David Boaz blogs at Cato@Liberty:
Whatever the merits and popularity of the specific [gun control] measures that went down to defeat in the Senate on Wednesday, I think the Establishment fails to appreciate the depth of American support for the Second Amendment. NPR and other media have lately noted a growing libertarian trend in American politics. That’s not just about taxes, Obamacare, marijuana, and marriage equality. It also involves gun rights. …
If political scientists Herbert McClosky and John Zaller are right that “[t]he principle here is that every person is free to act as he pleases, so long as his exercise of freedom does not violate the equal rights of others,” then we can expect Americans to cling to their gun rights for a long time.
And then there’s this from the liberal New Republic:
Congressional consideration was also delayed by gun control proponents’ insistence on a ban on assault weapons. … Even if the law could be passed, it wouldn’t have made any dent in gun violence statistics because these guns are rarely used in crime. Focusing on assault weapons played right into the hands of the NRA, which has for years been saying that Obama wanted to ban guns. Gun control advocates ridiculed that idea—then proposed to ban the most popular rifle in America.”
Next up, attempts to ban pressure cookers.
50 Comments for “America’s Libertarian Impulse”
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. I am a progressive-thinking person who believes in the 2nd Amendment. Maybe its because I grew up in a rural part of the upper Midwest, but I have always believed that the 2nd Amendment protects personal freedom and state rights. I also loath the NRA leadership. However, no right is absolute. Their is certainly a legit interest in the government promoting gun safety and responsibility and punishing (severely) people that use a gun to commit a violent crime.
2. I also believe in the First Amendment and (many) things that it protects (but many a pro-NRA type generally opposes) like religious freedom (church/state separation), freedom of speech, press, petition and peacefully assembly.
3. Gun control (and its opponents) need to understand that the politics behind guns are largely about geography (more then anything else). Voters in the cities and suburbia tend to associate guns with crime and violence. Voters in small towns and rural communities tend to associate guns with hunting/fishing.
posted by Jorge on
3. Gun control (and its opponents) need to understand that the politics behind guns are largely about geography (more then anything else). Voters in the cities and suburbia tend to associate guns with crime and violence. Voters in small towns and rural communities tend to associate guns with hunting/fishing.
That explains why assault weapons bans are pursued by the suburban mutants.
What do guns have to do with fishing?
posted by JohnInCA on
If you have to ask what guns have to do with fishing, clearly you’re doin’ it wrong.
posted by Jorge on
All right, let me ask the right way.
What the hell do guns have to do with fishing!?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For the life of me, I can’t understand why most conservatives oppose background checks for firearms purchases.
I own one handgun, three long guns and a couple shotguns, all except one purchased from a dealer (the exception was a gift from my grandfather on my 12th birthday). The background check was nothing. It takes under five minutes.
posted by Houndentenor on
Because gun manufacturers don’t want anything to slow the sale of guns.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Next up, attempts to ban pressure cookers.
Given what is going on today, this is both moronic and distasteful.
posted by Wayne White on
I think the concern about background checks is that the government will have a list of gun owners that they could conceivably use later to confiscate weapons, as the Nazis did. People who are concerned about erosion of constitutional rights and growth of a police state want to be able to buy a gun at a gun show without the government knowing who purchased the weapon. In a worst-case scenario of economic collapse, martial law certainly seems a possibility.
posted by Houndentenor on
That’s insanity.
1. The law specifically prohibited any list.
2. No one is going to go along with martial law. It’s hard enough to get people to move to the side of the road to let an ambulance through. Do you really think they would go along with martial law. and who would enforce that? The military? Really? The local police? We barely have enough police to do the job they have much less enforce martial law.
3. We are not the Germans. Americans do indeed have a libertarian streak or more specifically a “you can’t tell me what to do” impulse. It’s a basic reflex and it’s built into our national identity. The moment someone tells us what we have to do, our gut instinct is to do the opposite just because we can. Sometimes that’s our strength and sometimes it’s our Achilles’ heel but it’s not going away anytime soon.
4. If I can buy a gun at a gun show with no background check, then so can a felon, a terrorist or someone who has been stalking your sister. Think about that. Who benefits from the loophole? Only those who shouldn’t have a gun.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
That’s insanity.
I agree. The government (military and police) has a combined total of about 3 million guns. Civilians have about 300 million. Americans do care about their Second Amendment rights, and there’s no way that the government could pull it off, even if the government could correlate original firearm purchase records with decades of name/address changes and ownership transfers.
