Three Sonorans Might Actually Have a Point Here

By Tom Prezelski
Re-posted from Rum, Romanism and Rebellion

So, anyway, last week, David “Three Sonorans” Morales posted this on his Facebook page:

At first, I saw this and wanted to respond by pointing out that David’s memory seems to be too short for him to recall the Democratic opposition to SB1070 and HB2281. But then, I realized that, though his comments about Democrats are unfair and not based in historical fact, he may have stumbled upon an ugly truth regarding the outrage over SB1062, the latest manifestation of ugly bigotry from the legislature.

First, we have to realize that, though bigotry is inherently evil, the way that this evil manifests itself against any given community is unique and rooted in a particular history. The bigotry against Mexicans and Mexican-Americans that drove SB1070 has its roots in, among other things, economic anxiety, misconceptions about this region’s history, a fear of the loss of political power and concerns about crime. The “facts” upon which these are based are often spurious, exaggerated or out of context, but at least there is some sort of negligible substance there to argue.

Bigotry against homosexuals, which is what is behind SB1062, is different. It is largely about squeamishness over what other people might be doing. There can be no pretense that this is about anything as important as preserving jobs for good Americans or combating brutal gangs because it clearly is not.

Anti-gay rhetoric is obsessed with sex. Though we certainly hear this less often than we did in the 1980s and 90s, conservatives still have a habit of making graphic, sometimes scatological references to what they imagine gays might be doing in the privacy of their bedrooms. During my time in the legislature, one Mesa Republican notoriously kept a stash of gay porn in her desk, ready to deploy as props during floor debate as an illustration of what she viewed as the depravity of homosexuality. Notwithstanding the number of ostensibly tough, macho dudes who live in fear of being buggered, its called homophobia for a reason, after all, even the most eloquent anti-gay activist is basically arguing, in the words of political philosopher Joe Bob Briggs, “we heard what you gays are doing, and we don’t like it.”

In other words, while the bigotry behind SB1070 was ignorant, the bigotry behind SB1062 is irrational. It can be argued that this is a distinction without a difference, and that it is not simply coincidental that movement conservatives embrace both, but it does begin to explain why the reaction to the two bills has been different.

Anti-gay bigotry is largely about what other people are doing, so it is easy to argue against legislation like SB1062 from a live and let live perspective, particularly in an age when gay culture is being mainstreamed and the case for legalized discrimination starts looking a little silly. In contrast, the case against sB1070 is in some ways harder to make. Anglo suburban anxiety about immigration is reenforced by largely stereotypical and negative portrayals of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the media, and cross-border crime is a very real problem, so the hate behind legislation like SB1070 becomes all too easy to rationalize.

Of course, this does not fully explain the differences between the reactions to the two bills. In 2010, the organized business community expressed misgivings about the substance of SB1070 and the bill’s possible negative effects on the political debate and Arizona’s image as a state, but were unwilling to press the issue any further. In contrast, most business organizations (with the notable exception, as of this writing, of The Tucson Metro Chamber) as well as many prominent Republicans, are calling for a veto of SB1062, and this seems an active possibility. Four years ago, Governor Brewer was facing what seemed to be a tough re-election fight, and the possibility that the Executive Tower would again be occupied by a Democrat seemed too much for the chambers and the Republican establishment to stomach, and dabbling in apartheid was seen as an acceptable price to keep her in office. Now, Brewer is not up for re-election, and everybody, still smarting from the bad press that SB1070 brought us, is concerned about the damage to Arizona’s image and the Republican “brand” that such clearly bigoted legislation will bring. Or perhaps, they have finally decided that this has all gone too far, in which case, this seems too little, too late.

But then again, if this were truly driven by a desire to turn the corner and shake our image as a haven for bigotry, one would suspect that they would be willing to do something to reverse the damage that SB1070 did to our state, but we have no such luck. An effort by Senator Steve Gallardo (D-Phoenix) to repeal SB1070 has received no support from Republicans or the business community, and has been met with the same dismissive ridicule from the press that the law’s opponents were subjected to four years ago, when the state’s major newspapers were more willing to rail against 1070′s critics than the bill itself. By the same token, the silence from these quarters regarding efforts to require taxpayers to pay the legal bills of SB1070′s sponsors seems to imply that they are still okay with the law.

