really, really like Buttigieg. He is a Sorkinian democrat. That is, closest to the type of politician romanticized in The West Wing. That kind of portrayal is often derided as naive these days, but I think it is closest to the ideal of what this country needs at the moment. So he is, if not a true Sorkinian democrat, than at least the first of a generation of politicians who was clearly raised on the West Wing. And he’s got the goods, rhetorically speaking, to let that influence make an impact. He’s a better leader and closer to what I’d like in a future president, but Kelly is going to do better in this election.
The bigger issue is that even Buttigieg doesn’t think that the American electorate is ready for a gay VP. It would be an especially big risk when the presidential candidate is not white and not male. The all-out racists and sexists are already going for Trump, but the swing voters demographic is going to contain a lot of people who are uneasy about a candidate who isn’t a straight, white, protestant man.
It seems to me like she’s going to have to “balance the ticket” with a conventional straight, white, protestant man with a conventional nuclear family.
Besides, as great at debates Buttigieg may be, he’s been pretty disappointing as secretary of transportation. On his watch there were plenty of airlines doing bad things, and trans getting derailed. There were opportunites for him to step in and do something, but largely he didn’t do much of anything.
If we’re worried about the international community, simply having a woman in charge will offend a large part of the world.
But, IMO, as long as the secretary of state is a straight white man, you don’t have to worry too much unless you have to work with those leaders one-on-one.
She was the titular head of state, but she wasn’t actually the leader. Thatcher was another matter, and I’m sure that caused all kinds of problems with a lot of male-dominated cultures.
I’m really pulling for Buttigieg or Kelly. I think I like Buttigieg just slightly better, but Kelly - Gabi, rather - pulls the rug out from under most who would try to make political hay out of the assassination attempt. A cynical take, I know, but keeping the white house matters. Kelly is also a fucking astronaut who looks like Mr Clean. It really makes an immediate mockery of any ‘strongman’ rhetoric coming from a geriatric sleaze ball and a paunchy tech douche who, admittedly has eyes that are limpid glistening pools framed in dusk.
Buttigieg being gay is unfortunately a huge strike against him because in the international community, the acceptance of gay folk is still not there. Many countries still have some very strict laws against being gay and that complicates things.
But man, that guy is a wolf. Watching him deal with hecklers or just debating someone, he’s just a straight up shark. He can smell the blood and wreck someone in one bite.
I get this concern, but only to a point. How does this risk manifest itself in reality?
Consider:
What kind of foreign policy role is a Harris VP likely to play? Maybe a lot, though not sure what Mayor Pete brings to the table here, much as I love him
Who are the countries that are going to risk offending the United States of America by snubbing (at best) their deputy head of state? Are they going to stop trading with us? Who are these economic powerhouses?
If the USA, the largest economy on the planet, containing within us states that would themselves be among the largest economies on the planet, with military spending that literally dwarfs the next ten countries combined, if that country -modern economic empire, really- can’t risk having an openly gay deputy head of state, how is it that San Marino (91% Christian), Latvia (64% Christian), Serbia (87% Christian), Iceland, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Ireland1 are all able to weather the international uproar? Is it because they have less to lose?
I actually think the US is lagging much of the rest of the developed world, but even if that weren’t the case, no one is better positioned to set an example than we are, and, y’know, shining city on a hill, and all that.
1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_openly_LGBT_heads_of_state_and_government
Hopefully you’re right and she picks him?
I don’t know. Even the homophobia within the USA is problematic to her.
Well, yeah. As much as I push back on the idea that homophobia makes him a liability internationally, I fully agree that it is problematic for him domestically. At least in comparison to Kelly.
I really, really like Buttigieg. He is a Sorkinian democrat. That is, closest to the type of politician romanticized in The West Wing. That kind of portrayal is often derided as naive these days, but I think it is closest to the ideal of what this country needs at the moment. So he is, if not a true Sorkinian democrat, than at least the first of a generation of politicians who was clearly raised on the West Wing. And he’s got the goods, rhetorically speaking, to let that influence make an impact. He’s a better leader and closer to what I’d like in a future president, but Kelly is going to do better in this election.
The international community doesn’t get to vote.
The bigger issue is that even Buttigieg doesn’t think that the American electorate is ready for a gay VP. It would be an especially big risk when the presidential candidate is not white and not male. The all-out racists and sexists are already going for Trump, but the swing voters demographic is going to contain a lot of people who are uneasy about a candidate who isn’t a straight, white, protestant man.
It seems to me like she’s going to have to “balance the ticket” with a conventional straight, white, protestant man with a conventional nuclear family.
Besides, as great at debates Buttigieg may be, he’s been pretty disappointing as secretary of transportation. On his watch there were plenty of airlines doing bad things, and trans getting derailed. There were opportunites for him to step in and do something, but largely he didn’t do much of anything.
The international community may not get a vote, but you also have to keep “how will he be perceived with other world leaders” in mind.
But I think you’re right, she kinda needs a straight white man to appeal to the broader audience
If we’re worried about the international community, simply having a woman in charge will offend a large part of the world.
But, IMO, as long as the secretary of state is a straight white man, you don’t have to worry too much unless you have to work with those leaders one-on-one.
Ehhhhh Queen Elizabeth II was plenty leader enough for them, but you might not be wrong.
She was the titular head of state, but she wasn’t actually the leader. Thatcher was another matter, and I’m sure that caused all kinds of problems with a lot of male-dominated cultures.
His makeup game is on point. I assume the couch helped him out.