That’s why I said that I don’t understand why conservatives oppose background checks. The reason that is most often given (“the government will have a list of gun owners that they could conceivably use later to confiscate weapons, as the Nazis did“) is so absurd as to be implausible as a reason.
As to gun shows, I’ve been to one, my first and last. It was at our county fairgrounds. As I was at the entrance, talking with the cop on duty, who is the son of a friend of mine, some asshole drew a bead on us, probably checking the sights. Nobody around him — the seller, his buddies, others in the area — said a word to him. As I stood around talking, I saw three more people do the same thing, sighting in on other people.
The most basic rule of gun use is that you never point a gun at another human being, period, unless you are in a self-defense situation. It is drilled into everyone who has ever used a range, or belongs to a gun club, or served in the military, or who had any kind of gun safety training.
I decided right then and there that I was dealing with morons, and I wouldn’t go near a gun show again.
posted by Houndentenor on
years ago I was cast in Weber’s Der Freischutz. don’t worry that you don’t know that opera. It’s hardly ever performed outside the German speaking countries. Anyway, the plot revolves around a shooting competition. I was in the show with several guys who were libertarians and conservatives but out of the whole bunch I was the only one who knew what to do with a rifle. Not just the shooting part but how to hold it in general. (Mostly that the barrel must always point up or down but never out especially in the direction of anyone. Yes, it was a prop gun and not loaded, but it’s just not realistic that anyone in such a culture wouldn’t know how to carry their hunting rifle. It cracked me up when I wasn’t horrified that anyone would be so stupid and careless with a weapon. Yes, anyone who has ever been around firearms treats them properly and I think that’s something that big city liberals often don’t understand. They have this idea of gun enthusiasts or just gun owners as careless and reckless. In my experience, that’s the opposite of the truth. They understand the potential danger of their firearms and handle them accordingly. There really does need to be more dialogue on this issue and by issue I mean asking real questions (not leading questions or questions designed to piss off the other side) and a lot of listening. I don’t see that happening on either side. I will say, however, that far more liberals own guns than conservatives seem to think.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I will say, however, that far more liberals own guns than conservatives seem to think.
In rural America, that is certainly true.
I just checked the sign-in sheet from our most recent county Democratic Party meeting. Of the 28 people in attendance, I personally know that 18 are gun owners, or their husbands are. I know that three (including one who is vehemently anti-gun) are not. The other seven I don’t know about one way or the other.
I think that is a difference, though. I don’t know a single Democrat who owns a gun for any reason other than hunting or personal protection. That’s true of most of my Republican friends, too, but I do know quite a few, including the chairman of the Republican Party the next county over, who own guns for the purpose of protecting themselves against the government, and who are stockpiling against the day when the government comes to take their guns away.
posted by Jorge on
And part of that libertarian streak is that it requires maintenance. I’m sympathetic to their fears on this one.
posted by Wayne White on
P.S. I don’t presently own a handgun or rifle.
posted by Doug on
“I think the Establishment fails to appreciate the depth of American support for the Second Amendment.” Yep, that explains why every poll out there shows that people support background checks by over 80%.
It appears that your paranoia is getting out of hand, Stephen.
posted by Houndentenor on
If the law banned all guns, I would be against it. For reasons stated here and elsewhere repeatedly, this is often a regional issue. I live in a sleepy college town. I don’t need a gun. If I were to move to a more rural area or if I, for example, carried large amounts of cash to be deposited from my business in the evenings, then I’d own a gun. I can think of a lot of legitimate reasons for owning firearms. Not one of those is hindered by a background check. This was a reasonable law. Too weak to do much good probably but a reasonable proposal and the 9% of Americans against it got their way. The arguments against it all involved slippery slope nonsense. There is no popular support for banning all firearms and no reasonable mechanism to enforce such a ban even if it passed. It’s pure paranoia to think that UN troops that can’t even handle small outbreaks of violence in tiny third-world countries are going to roll tanks into the US and seize our guns and turn us into slaves or whatever nonsense Glenn Beck is spewing this week.
posted by Don on
still confused how guns and pressure cookers related to gay rights other than some vague note of a libertarian streak. but that streak is a perverse one. republicans are extreme libertarians fiscally and democrats are libertarians socially. and most people don’t line their libertarian impulses up with a political party necessarily. almost all of my republican friends are pro-gay rights. and I know more than one or two democrats personally who oppose gay rights.
still, one of the things I like about this site is that it isn’t GOProud. or GayPatriot. I would expect they would note its time to ban pressure cookers. but not here.
Having said that, living in Miami I would say the use of pressure cookers in the Latino population is really high. and many dishes are made using such instruments. If we ban pressure cookers, all the illegal aliens may go home.