There are welcome signs that SB1062 will vetoed. The widespread public outrage over this evil bill is heartening, and gives great hope to those of us who have been fighting for change for years. Unfortunately, there remain troublesome signs that some bigotry remains acceptable.

Comments

[Bob Lord]

Tom, go back to the 90's and the early 00s and look at how Democrats, especially Democratic leaders, were handling DOMA and state level initiatives opposing same sex marriage. Even ENDA had trouble getting full throated D support.

It's not the difference between 1070 and 1062, but the difference in the political environments surrounding them. More and more, the political battlefield these days is over abortion rights and LGBT rigths, with centrist Ds anxious to show their progressive cred to their base by taking strong positions on those issues, while quietly cozying up to corporate America on issues of economic justice.

So, it's not that folks are less outraged at bigotry towards Latinos than they are at bigotry towards gays and lesbians. It's just that speaking out against bigotry towards gays and lesbians is really safe territory for D politicians right now.

[Thucydides]

The sentiments behind SB1070 were well informed and extremely concerned about low income minotities. Look what has happened since SB1070 has passed. Rolling 12 month Murders in Phoenix have plunged from 340 to 109. When you do a surname and census code analysis of the lives saved, 83% are low income hispanics.

Arizona auto thefts have plunged from 50,000 to 25,000. When you analyze these cars not stolen, 43% would have been from low income Hispanics.

Child auto fatalities have plunged from 140 to 74, the equivalent of three Sandy Hook massacres. Half of these would have been Hispanic children.

This is why polls consistently showed Hispanic support for these neighborhood protection efforts.

These are astonishing stats that never made it into trial because Arpaios staff don't know their own stats and don't have murder, car theft and drunk driving deaths for Maricopa county.

If you and I have our car stolen, its an insurance claim. When a poor person has their car stolen, it can be catastrophic- loss of job, disintegration of family.

[AZ Independent]

Net zero immigration from Mexico has more to do with the changing statistical numbers (if they are valid) Thucydides. Sonora is experiencing 7% economic growth. Arizona's economic growth is anemic and self inflicted. This article is nothing more than a Democratic Apologists spin on 1070. There aren't shades of bigotry. Sb1070 and the Ethnic Studies ban were rooted in bigotry. Look at the authors and main supporters. AZ also had access to the Federal database and was planning on cashing in on warehousing migrants. NOW everyone is concerned because they moved on from the Mexican bashing that Democrats didn't have a problem with. -AZ Independent

[Tom Prezelski]

Thucydidies:

1) As an underemployed Mexican-American, I would like to thank you for letting me know that a law which gave the police license to harass my friends, family and neighbors, was what was really good for me. I am obviously not white or affluent enough to think for myself.

2) I think the racist rhetoric that led up to SB1070, and the bigoted animus of its most fervent supporters speaks for itself.

3)The statistics you cite not only assume an awful lot, but fail to take into account that much of the substance of SB1070 never actually took effect because it was deemed unconstitutional. This, in and of itself, makes it a bad law.

4)I know of no polling data that shows "consistent Hispanic support" for SB1070. The most comprehensive poll about Latino views toward SB1070 in Arizona was from Latino Decisions (link to a story about it here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127105843) which showed that the law was supported by a substantial minority of Latinos. Perhaps this is what you mean by "consistent," but it is not the view of a broad majority who see is an attack on them.

AZ Independent:

1) If you think that I was saying there are "shades" of bigotry then you did not read the article. Read it again.

