Conservatives have for decades cultivated a politics of victimhood – presenting themselves as victims of some group, usually liberal and often an oppressed minority, in order to gain sympathy for their insane beliefs and to delegitimize progressive ideas and actions. We’re witnessing it on Proposition 8 as well, and now the media is playing along. The result is a massive distortion of the true effects of Prop 8, and the normalization of support for discriminatory policy.

The specific case is that of Margie Christofferson, who quit her job as a manager at LA’s El Coyote Restaurant under pressure from activists and customers angry at her donation of $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign. Her journey from oppressor to victim has been aided by Steve Lopez of the LA Times, who wrote a deeply flawed column on Sunday casting Christofferson as a sympathetic figure:

Margie Christoffersen didn’t make it very far into our conversation before she cracked. Chest heaving, tears streaming, she reached for her husband Wayne’s hand and then mine, squeezing as if she’d never let go.

“I’ve almost had a nervous breakdown. It’s been the worst thing that’s ever happened to me,” she sobbed as curious patrons at a Farmers Market coffee shop looked on, wondering what calamity had visited this poor woman who’s an honest 6 feet tall, with hair as blond as the sun.

That sets the tone for a column that blames the victims of Prop 8 for making this poor woman cry, and Lopez isn’t above repeating disputed claims that riot police showed up at El Coyote during a recent rally. But perhaps the most troubling part of the column was Lopez’ normalization of her support for discrimination:

But I didn’t like what I was hearing about the vilification of Margie Christoffersen and others in California being targeted for the crime of voting their conscience.

“Voting our conscience” has been one of the key methods by which Prop 8 supporters have escaped responsibility for their actions or even acknowledging what Prop 8 was – an attack on the legal equality of thousands of Californians merely for their sexual orientation. When framed this way the Yes on 8 position becomes almost unassailable, immune to criticism. “They’re just voting their conscience,” we’re supposed to think, and not be allowed to ask them to face the realities of what they have done, not be allowed to criticize them for voting to take away equal rights and destroy existing marriages, and not be allowed to act with our own conscience by denying those who backed Prop 8 our patronage. Each of those acts is cast as an aggressive and hurtful act, where the oppressed are cast as oppressors.

Lopez mentions almost in passing that “thousands [of gay people] feel as though their civil rights have been violated” but their concerns and views don’t get the sob story treatment Margie Christofferson got – even though she knew full well what she was giving money for, and continues to believe that her vote for Prop 8 was the right move. As Lisa Derrick notes she has never apologized to her once-loyal customers for what she did. Obviously she feels no need to offer any such apology.

Lopez’ column writes the real victims of Prop 8 out of the story and replaces them with their victimizers. Once again GLBT Californians and their fundamental rights are treated as either deviant or invisible. The only people whose opinions matter are those who oppose gay rights, and if someone dares call it out then they become  the oppressors. Standing up for gay rights, for marriage equality, becomes itself an act of hate.

Margie Christofferson is not a sympathetic figure. She is someone in deep denial of reality, who is unwilling to reconcile her relationships with her own intolerance. It’s not the rest of Los Angeles’s job to play along with it, to enable it, to pretend as if it doesn’t exist. Doing so merely continues the decades of injustice that comes when good people do nothing and discrimination is treated as normal.

It would be nice if the traditional media would recognize this. It’s not likely that they will. Martin Luther King, Jr. may be venerated today but he was a controversial figure in his day who received FAR more criticism from the media than credit, who was told that the March on Washington was a dangerous provocation that should not be attempted. The Civil Rights Movement rightly refused to let such concern trolling stop them. We who are part of the marriage equality movement would do well to learn that lesson.

Steve Lopez has an extraordinary column in today’s LA Times about a meeting at the Silver Lake school where his daughter is about to start kindergarten:

The auditorium was packed; the mood somber. About 200 parents had come to hear what everyone knew would be disturbing news. An anticipated $180,000 budget shortfall might well cost three critically important Ivanhoe educators their positions at the school, though they might be transferred elsewhere.

The parents group at the school had summoned families to tell them the news. And to present an alternative: a public education that would no longer be free.

Get out your checkbooks, parents were told. All those wrapping-paper sales and pancake fundraisers wouldn’t be enough. We could either pony up some hard cash, or see Ivanhoe’s standing as one of L.A. Unified’s best schools threatened….

Pay $25, if that’s all you can afford, Herman said. But he pointed up to a screen encouraging parents to dig a little deeper. Those three jobs can be saved, he said, if 80 parents contribute $250 apiece, 75 contribute $500, 50 fork over $1,000, 20 give $2,000 and six bust the bank with $5,000 contributions.