Now wouldn’t that be a republican conundrum? Cuz freedom! and Jeebus! and Constitooshun! Its so hard loving freedom and hating whole swaths of people at the same time.
If we’re going to turn this into a partisan flame war. I’ll return volley. Or maybe we can drop the childish jibes found on other sites and return to level-headed, intelligent exploration of these issues that is usually the hallmark of this one.
posted by Don on
please don’t take this seriously. it should be viewed as inappropriate hyperbole solely to make a point.
posted by craig on
The blog post is about the libertarian impulse, which shows itself in such diverse areas as gun rights and gay rights. Miller’s perspective is that left-leaning gays preach that gays must be joined to the liberal omnibus agenda of bigger government, more spending, gun limitation, etc., etc., because the Democratic party and the left-liberal progressive movement is the only path to securing our rights.
In contrast, IGF bloggers argue that gay rights should be disentangled from the left-Democratic Party agenda, and that supporting a pro-liberty agenda (smaller government, lower taxes, gun rights, etc. etc.) is more naturally conducive to securing gay equality.
Or, at any rate, if gays remain tied to the Democratic party, we won’t develop support within the Republican party, and having bases of support in both is the best way to advance our agenda.
posted by Houndentenor on
No one is against Republicans being more pro-gay. That’s a strawman argument. Politicians like Sen Portman are going to nee a lot of support to get re-elected. A new poll this week showed his support among Republicans has dropped. People like that should be the focus of gay conservatives. Endorsing republicans in spite of anti-gay statements and voting records doesn’t move the party towards gay rights. It enables them to keep doing what they’ve been doing on gay issues…using homophobia to win votes and raise money from the ill-informed and bigoted in their ranks. I don’t see enough cheering for pro-gay Republicans or nearly enough condemnation of the anti-gay ones from gay conservatives. Some, but it’s rare. I see a lot of excuses and blaming of liberals for the sorry state of the GOP on gay issues. And other than a few notable exceptions, there are not that many pro-gay Republicans currently holding office. That is NOT the fault of liberals and reading repeatedly that it is makes me question the sanity of one of the bloggers. As I said earlier, the uniting quality I find in most gay Republicans is hatred of anything liberal far more than support for conservative ideas. I realize the opposite exists on the part of many liberals. Both are wrong.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… if gays remain tied to the Democratic party …
I don’t think that gays and lesbians (who currently vote about 75-80% for Democratic candidates who support “equal means equal”) are going to start voting for Republican candidates in high numbers until Republican candidates start supporting “equal means equal”.
I recognize that this presents something of a chicken and egg problem for Republicans. Republicans won’t, according to your logic, start supporting “equal means equal” until after gay and lesbian voters support Republican candidates, and, conversely, gay and lesbian voters aren’t likely to start voting for Republicans until Republicans start supporting “equal means equal”. The way to break the Gordian knot, it seems to me, is for pro-equality conservatives to get to work and change the Republican Party.
I wonder about the idea that the Republican Party holds anti-equality positions because gays and lesbians vote Democratic. It seems too easy to be accurate. I recognize that left/liberals like to make that the Republican Party’s positions are determined more by “if the Democrats are for it, then we are against it” politics than by adherence to conservative principles, but that seems to easy, too.
My guess is that Republicans hold tight to anti-equality positions because significant sectors of the Republican base (religious conservatives and Tea Party conservatives) are strongly anti-equality. It seems more plausible, at any rate, than the idea that Republicans are waiting for gays and lesbians to start voting for anti-equality Republicans before becoming pro-equality.
posted by Houndentenor on
Neither party even wanted to mention gays until Reagan courted the religious right in the lead up to the 1980 election. Hating on gays to win the votes of Evangelicals started with the GOP. It’s no so much that the Democrats courted gays from the beginning, as it was the only place to go when the Republicans began the gay-bashing and it hasn’t stopped. The Democrats had to be dragged kicking and screaming (the vast majority of them) to publicly support gay rights or even talk about gay issues at all. Making all that sound like a plan to MAKE the GOP anti gay for the benefit of the Democratic party (a meme that will not die on this site) is absurd and shows a complete ignorance of history. I realize that all this happened while some of the bloggers here were still in diapers (or earlier) but ignorance of history is no excuse, especially when that history has been pointed out to said bloggers countless times. Yes, I think some republicans can be moved to a more pro-equality position. Even a neutral position would be a move in the right direction for the majority of Republican office-holders. Get to work on that. Stop blaming other people for not doing your work for you. About 1/4 of gay voters cast ballots for GOP candidates in every election. Lack of effectiveness or funding for the gay Republican groups is not the fault of liberals, leftists, Democrats or anyone else but the gay Republicans who just want to smear Democrats with this fairy-tale.
posted by JohnInCA on
Support for LGBT rights has nothing to do with libertarianism. That’s an angle that some conservatives have been trying to use to sway their party for years (¿decades?) but has never really caught on. And if you ask most people why they support LGBT rights, you won’t find a libertarian response (government role in managing private affairs), you’ll find a personal response (I know someone that’s gay).