2) I am unaware of who these Democrats were who actively supported SB1070. There were some who did not do enough, and some who ran from the issue when they should not have, but none actually supported it. If you think that Democrats did not have a problem with "Mexican bashing" then I suggest that you go back to 2010 and see how much grief Congressman Grijalva, Sheriff Dupnik and other elected Democrats took for their advocacy against SB1070.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

"Full-throated support' by Democrats on a social issue? I'm still waiting to see it, waiting to see the Democratic Party NOT being 'behind the curve' on these issues. (Remember, both main candidates in 2008 were adamant -- still -- that 'marriage was between one man and one woman.' And that goes for the Heir Presumptive as well. It was only after she became Secretary of State that she began to 'reevaluate' her position -- which is why I'd much rather see her successor, Sen. Gillibrand -- who 'landed fighting' once she had a whole state to represent -- as the choice in 2016.)

We don't use the social issues. Even on abortion, when is the last time that you heard a Democrat argue not that it was a 'privilege' given to 'victims' (of disease as well as rape and incest) but a right belonging to all women. (And that even if the right is misused, it still remains a person's right the same way as Fred Phelps' right to speech remains even after his own misuse.) On LGBT matters, yes, the 'we were born that way' helped win votes -- but it really doesn't matter. We weren't 'born that way' as far as religion goes, (though our upbringing and parental view of religion affects us) but we retain the rights a specific religion gives even if we are a convert.

And we don't condemn bigots specifically for being bigots. (There is a gentleman named Bryan Fisher that many of you may know, who has converted the AFA from a simple pro-censorship organization into a full-fledged all purpose hate group. Fisher regularly has Republican legislators and candidates as guests on the show, including major members of the Leadership -- if "Republican Leadership" has not become an oxymoron. I'm still waiting for the first Democratic candidate to condemn his opponent for appearing with Fisher, and it is purely a dream that a Democrat would get a Republican to condemn his own leadership for giving Fisher the credibility of their presence on his guest list.)

How would such an aggressive 'put Republicans on the defensive' strategy hurt us? Would it turn off even a few votes that we had a chance of winning anyway? Or would it encourage a lot of disgusted, hopeless blue dots in the reddest part of your -- or any -- state, maybe enough that they'd vote and, if not defeat the candidate attacked, maybe swing a few down ballot (or up ballot) contests simply by showing up and voting. (*cough* *cough* Carmona?)

[Jana]

Bob, I don't interpret Three Sonorans' post as literally as you do. I think he is criticizing exactly what you point out: that it is safe for Dems to speak out about bigotry toward LGBTs, but not as safe for them to speak out against bigotry against Mexicans and Mexican Americans.

As Tom points out in his comment, "There were some who did not do enough, and some who ran from the issue when they should not have...." Given that Mexican American voters are overwhelmingly Democrats, that's an understatement.

Arizona Dems have not spoken out enough on SB1070 and HB2281. That is a badge of shame that the party must wear.

[Bob Lord]

Yeah, I think we're all making the same general point. The difference in the way Dem leaders have handled 1062 and 1070 doesn't reflect a difference in attitudes towards LGBTs vs. Latinos, but differing political calculations. When they think it's better to be politically craven on issues involving LGBT rights, like in the 90s, they'll be just as craven as they were about 1070.

[Jana]

Maybe our points are different in an important way. You bring up the intersection of attitudes toward the particular group and political cowardice. Is it possible that changes in attitude is what drives a change in political expediency? I agree that the expediency factor re: LGBT equality was very different in the 90s than today. But I also believe that attitudes toward LGBTs were different in the 90s, too. It is only recently that many people accept that denying same sex couples the right to marry amounts to treating similarly situated people differently without sufficient governmental justification. In the 90s most people thought that either the government was justified in discriminating or that same sex couples were not similarly situated. The attitude was different and the outrage was not there. I think that political expediency follows the outrage.

So the question is, do different attitudes towards LGBTs and Latinos explain the difference in political expediency? And is there a class dimension?

Some theorize that the nation would be up in arms if white communities had the rate of incarceration of their young men as do African American and Latino communities. Is it the new Jim Crow or merely the result of a higher proportion of minorities committing crimes? When people see it as inequitable treatment, their attitudes will change and it will be politically expedient to address the issue.

