Image by Megan Holmes
'Politics Get Personal' with Carrie Brownstein
Issue #19
Part 2 ... continued from Venus issue No. 19
By Tara Lombardo
Published: March 3rd, 2004 | 1:28pm
Where do you see the future of gay rights heading?
I’d like to see anyone who wants to get married be able to get married. I think that eventually this will be something that dismantles our puritanical thinking about what constitutes a marriage. Maybe we will head towards a definition that is more inclusive of all people. There are many states that actually ban it.
Right, like Mississippi.
Right. I’m hoping that the issue will be brought to the mainstream, especially with individuals challenging the state laws, like what happened in Massachusetts. If Bush decides to support or push for a constitutional ban, I think he is going to be up against a lot of opposition, and not just from the queer communities. Suddenly it will become an issue of actually amending the constitution, and amending it with the aim of further discrimination against a group of people. Those who might be against gay marriage or on the fence about it will have to think about whether we should actually mess with the constitution. It might bring some of the moderates over to the left, at least that is what I hope. Mostly, I just can’t believe that anyone can think of marriage between a man and a woman as a sacred institution anymore. Not that it shouldn’t be, but the evidence is to the contrary. People watch horrible reality TV shows that make a mockery of everything having to do with marriage. And couples are more likely to divorce than stay married. It’s not gays and lesbians that are threats to the institution of marriage, it is poverty and domestic violence and television and standards no one can live up to and widespread malaise.
There was a great cartoon in the New Yorker that depicted a straight couple watching the news. The caption read: “Gays and Lesbians getting married — haven’t they suffered enough?” I wish anyone who wants to get married, gay or straight, lots of luck.
What are your thoughts on Arnold Schwarzenegger being governor of California?
It’s embarrassing; I can’t wait until I move back to Oregon (laughs).
Really?
I don’t want to go into why I don’t like him as a politician. To me, the interesting thing about it is that politicians are always trying to convince us that they are real people, yet it almost seems more fitting, or even more honest, for an actor to step into the role of politician. Isn’t that what most mainstream politicians are doing anyway, acting? It shines a truer light on what politics are all about, which is showmanship — a way of presenting yourself, a kind of a smoke and mirrors. At this point, we’ve become accustomed to accepting someone that can simply get up there and act like a governor or act presidential, as if it’s a predetermined role that one steps into.
Anyway, Republicans are probably wetting their pants over the fact that they have a cool actor on their side. They’ll probably even change the law so that a person not born of this country can be president, which is fine by me, but it will be done with Schwarzenegger in mind.
How do you feel about the language around war, that it wasn’t a War on Iraq, it was a War on Terror … then it was Shock and Awe and Iraqi Freedom … the doublespeak that goes on and transpires into our minds — like we are not bombing Iraqis, we are liberating the country. How do you feel about the language surrounding these things?
I think the goal of this rhetoric is so that people will forget what we are actually doing over there. No one wants to think about the fact that people are dying. I think it’s easier to get people to rally behind something so broad as a war on terrorism. The wording is so generic that you can’t really say you are against terrorism. Everything is dumbed-down; they make it so unwieldy that it’s hard to stand in opposition to it. The whole rhetorical strategy of the Republicans, and of this administration is particular, is very effective. A constant use of euphemisms makes you forget that there is actually something concrete, something very real that we are doing overseas. I think this administration is also a master of the euphemism. If you listen to them long enough it can be numbing. I mean, “shock and awe?” That would have been a really good band name if Bush hadn’t thought of it first.
+ + +
Read Part 1 of the Carrie Browstein interview in Venus issue No. 19 (spring 2004 / Von Bondies cover), in which the Sleater-Kinney guitarist tells you who'd she'd choose as her presidential running mate and her proposal to ban the concept of "super-size."
Check out Sleater-Kinney's new site, sleater-kinney.com.
Comments
Please login to be able to comment on this article.
more