Trying to bolster libertarian cred using gay rights is pretty shady.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“Support for LGBT rights has nothing to do with libertarianism.”
I’m a Democrat, as you know, so I can’t speak for libertarians, but it seems to me that the 2012 Libertarian Party Platform supports “equal means equal”:
“
“.
That position is in accord with the 2012 Democratic Party Platform’s positions, both of which stand in stark contrast to the 2012 Republican Party Platform.
“hat’s an angle that some conservatives have been trying to use to sway their party for years (¿decades?) but has never really caught on.”
Well, that’s an angle that self-styled “libertarian” Republicans have been using, and I agree with you that it hasn’t made a dent in the Republican Party’s massive resistance on the issue of equality. But there is a huge difference, it seems to me, between Libertarians and self-styled “libertarian” Republicans.
“And if you ask most people why they support LGBT rights, you won’t find a libertarian response (government role in managing private affairs), you’ll find a personal response (I know someone that’s gay).”
Absolutely. The single most important factor in determining whether a person is pro-equality or anti-equality is whether he or she has gay/lesbian family and friends.
“Trying to bolster libertarian cred using gay rights is pretty shady.”
Its pretty shady when used by self-styled “libertarian” Republicans who supported anti-equality Republican candidates while the Republican Party wreaked havoc on gays and lesbians over the last decade, that’s for sure. I wouldn’t say the same for actual Libertarians.
A problem with IGF is that is conflates the Libertarian Party’s positions and think tanks with the duplicitous behavior of self-styled “libertarian” Republicans. That’s intellectually dishonest, in my view.
posted by Houndentenor on
Both parties are a conglomeration of strange bedfellows but at the moment it seems the GOP’s are the strangest. Odder still, we often find the mash-up in the same personality. Libertarian and Randian views are at odds with Evangelical Christianity when it comes to social issues. But then for a long time I have been puzzled when hearing watered-down Randian economic ideas from fundamentalist pulpits. (Heard with my own ears, not from a soundbite on youtube.) Rand hated Christianity. That these things can coexist in an ideology has baffled me for some time. But I think the “philosophy” can be boiled down to “I want the government off my back but in your bedroom.”
It’s not so much that true libertarians are pro-gay as that they understand that it’s none of their business who you want to have sex with, be in a relationship or marry so long as everyone is old enough and consenting. Personally I think that’s a healthy view for society. If you want my opinion about your relationship you are free to ask, although I can’t think of a reason why you’d want to. That’s a rare attitude, though. Across the spectrum we have people who want intervention into everyone’s personal business. Except THEIRS of course. THAT’S OFF LIMITS. LOL
posted by Lori Heine on
There seems to be a tendency for the party out of power to open itself to more libertarian ideas. I suppose this is natural, as it sucks to be pushed around. People are more likely to notice that it sucks when it’s being done to them.
When Bush II was president, I generally found the left more libertarian than it has been since Obama took office. Similarly, I expect the “libertarianism” of the GOP to evaporate like dew in the sunshine as soon as another Republican is elected to the White House.
I remember the right-wing insanity when Clinton was president. He was the antichrist to these people. Now they’re doing the same thing to Obama. In between, the Dems gave Bush the same treatment. We always see “derangement syndrome” toward any president by many in the opposing party.
Libertarians (the real ones, anyway) find this little soap opera highly amusing. Both sides take themselves so seriously. There is little, if any, humility or even reflection shown by either side.
It’s good theater. Though I must admit the show is getting somewhat tiresome.
posted by Doug on
I’m not sure the main stream left was anywhere near as vehemently nasty to GWB as the GOP was and is to Clinton and Obama. Especially on a personal level.
posted by Jorge on
You’re kidding, right?
When I was in grad school there was a protest in my university in which people popped balloons of President Bush and Vice President Cheney saying “kill them!”
In college pictures comparing George W. Bush’s expressions to that of a monkey were pretty common.
