2 weeks Ago
There is a painful but needed discussion happening in the progressive left. This is sparked by senatorial candidate Heidi Mendoza’s qualified no to same-sex marriage and other progressive issues like anti-discrimination for sexual minorities via the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (Sogie) bill, divorce, and abortion. Mendoza has otherwise been a stalwart candidate, an independent running on a consistent track record of rooting out corruption and making government accountable.
With no dynasty or district bulwark and minimal campaign funding compared to her rivals, she has been championed as the ideal candidate for decency. Her socially conservative stance thus leaves a conundrum for a voting sector that has long been wanting systemic changes in governance. Progressive politics, both here and in other democratic countries, have an inherent problem: we’re not as easily united compared to conservatives.
By virtue of our diversity, we hold varying advocacies and causes depending on our personal experience. While some want to focus on dismantling political dynasties, others prefer to spend their efforts on securing civil rights and liberties for minority and disenfranchised groups. While some prefer working on the ground and helping one community after another, others prefer a macro approach and address policy directly.
The definition of a progressive is someone who desires change, but the direction of these changes can differ greatly. Sometimes their goals overlap, and they are incompatible with one another. Conservatives, on the other hand, have a simpler goal: to resist change and preserve tradition.
Especially if what they are preserving is already the status quo and thus endowed with power and authority, resistance simply means holding the line. In politics, this can be in the form of vetoes and ensuring that bills do not pass. Saying no, after all, is a lot easier than coming up with new ideas.
As embodied by Mendoza, one can be progressive in some areas and conservative in others. She runs strongly on an anti-corruption and anti-traditional politics (trapo) campaign but fails to extend her fight toward causes that come in conflict with her faith. Original supporters laud her honesty with her stance, saying it is a principled stand and that she is not trying to merely court LGBTQIA+ votes, something that trapos would do.
(Though I question if there is even such a thing as pandering to the LGBTQIA+ vote since we certainly do not have a history of securing strong champions in the legislature. Case in point: the Sogie bill has been languishing for over 20 years.) When some progressive voters withdrew their support due to her socially conservative stance, her supporters pleaded to vote for “the greater good.
” That there are more important battles to be had: that preserving democracy is more important than securing civil rights for sexual minorities; that there is no point in fighting for same-sex marriage if the price of goods and cost of living become exorbitant. Some even belabored that this is why the progressives or the left do not win elections because we allow our differences to divide us. Systemic change happens when there is collective action.
So yes, there is a strong element of unity that is needed, especially to secure a win in the election. However, collective action does not mean deferring or silencing minority voices or concerns for the sake of the “greater good.” As the side of the political spectrum that advocates for social justice, it is disingenuous to dismiss minority oppression as simply a difference in belief or opinion.
Conservatives will definitely not fight for sexual minorities. It is saddening that progressives are considering setting them aside for the sake of winning. That kind of compromise is a slippery slope.
What other causes are we willing to defer or set aside as the race for a political seat becomes more desperate? Instead of trying to become a block-voting conservative, we must embrace the nature of progressivism and make space for a plurality of advocacies. We should resist the urge for causes to compete with one another. If we truly believe and fight for social justice, we must understand that injustice toward one is injustice toward all.
We must dialogue with candidates who claim to be on the side of justice and that civil rights cannot be selective. We must impress the importance of inclusivity and going beyond our personal experience so that we can truly represent all Filipinos, Christian or otherwise. We don’t cancel.
We also don’t compromise. We dialogue. We continue to have these conversations because we cannot afford not to.
What good is the greater good if we simply become the lesser evil? Since the writing of this article, senatorial candidate Mendoza released a statement that she will not get in the way of same-sex unions becoming law and that she will continue to learn how to support the community. —————- [email protected] Subscribe to our daily newsletter By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .
.
