I think Stephen Miller might be letting partisanship eclipse his more characteristic common sense, similar to the way the partisanship of Nicholas Confessore and Michael Barbaro short circuits their ability to put together a reasonable thought for their article in the NYTimes. (And I apologize to Stephen for the unkind comparison, but friends don’t let friends rely too uncritically on the NYT). Any focus on liberals or Democrats misses the most important point of this story.
The heart of the problem for both Stephen and the NYT is the glaring use of the word “unexpected” in the article’s lede:
As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes.
In New York’s incestuous thinking, it probably is unexpected that conservative financiers would want to spend money supporting same-sex marriage. That, after all, comes right out of the dominant theology of the left – that donors to the Republican party actually want what the religious right says they ought to want.
But while the religious right and those wealthy donors share a party, they do not share an ideology, or much of anything else. Responsible, thoughtful and strategic members of the national GOP have a long-term interest in ridding the party of the toxic influence that Ronald Reagan first brought in, the first George Bush tolerated, and the second Bush encouraged in the most cynical and malignant way. John McCain was the most recent, high profile victim of this political perversion, but he will not be the last. And there are a lot of people who want out of this dead-end.
It will be no easy task to deliver the GOP from this brand of political illiterates. They cannot be expelled from the party just as cancer can’t be expelled from the body. The treatment will be long and painful. Fortunately, there is no shortage of political donors who have no interest in killing their party, but want to be rid of these troublesome priests.
Same-sex marriage in a state like New York is one of the openings they have to help break the ice. They need to enable moderate members of their party to dislodge themselves from the stigma of religious fundamentalism, so they can focus on the economic issues that are paramount for their party and for the nation. More important, they need to send that message to voters. After a decade and a half of ODing on the crack of homophobia, the GOP has found itself with the reputation for treating fiscal issues with the same casual political cynicism that they have had to feign on marriage and other culture war skirmishes.
No one who takes real politics seriously – the kind that actual, savvy, politicians of good will practice every day out of the tawdry spotlights of the political press – would or should be surprised by this move. It shows no more than that “conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party” (as the NYT would have it) possess the normal level of self-interest that can be expected from any political faction, and that sometimes that self-interest has beneficial effects on the body politic.
34 Comments for “Unsurprised”
posted by mike/ on
love the inference to Henry II – “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” the GOP itself is not mad; they just let themselves get caught up in a frenzy for power and don’t know how to get out of it; i’m sure Bo(eh)ner has nightmares every night…
posted by BobN on
That, after all, comes right out of the dominant theology of the left – that donors to the Republican party actually want what the religious right says they ought to want.
How anyone can come up with the above as “the dominant theology of the left” is beyond me. Where are you getting your “theology of the left”, David?
posted by Davi d Link on
BobN, I confess there may be more rhetoric in the phrase than the usage suggests, but it does strike me that it’s easy for ideologues of either end of the spectrum to too easily attribute the excesses of the extremes to the whole. The religious right is not the Republican Party, just as the most dedicated of the take-no-prisoners union leadership is the Democrats. But each side engages in a bit of wish-fulfillment trying to characterize the other side as its most convention-bound adherents.
That may not be a theology, but it’s certainly as much of a temptation succumbed to as any of the more usual sins.
posted by BobN on
The religious right is not the Republican Party, just as the most dedicated of the take-no-prisoners union leadership is the Democrats.
I assume you meant to include a parallel “not” in there somewhere. Calling Dr. Freud…
The dominant “theology of the left” is that “the rich” exploit the social conservatives by pandering to them on gay rights and abortion in exchange for their support on issues which, in the end, are to the detriment of those same social conservatives, along with everyone else.
posted by Houndentenor on
That’s not theology. Theology is based on unprovable beliefs. What you described is pretty much how it goes. The GOP has used the religious right to get people to vote exclusively Republican even when the elected officials enact little of their agenda and enact legislation that has harmful impacts on the lives of those religious social conservatives. What part of that was not based on reality?
posted by Houndentenor on
In what way was this donation anything BUT “unexpected”? Is there a history of large donations to gay rights groups from right-wing donors?
I’m sure that gay Republicans are often told by people active in GOP politics that they personally support gay rights. I’m often told things like that by Republicans. Yet they continue to vote for and donate to anti-gay politicians and say nothing during ugly campaigns (2004 Presidential race, Prop 8, the recent Maine election. It’s very rare for any Republican to stick his or her neck out for gay people. When they do it’s certainly noticed by liberals.