If you do a search of the moral and ethical Alignments from the Dungeons & Dragons games (“Lawful Good,:” “Chaotic Evil,” etc.) on the internet, you will find that Bush is repeatedly listed as some sort of “Evil” while Obama is listed as some sort of “Good.” Without irony; this is people being dead serious.
Even today, there are many people who, no matter how much or how little they know about me, make an automatic decision that I am less intelligent or less good because I happen to like and support President Bush. This happens on a regular basis. You won’t see the same thing for Presidents Obama or Clinton.
For every birtherish you could cite about Obama, there are still people who, despite all evidence to the contrary, insist that President Bush stole the election, lied about weapons of mass destruction before the War in Iraq in order to justify it, and didn’t care about civil rights. There are many more who take legitimate policy differences on serious dillemas and treat them as an obvious litmus test of good and evil.
People are nastier about Bush now than they have ever has been about Obama.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I expect the “libertarianism” of the GOP to evaporate like dew in the sunshine as soon as another Republican is elected to the White House.
I do too, Lorie.
The “libertarian” Republicans are strong advocates for eliminating government regulation of business, and for eliminating or greatly reducing government assistance programs. When push comes to shove, very few of them are strong advocates for eliminating government regulation of our personal lives.
The reasons why “libertarian” Republicans are half-a-loaf vary — sometimes because they believe that government should be the arbiter of personal morality (e.g. abortion decisions), but more often because they are “pragmatists”, putting access to political power before their supposed “libertarian” principles (e.g. GOProud’s endorsement of anti-equality Republican politicians like Mitt Romney).
The bottom line is that the Republican Party’s base is anti-libertarian when it comes to the “culture wars”. The country may be moving toward “America’s Libertarian Impulse”, but there is no sign that the Republican Party is moving in that direction.
I have no idea how it will turn out. But I wouldn’t count on whatever “Libertarian Impulse” might exist within the Republican Party amounting to tangible results when it comes to changing the party’s anti-equality positions. The change that will come, if it comes, will come because Republicans like Ron Porter can’t square the circle in the face of reality.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“There seems to be a tendency for the party out of power to open itself to more libertarian ideas. I suppose this is natural, as it sucks to be pushed around. People are more likely to notice that it sucks when it’s being done to them.”
I can’t say that I spend a lot of time thinking about the Libertarian Party, but from what I know, I see four areas of possible synergy between the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party:
The first is health care. Although Obamacare does not provide universal, single-payer health care, removing the burden of health care from employers, Obamacare is a step in the right direction. Unlinking the availability of health care from specific employment/employers, Obamacare frees Americans to take better jobs without worrying about losing employer-linked health care, increasing worker mobility, which in turn fuels free enterprise. I’m not a fan of Obamacare in the abstract (it seems to me that we should follow the lead of other countries that entirely remove the burden of health care from businesses by switching over to a universal, single-payer system), but it is a step in the right direction.
The second is abortion. Both the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party stand for keeping the decision in the hands of individuals, rather than imposing the government as the arbiter of moral/religious abortion decisions. The Obama administration has a good record on sticking with that principle.
The third is marriage equality, and non-discrimination in general. As I noted above, the 2012 Libertarian Party Platform (“Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.“) is identical to the Democratic Party’s positions. The Obama administration has a good record in this area, too, at least with respect to LGBT issues, which are the issues I follow most closely.
The fourth is immigration policy. The Democratic Party supports the DREAM Act and, in general, relatively open immigration policies, continuing America’s historic practice of encouraging immigrants to come to our country, work in our country, better themselves, create jobs and pay taxes. The Obama administration’s record is mixed in this area, but it has at least kept the idea alive in the face of massive Republican opposition to anything other than building higher fences.
In addition to those four areas of synergy, President Obama promised to reduce the cost of government and to reduce/simplify the layers of regulation on business. Again, I’d say that his record is mixed, but he’s done quite a bit to move the ball. I’d like to see the administration do more.
But I think that libertarians have to realize that Democrats are not libertarians, and never will be. Modern Democrats come from a progressive tradition (fostered by Theodore Roosevelt, and then his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, and continued since then by the party in general) that government should play an active role in our country’s affairs. Libertarians believe, by and large, that government should not. I don’t think that gap will ever be bridged.