[Pamela]

Two things that are missing from this conversation are:

1- This is 2014, not 2010. A lot has happened since the Arizona Republican Party rode the passage of SB1070 and the Tea Party Revolution into office in 2010. Back in 2010-- as Ted Prezelski said on Facebook-- the "smart money" told Democratic Party candidates side-step immigration and SB1070 as an issue. Given the corporate money that was plowed into the Tea Party astro turf movement, would Goddard and the other Democratic Party statewide candidates still have lost if they had come out strong against the anti-immigrant bills? Maybe. Who knows?

Since the 2010 Tea Party Revolution, the Tea Party on the state and national levels have shown us how stupid and closed-minded they are. They have largely discredited themselves with their actions. This has resulted in the defection of Republicans like Steve Kozachik and Paula Pennypacker to the Democratic Party. Thanks to voter suppression and extreme gerrymandering in purple states (like Ohio and Pennsylvania), they are holding onto power.

2- Gays and Lesbians are *VERY* active in the Democratic Party as volunteers, donors, candidates, party officers, and VOTERS. The LGBT community is highly organized, and they have had some big wins in the past year, which would naturally bolster their enthusiasm to go after the bigots in the Legislature. Immigrants-- not so much. Immigrants-- particularly the undocumented-- have almost no political clout.

That said-- women are also *VERY* active in the Democratic Party as volunteers, donors, candidates, party officers, and VOTERS. Where was everyone in 2013 when Tea Party Legislatures around the country were passing the anti-woman bills? (To jog your memory-- forced vaginal ultrasound, reporting your contraceptive use to your employer, businesses denying contraception and women's healthcare on the basis of religion, etc.)

Raul Grijalva and Krysten Sinema were the primary politicians who weighed in early on the War on Women. Locally-- just a handful of bloggers-- like the AZBlueMeanie, Donna Gratehouse, and me-- carried the torch. There was no War on Women march in Tucson, and a disappointing ~200-300 showed up in Phoenix to protest. I don't think the stories made the Arizona Daily Star, and on Facebook, the War on Women was primarily covered by women's groups and PDA.

[Jana]

The issue I raise is whether attitudes of Dems are sufficiently attuned to bigotry against Chicanos. Pam makes my point. She sees the lack of voice against 1070 as attributed to the marginalized voices of immigrants. She demonstrates the problem that some Dems see the issue merely as a problem for immigrants and are blind to the fact that it is a problem for Chicanos, a huge portion of their base.

I applaud her excellent coverage of the war against women, but fail to see the complaint, nor the comparison to SB 1070. The reaction by Dems to the Repubs anti-woman agenda was sure, swift and effective. There was no need for people in the streets, so why bring
It up?

But what if the "smart money" told Dems to "sidestep" the women's issue. Would that be acceptable?

[Bob Lord]

I see your point. I was focusing on elected Dem officials and giving them the benefit of the doubt that they themselves were not bigoted. But underlying their actions, albeit indirectly, likely are differences in the underlying attitude of their constituents. So, yeah, when you get to the bottom of it, it is an attitudinal thing. Thanks for clarifying.

[Pamela]

Women are the largest oppressed majority minority in the US. More women (and their children) live in poverty than any other group. Women are chronically underemployed and underpaid. We suffer from institutionalized sexism, wage discrimination, and violence-- yet the ERA languishes, Food Stamps are cut, and the gun laws keep getting looser. Women come in all colors--including brown. YOU are blind to the fact that sexism and misogyny are problems that have been ignored too long, and YOU were silent when your buds were accused of endemic misconduct toward women (an issue that I raised and asked about *years* before it finally came out in 2012-13).

"The reaction by Dems to the Repubs anti-woman agenda was sure, swift and effective." I totally disagree. The fight continues. Brewer, 3 Democrats, and all of the Republicans in the Legislature have signed a fetal personhood pledge to fight for the rights of pre-born above anything else, including the health of the mother. That is a life and death issue that is being almost completely ignored.

[Jana]

I had in mind a few discrete incidents with my "sure, swift and effective" comment and should not have given the impression that I believe the anti-woman agenda is over. I agree that it is not. So we also agree that Dems do not sufficiently recognize bigotry against women and Chicanos. Right?

Nice to be on the same side. :)