If there really is all this support from big Republican donors for gay marriage in New York State then why aren’t those alleged supporters calling the State Senators and making their thoughts on this issue known? Yes, there are Republicans who will tell you they are for gay rights. They just don’t say that to anyone who can do anything about it. They just make apologies to their gay “friends”.
posted by esurience on
It wasn’t expected, but it’s not surprising.
Why is it not surprising? Because this isn’t as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be. This is a few wealthy donors who happen to be Republicans.
That doesn’t change the way that the party establishment is going to treat us, nor does it change the way Republican voters feel.
So we’ve got some extra money courtesy of some wealth Republicans, that’s great (it really is!). BUT… what we need is for that to translate into the Republican party not voting against our interests UNANIMOUSLY (as they do right now).
Elected Republicans are solid block vote against us, unanimous or essentially unanimous. It’s great that we’ve got a few million dollars more to work with in changing things… but that’s a very very very very small drop in the bucket of what it’s going to take to change things.
posted by William Quill on
Oh come off it, you’re being far too generous. Stephen Miller is partisan to the point it’s tedious. It’s bad when you can tell what someone’s response will be to a situation without having to read their post. Yes, I’d be with him on his overall message, let’s reach out to conservatives and not just rely on progressives, but in his constant harking, the man doth protest too much.
posted by Tim on
Well of course it’s unexpected. The RR may not represent the entire Republican Party, but party leaders have allowed the tail to wag the dog for decades now. You and Rauch and Sullivan all make the conservative case for marriage equality, but there has been scant evidence that GOP leaders are paying you any attention. Until, maybe, now — so “unexpected” is an entirely appropriate, and hardly “liberal,” word.
posted by Cindy on
>>That, after all, comes right out of the dominant theology of the left – that donors to the Republican party actually want what the religious right says they ought to want.
My goodness, what a load of crap. Somehow the GOP and it’s donors aren’t responsible for the Republican party platform that includes language against same-sex marriage? Oh no. It’s all the liberal left’s fault for getting that language in there and the use of the fight against it as a wedge issue for over a decade.
Come on. Be totally honest that everyone in the party used it to whatever advantage they could and now that it’s no longer politically viable, you’re ditching it and somehow claiming you’ve resided on the high road all along. Who in the world do you imagine is going to believe that tripe? Incredibly pathetic.
posted by Joel Wheeler on
Took the text right out of my keyboard. Thank you.
posted by Cindy on
Well, hopefully your keyboard would have kept your “it’s” and “its” straight. D’oh.
posted by K in VA on
The GOP platform calls for amending the U.S. Constitution to block same-sex nuptials. That’s not the GOP religious-right platform, that’s the platform of the ENTIRE GOP. If there are self-denominated “Republicans” who think otherwise, and are willing to do so with the checkbooks, great! But they’re still part of a party the officially calls for writing discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, and I for one won’t give them a bye for that.
posted by Houndentenor on
And yet, once elected Bush (43) did virtually nothing to get that Amendment through Congress despite having majorities in both houses. So despite using gay marriage as a wedge issue, when it came time for action, Bush did nothing to honor an issue that was a centerpiece of his 2004 campaign. So yes, Republicans use these issues to get people to vote for them who would probably not give a rat’s ass about tax cuts for the wealthy or capital gains taxes.
posted by K in VA on
Of course the platform language is a GOP GOTV tool. But that’s not the point. Either Republicans who give a damn about equality work to undo all the harms their party does (and, yes, that includes dumping nasty verbiage), or they don’t. Writing checks is a good thing to do, but people who give a damn about equality should also — make that MUST also — put their mouths where their money is.
posted by BobN on
Virtually nothing? Coordinated campaigns in some 20+ states which now have anti-gay constitutional amendments is “nothing”?
What would have had him do besides champion the amendment? Hold his brush-clearing buzzsaw to the heads of senators?
posted by Houndentenor on
Perhaps I was not clear. I thought the whole spectacle of Bush using gay marriage as a core political issue (while running with the father of a gay daughter on the ticket) was revolting. But let’s not pretend that if the president had really wanted that amendment through Congress that he couldn’t have gotten it done? Bush never meant a word of it. (That’s not an excuse for saying it by the way. Saying horrible things you don’t mean to get votes is still despicable.) The point is that once elected he didn’t champion the amendment at all.