It seems to me that libertarians should stop playing the role of jilted suitor of Democrats or Republicans, and work instead to build the Libertarian Party into a political force.
posted by Houndentenor on
You’re on to something. Both major parties have some libertarian ideas on a few things (just never the same thing). Those ideas come to the forefront whenever the other party is in power and government is doing things that you don’t want it to be doing. The of course both Republicans and Democrats have things they want government to do and that idea flies out the window. I have always been baffled when people tell me why they are Republicans and their reasons sound Libertarian and not Republican. The GOP is not for smaller government and never has been. Not one Republican administration in modern times (at least since Roosevelt) has decreased the size or budget of the overall federal government. They just want to spend on different things than the Democrats do. If I were a Libertarian I’d be pissed at a major party talking the talk but doing the opposite after the election. Honestly, the “states rights” issue makes hypocrites out of both parties.
posted by Lori Heine on
Doug — Oddly, you think your argument refutes mine. Actually, it proves it. It will naturally feel worse when an oppressive government is turned against you than it will when you turn it against somebody else — especially somebody you don’t like.
Tom — I think you’re right about the entrenchment of social conservatives in the GOP. They’ve basically ruined that party.
At least a couple of times, over at Gay Patriot, I have asked social conservatives who comment there to tell me what their philosophy of government is. I never get an answer. That is, of course, because the leopards have not changed their spots. They are as devoted to a big, powerful, intrusive, oppressive government as ever — and as intoxicated as ever by the fantasy that they can someday permanently gain control over it.
I persist in commenting there because I have made some genuine friends there. Some of them are very reasonable people. But there are a few others who have drunk so much of the Kool-Aid that they are completely out of touch with reality.
I do not believe that social conservatism is compatible with gay rights. That makes me about as welcome at Gay Patriot, with some of the commenters there, as a skunk at a picnic. I don’t understand how anyone can apologize for the way soc-cons have treated us. And I refuse to excuse it.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Lori, I’m glad for you that you still comment over at GP. How you can stay sane while involved with that blog is beyond me. I had to leave because Bruce and Daniel refused to banish certain individuals who are borderline psychotic (especially the notorious North Dallas Thirty) from seizing control of comment threads. If they would just convert to a Facebook style commenting system, the problem children would go away and I might find it a better read. I left about a year or so ago and haven’t been back since. Kudos to Stephen (for once) for apparently banishing ND30. I haven’t seen his presence here in a while. As long as GP harbors Kool Aid drinkers, I’m staying away.
posted by Jorge on
I have not seen ND30 in a while.
As much as I think he’s borderline and not over the line… hmm, and that’s all I’ll say.
I do not believe that social conservatism is compatible with gay rights. That makes me about as welcome at Gay Patriot, with some of the commenters there, as a skunk at a picnic. I don’t understand how anyone can apologize for the way soc-cons have treated us. And I refuse to excuse it.
I can see why a combination of failure to understand and refusal to excuse would make people treat someone like a skunk.
What I do not understand is the other thing you just said: you ask a question, you don’t get an answer. This happens to me *quite* often.
Social conservatism is compatible with gay rights because social conservatism believes that morality should be legislatied, and gays believe that gay relations are moral. It is only a matter that different people have different values. Yet, if there is an objective morality, and gay rights is part of that morality, then over time it is inevitable that gay rights will be part of a society’s social and legal morality as well.
posted by JohnInCA on
That’s an interesting take on why gay rights should be a social conservative-supported cause, but it’s not a very practical one that looks at what actually happens.
That is to say… sounds good in theory. But I’m more concerned with whether it works in practice. And the track record? Not so good.
posted by Jorge on
I guess I’ll put a good word for this site.
I often glean suggestions on how to be a better advocate.
I learned who the five Republican House members who supported the DADT repeal compromise were. I learned about a few House Republicans who over the years I became very proud of. In fact I usually get such a heads up from this site first.
I would never have read Bruce Bawer’s A Place at the Table without reading about it from this site. It took me right back to my Clinton-progressive days of yore. (It was an extremely boring read because I agreed with almost all of it, none of the ideas challenged me. However I still refer to it from time to time.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
I agree that it’s definitely worth a read, although the constant references to “my partner, Chris” and the plaintive mewling about “gay A-listers” who apparently wouldn’t let Bruce join their clubhouse got a bit tiresome after a while.
posted by Throbert McGee on
My hunch: compared to ND30, pretty much everyone else is bound to come across as “the Good Cop.”
I mean, there are other hotheaded mudslingers who regularly post in the GP comment sections, and ND30 acts as a flattering “foil” who makes them all look like the embodiment of decorum.