Four other L.A. Unified schools have already gone this route, Herman said, citing Canyon, Wonderland Avenue, Carpenter Avenue and Mar Vista.

We’ve heard of schools holding bake sales to pay for books and materials, but never have I heard of schools fundraising to retain teachers. It’s a shocking sign of just how dire the situation facing public education has become in our state, where parents hoping that their children will receive a good education must now open their wallets to ensure it.

Lopez goes on to mention that LA Unified is expecting even worse budget problems in the coming years – $100 million this year, but perhaps as much as $350 million in the next two years. And Lopez rightly points out that not every school can fundraise:

At nearby Micheltorena Street School, where more than 90% of the students qualify for free or reduced-price meals, the principal told me that of course she can’t match that kind of parental support. She’s hoping that given the greater needs of her students, she’ll be spared harsh cuts. But like other principals, she doesn’t yet know how bad the news will be.

What is going on here is the slow and steady privatization of public education in California. Turning education from something provided to every child free of charge to something provided to those children whose parents are lucky enough to be able to afford the cost.

And if you can’t afford the cost? The implication is clear – your child will sit in a classroom of 35 students, probably won’t learn a whole lot, won’t have a very bright future.

How is this any different from a tax increase? The Vehicle License Fee would, if restored to 1998 levels, eliminate the need for any education cuts at a cost of $150 per driver. Whereas the families at Lopez’ Ivanhoe Elementary are being asked to contribute hundreds or even thousands of dollars to keep teachers in the classroom.

Lopez reports that most parents are willing to pony up for the fundraiser, for the sake of their kids. And that suggests public support for new taxes for education, instead of school-by-school fundraisers, would be popular with state voters. The alternative is the erosion of the critical promise of free education to all of our state’s children. As Lopez so well points out:

when will we ever stop playing this shell game in which politicians rise to power promising prosperity without pain, even as working folks and retirees pay through the nose?

It’s an excellent question, Steve.

Today’s column in the LA Times takes the Governor to task for his unconscionable cut of homeless services that were working and saving money, in favor of a tax loophole for Dick Ackerman’s yachting pals.  Lopez has spent lots of time on the streets of Skid Row, and gotten to know the homeless people that struggle to survive down there.  One of them, Bill Compton, died Monday, and it’s grimly ironic that this happened at the same time that the program inspired by his successful move off the streets had its funding cut.

Bill Compton’s Project Return helped pave the way for AB 2034, which, until its funding was cut by Schwarzenegger last week, was keeping nearly 5,000 people off the streets of California with a smart mix of housing and all the necessary support services.

The governor’s staff has argued that the program can be funded with other revenues, such as money from the voter-approved Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63). But state Sen. Darrell Steinberg, who introduced AB 2034 when he was in the Assembly, said the latter ploy is both illegal and a subversion of voter intent.

“I was sick to my stomach for two days,” said Steinberg, who believed until last week that the governor would be on his side, particularly since the program has substantially reduced hospitalization, incarceration and criminal justice costs for its participants.

For exciting yachting news, the flip…

Lopez then visited the Marina del Rey yacht club and did a little reporting about what was kept in the budget at the expense of getting homeless people off the streets:

If the governor was looking for savings, he could have taken his scalpel to an estimated $45-million tax break for purchases of yachts, planes and RVs.

To find out just how the break works, I called a yacht company in Marina del Rey. A sales rep told me I would have to buy the boat outside of California, but there’s a loophole available in that regard. Technically, he said, if I took ownership of the boat three miles off shore, I’d be out of the state.

In other words, if I wanted to buy a $100,000 sailboat, I would sign the contract at the shop in Marina del Rey and then navigate around the tax bite with a little vacation.

“We would effect delivery out of state, three miles out, with a hired skipper who would take you out,” the salesman explained. If I then sailed down to Mexico for 90 days, I’d avoid the sales tax of $8,250.

That’s roughly the cost, Van Horn told me, of keeping someone in the AB 2034 program for a year, if you count the matching Medi-Cal funds.

May Bill Compton rest in peace.

This is why Dick Ackerman – and Arnold Schwarzenegger – deserve the certificate of merit for being rich and not homeless.  The creativity with which they engineered yet another tax cut for the wealthy while dismissing those who are in vital need of help must be recognized with some sort of award.  There will be a special place in the afterlife for those who put this together.  I won’t say where.