Now about the state amendments you do have a point and some of that came from Karl Rove’s office (though not all of it). And those state amendments are a real problem. I think David Koh (spelling) has been pretty open about the Bush white house’s disdain for the religious right while publicly pandering to them. (I don’t think Koh said pandering so that’s my take on it.)
posted by thomas on
That’s right, Bush and Rove really didn’t work all TOO hard to amend the US Constitution to instill bigotry against gay Americans… As stated above, they just floated gay hatred through supporting amendments to state constitutions. They just supported and added kindling to a bashing gay Americans through words and, in fact, law… Support for such initiatives that leads to hatred, violence and despair for many gay youth. The apologists for the Republican Party is simply amazing. And, disgusting.
posted by Jerry on
The platform of both major parties are made up by a minority of the parties. It’s that dedicated few who man the trenches between campaigns. They do the scut work that no one wants to do. These are the same people who show up at conventions, and party caucuses. In the last poll on allowing same sex couples to marry, even a majority of Republicans said it didn’t bother them. A very small majority, but a majority.
posted by Tom on
In the last poll on allowing same sex couples to marry, even a majority of Republicans said it didn’t bother them. A very small majority, but a majority.
Well, the majority Republican opinion isn’t getting translated into legislative votes, and that’s a fact.
It didn’t get translated into legislative votes over DADT, where a strong majority of Republicans favored repeal, and it sure isn’t getting translated into legislative votes on marriage equality.
The most recent anti-marriage vote was in the Minnesota State Senate last week, and every single Republican voted to put an anti-marriage amendment on the ballot. The matter now moves to the State Assembly, where there is one Republican assemblyman who has come out against the amendment.
All of the twaddle about the “new” Republican Party is something I’ll believe when I start seeing some results.
posted by Carl on
Well said.
The party line used to be, “We don’t want to do this, the judicial activists gave us no choice.” Yet those days are long gone. Now it is party line to oppose anything that is beneficial to gays and lesbians, while trying to claim with a straight face that it is everything but what it is.
I wonder when we will start hearing more about how banning benefits for gay couples and banning DADT repeal is solely to save money.
posted by michael on
“…a long-term interest in ridding the party of the toxic influence that Ronald Reagan first brought in…”
—-
Oh , yes please can we be rid of it, and hurry up please.
posted by Elvis Elvisberg on
“ridding the party of the toxic influence that Ronald Reagan first brought in, the first George Bush tolerated, and the second Bush encouraged in the most cynical and malignant way.”
Fear and resentment of minorities was not, alas, something that Ronald Reagan invented for GOP electoral gain.
See, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#Atwater_on_the_Southern_Strategy
But yes, of course it would be lovely if the GOP weren’t mad that the Lawrence decision prevents states from imprisoning gays. Here’s hoping we get there soon.
posted by Jorge on
But while the religious right and those wealthy donors share a party, they do not share an ideology, or much of anything else. Responsible, thoughtful and strategic members of the national GOP have a long-term interest in ridding the party of the toxic influence that Ronald Reagan first brought in, the first George Bush tolerated, and the second Bush encouraged in the most cynical and malignant way…
So instead of partisanship obscuring common sense, the David Links and Stephen Millers must use ideology to bolster common sense. I don’t like this paragraph at all but at least he’s making it work for him. A focus on Republicans? I’m all for that.
posted by Houndentenor on
Maybe they could start by focusing on one Republican in particular.
http://www.jsonline.mobi/news/statepolitics/121956273.html
Please spare me the bs about Republicans not having an anti-gay agenda or this just being about marriage. This is just anti-gay and in many ways it’s been getting worse in the GOP with the rise of the Tea Party, not better. For all the talk about the Tea Party not being about social agendas, anti-gay legislation is being proposed all over the country by these Tea Partiers.
posted by Jorge on
The Republicans don’t have an anti-gay agenda. They have an anti gay rights agenda. This is about marriage to some and life to others and a willful ignorance of gay lives. The evidence that the Tea Party is not anti-gay is old and I’ve not seen a recent re-presentation. Don’t antagonize me.
We can focus on Scott Walker if you like. We will gloriously believe in the mission and argue about or ignore our differences every single day until our alliance breaks apart. But it’s your idea so I’m following your lead. I’ll be sad to see him kicked out of office, though, so I hope your idea doesn’t involve supporting a Democratic, pro-union opponent.
posted by Tom on
The Republicans don’t have an anti-gay agenda. They have an anti gay rights agenda.
If you want to be accurate, the Republicans do not oppose gay rights — the Republicans oppose equal treatment of gays and lesbians under the law, or, to put it the other way around, the Republicans support laws that deny gays and lesbians equal treatment under the law.
Example #1: The Republicans voted overwhelmingly last December to continue legal impediments on gays and lesbians serving in the Armed Forces. Repeal of DADT granted no rights to gays and lesbians in service; repeal of DADT removed laws and regulations that denied gays and lesbians to serve on an equal basis with straights.