I also admit to a certain gleeful fascination in watching people actually get drawn into looooong and repetitive sparring with ND30. (Arguing with ND30 is about as challenging and intellectually productive as arguing with an ELIZA program, and anyone who doesn’t figure this out within about five minutes probably deserves to be antagonized…)
posted by Houndentenor on
I haven’t read it since 2008. Other than the few liberals who posted, no one in the comments section seemed to be in favor of gay rights! It seemed a waste of time to argue with them. And then there was the semi-annual “why won’t liberals date me” in the midst of multiple posts of “liberals want to destroy America”. Gee, why wouldn’t someone want to date a person who thinks they hate their own country? the mind boggles. I couldn’t take any more of the insanity.
posted by Lori Heine on
I simply like to hoist the big-government theocrats on their own petard. That is a satisfaction that offers diminishing returns, but it least it injects a note of sanity.
For example, in the middle of a thread that’s become a rant-fest against gay marriage, I point out that hetero marrieds are actually using the rigged tax code to steal from single people, gay and straight. That the handful of snippets in the Bible used to condemn gays may be interpreted any number of ways, but that “Thou Shalt Not Steal” leaves little room to wiggle.
It’s rare to hear crickets on a Gay Patriot commentary thread. But in response to this sort of actual reasoning, their chirp is quite audible.
posted by Libertarians Are A Cheap Date | Born on 9-11 on
[…] an Independent Gay Forum commentary thread, I’m having an interesting discussion with some nice guys. We’re talking about whether the […]
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. I have certainly had people question by intelligence and patriotism simply because I voted for Obama. So, the idea that this sort of thing does not happen on both sides of the aisle. is just plain wrong.
2. Libertarian Republicans are, in my experience, not really libertarian. They want some sort of excuse for their economically/morally bankrupt (IMHO) economic policies and so they pick and choose which libertarian ideas to quote from.
posted by Houndentenor on
I remember well the years 2002-2003 when I was constantly being told that I was a traitor for daring to ask questions about Iraq before we invaded. My concerns turned out to be warranted. I’ve not heard one apology. I have also worked in situations where not only was everyone around me conservative but I had to listen to jokes about how ugly Chelsea and Hillary Clinton were (Chelsea was a teenager at the time), etc. I was a contractor and couldn’t afford to make waves. I had to sit there and take it. Sometimes you do what you have to do. I have no patience with the moaning of conservatives in liberal environments. I’ve lived the opposite. Suck it up and stop being such a crybaby while you look for another job or occupation.
posted by Doug on
Jorge, if you read my post, I said main stream left, not a college protest. And just for the record Jorge, where are all those WMD that Bush and Cheney said were in Iraq?
posted by Don on
I understand the desire to want to say the left’s response to Bush was the same as the right’s response to Clinton/Obama. But it just isn’t. Particularly Obama. My brother, who had never voted for a Democrat in his life, voted for Obama. It wasn’t really a vote for Obama as much as it was a vote against the Republicans. Of the election he said: They need to learn a lesson. His pet issues were spending, tax cuts and war in Iraq. For him and many others I know, it was just gross mismanagement.
I’m less inclined to believe the “more libertarian” argument on this thread. My example would be defense. Republicans support a blank check for more weapons while Democrats support a modest increase in defense spending. As for government intrusion, both parties support incredible powers for the state since 9/11. There’s not a libertarian impulse in sight.
I believe the 2 party system encourages one side to exploit another’s position when the country begins to shift away from a current hegemony. But post-9/11 the hegemony was less and less freedom with almost no support for individual rights against government intrusion. Most of us are perfectly happy to let it go on because “I would never do anything to deserve that.” I just hope I never end up like poor Richard Jewell.
posted by Lori Heine on
My claim is not that there is absolutely no difference whatsoever in the left’s response to Bush and the right’s to Obama. It is that the basic dynamic of deference to power on one’s own “team” is basically the same. This being because human nature is essentially the same on the left as it is on the right.
I never voted for Bush; I opted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I did vote for Obama in 2008. I came to a libertarian viewpoint not from the right, but from the left. As inconvenient as those facts are for those now to the left of me, who’d like to paint me as a Tea Party minion or whatever, my own history does not lend itself to that.
We can certainly agree that neither the Dems nor the GOP take libertarian ideas seriously. The insanity of bankrupting this country on military spending — when we already spend as much on “defense” as all other nations combined — is usually pointed out, in the political arena, by libertarians. Few other politicos seem willing to tell the truth about this.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I can’t speak for GOProud, but in my view, ostensibly “anti-equality” positions are not necessarily un-libertarian, since discriminatory treatment of citizens by the government does not in all cases cross the line of infringing on a citizen’s freedom.
Thus, “marriage for straights, domestic partnership for gays” wouldn’t be a deal-killer for all libertarians, while “the government has no right to criminalize heterosexual fornication, but laws against gay buttsecks are okay” is utterly contrary to libertarian thinking. In both cases, there is a form of discrimination, but “unequal marriage” does not subject gay couples to the threat of coercive power by the gummint.
Or, in short, there’s a reason they call themselves “libertarians” rather than “equalitarians.” (It’s not that they don’t place value on equality; rather, they may believe that authentic equality can only come about by voluntary changes in attitude among private citizens — while liberty can be guaranteed by government fiat, just as it can be violated by fiat.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
If you mean social conservatism as it exists now, then I’d agree with you. On the other hand, I believe that as a thought-experiment, one can articulate a form of “social conservatism” that IS fully compatible with gay rights while still fully being, well, “soc-con.”
I would point to this open letter by the late Rabbi Simchah Roth as a good model of how social conservatism could be harmonized with support for gay rights. (Roth is writing as a rabbi from Conservative Judaism — which is to say, not quite as small-c “conservative” as the Orthodox — but he attempts to frame his argument in a way that makes sense to Orthodox Jews.) It’s quite long and there’s a lot of exhaustive technical analysis of Hebrew and Aramaic phrases in the Torah and Talmud that would probably make most people’s eyes glaze over, but since I believe that some of his reasoning might be of interest to non-Jews, here’s a summary of the arguments:
1) A small percentage (2-4%) of the population, including the Jewish population, is more or less “hardwired” for homosexuality. Moreover, this hardwired homosexuality should be recognized as something that was engineered into humanity as a part of God’s Big Plan, not in opposition to His Plan.
2) Lifelong celibacy is not something that most people desire for themselves or their children, and mainstream Judaism has never exalted voluntary celibacy as a spiritual ideal.
3) However, sexual expression without any constraints is harmful to both the individual participants and society. And while “any private sex between two consenting adults is okay” may be an adequate constraint when writing secular legal codes, it isn’t nearly adequate for delineating ethical and “kosher” sex. Clear boundaries of “socially acceptable” sexual expression, including a willingness to stigmatize rule-breakers, is beneficial to individuals, including gay people.
4) Therefore — writes the rabbi — modern Judaism must formulate boundaries and norms within which non-celibate gay Jews can practice sex that is both ethical and compatible with the Torah. (Some of these boundaries would make general sense to Christians and other non-Jews — for, example, sex is only permissible for a strictly monogamous and committed couple; however, gay Jews who aren’t willing to abide by the monogamy restriction can still show a modicum of deference to religious law by recusing themselves from participation in certain ritual roles during the worship service. Other restrictions are specific to Judaism, notably the insistence that anal sex between men remains prohibited even for a monogamous gay couple.)
So, as I said, if you strip away the specifically Jewish details, I think there’s a basic framework that could allow “soc cons” to embrace gay rights — namely, the conservatives agree to publicly approve of those gays who are willing to abide by certain restrictions agreeable to the conservatives, while gays who don’t wish to abide by these restrictions agree to not be bothered by conservative disapproval.
posted by Lori Heine on
Throbert, I think you have a valid theory. I personally don’t believe that gay rights and social conservatism SHOULD be mutually-exclusive. My concern is with much of what social conservatism actually seems to be — the difference between the rhetoric and the reality.
Social conservatives, in my experience, don’t seem any more moral than anybody else. They appear more concerned with other people’s behavior than with their own. And they use rhetoric about morality and godliness as a way of trying to control the behavior of other people — particularly those they don’t like.
If your argument, and Rabbi Roth’s, were to be taken seriously, there would certainly be a way of gaining support from soc-cons who take their own rhetoric seriously. Some do. I’m not sure how many do, but this would be a way forward.
posted by Lori Heine on
Even most libertarians cold toward gays can be brought around to some interest in marriage equality if we know how to go about it.
Libertarians believe, for example, that the tax codes are very unjust. That they force some people to work harder than others and pay more in taxes so others can be rewarded by the State.
That heterosexual married couples are able to get tax breaks unavailable to gay couples, for example, is clearly theft. In the eyes of libertarians, whenever the government uses the tax code to reward the behavior of some citizens and punish that of others, it is, in effect, making slaves of the punished. It subjects them to involuntary servitude, to the benefit of those rewarded.
I’ve never lost an argument even with a conservative Republican who tried to defend this rigging of our tax code. “What part of ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal’ don’t you understand?” I’ll ask them. Pointing out that this Commandment can be found in the same Bible from which they snip their handful of very-tenuous verses bashing us.
They may not come around to agreeing with me, but it certainly knocks them off their high horse.