Example #2: The Republicans defend Section 3 of DOMA, which denies federal recognition of valid state same-sex marriages, while granting recognition of valid opposite-sex marriages. Repeal of Section 3 will grant to rights to gays and lesbians who are legally married; repeal of Section 3 will remove laws and federal regulations that deny equal treatment of same-sex marriages.
I suppose that it can be argued whether the attempt to deny gays and lesbians equal treatment under the law is “anti-gay”, just as can be argued whether segregation laws were “anti-Negro”. But anti-gay or not, legal discrimination is the opposite of equal treatment under the law, and that is what is important.
I don’t know what motivates Republicans who, for example, believe that oral and anal sex between same-sex couples should be criminalized, while oral and anal sex between straight couples should not be criminalized. It is too easy, perhaps, to ascribe animus.
But I will note that when it comes to legal discrimination against gays and lesbians, the Republican Party chooses its rhetoric with care, echoing its Dixiecrat roots. Legal discrimination against valid state same-sex marriages is described as “protecting traditional marriage”, for example, and legal discrimination against military service on equal footing is described on “protecting our military”.
I’m old enough to have heard that kind of thing before, in another setting.
posted by Jorge on
I’m old enough to have heard that kind of thing before, in another setting.
You understand, of course, that I am equally convinced that my generation is the one possessed of superior knowledge, right?
Couldn’t you just throw zingers now and then? I disagree with your conclusion.
posted by Tom on
Jorge, having lived through a similar experience sometimes gives folks a broader perspective.
Believe me, as someone who spent the summer of 1965 working in Sunflower County, Mississippi as one of the “Jew Nigger Lovers” trying to get people registered to vote, the similarities are striking.
Maybe you disagree, but that’s what I see. The difference is that in those days, the resistance was coming from Dixiecrats, not Dixiecans.
posted by Carl on
Now that Republicans are explicitly refusing to support a simple act like hospital visitation, I think it goes beyond the idea of any right. Unless the right means the right to not be treated like you are less than human.
posted by Tom on
The Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature voted 100% against granting limited domestic partnership rights in 2009, and 100% of the Republicans who were elected to the state legislature and statewide office pledged to repeal the domestic partnership law.
So far, nothing has been introduced in the legislature to repeal the law. Governor Walker, apparently, has to fry the big fish — collective bargaining rights — before he goes after the small fish like Michael and me. But the time will come.
All that has happened so far is that Governor Walker has refused to defend the domestic partnership law against a lawsuit brought by his handmaiden, Julaine Appling, a move that was expected. Fair Wisconsin intervened in the case, with five couples as intervenor-defendants, earlier, and Lambda Legal will defend the domestic partnership law. I think that the defense will be successful, without question.
The situation in Wisconsin — Republicans opposing any and all recognition of same-sex relationships — is typical, unfortunately, not unique.
The Republicans can’t even stand to see us buried with any dignity. Minnesota Governor Pawlenty vetoed burial rights legislation on his way out of office and into Iowa, and Rhode Island Governor Carcieri vetoed burial rights legislation on his way out the door, too, only to see the veto overturned in the legislature.
I freely admit I’m partisan at this point. I wouldn’t vote for a Republican in Wisconsin right now if he wore a tutti and Dorothy slippers.
I got that way for a reason, and horse-honky like this is the reason.
What strikes me is that the Republicans in elected office seem hell-bent to bend over for the increasingly radical anti-gay forces in the Republican Party, and I think that the result is predictable.
posted by blogenfreude on
No less than Rod Serling warned you back in 1964 that relying on the votes of Birchers and racists was destructive. Now the GOP is saddled with the Tea Party – it’s that part of the party that simultaneously thinks W did a good job yet is horrified by how badly he screwed up and can’t bring themselves to admit to being a Republican. All the Republicans have left are sociopaths, the home-schooled, and the clinically insane.
posted by Jorge on
I’m a Republican; I’m in a helping profession and fully committed to serving the well-being of the people put on this earth; I graduated from a Catholic high school, a private university, and a state grad school; and I’m certain I have dysthymic disorder which is some evidence that I have a more accurate view of reality than average.
But I am voting for the Devil in the primary, so maybe you got one out of three right.
posted by another steve on
blogenfreude: ” All the Republicans have left are sociopaths, the home-schooled, and the clinically insane.”
What a mindset that needs to demonize to such an extent — and I bet blogenfreude feels all morally superior because he’s a liberal and thus better than those horrible, racists, idiots who think that the government should be our servant and not our master, that indivdiuals, not bureaucrats should control their own lives.