It’s not surprising that a GOP House member (in this case, Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia), would call on his party to withhold support for openly gay Republicans running for Congress (that would be former San Diego city councilman Carl DeMaio and, in Massachusetts, Richard Tisei, who narrowly lost to Democratic Rep. John Tierney in 2012.)
What is surprising is that the House leadership would make it eminently clear it will support gay Republicans who secure their party’s nomination in congressional races, as Politico reports:
When asked if his party should support gay candidates, Boehner simply said, “I do.”
Why Republicans matter. From pollster Charlie Cook:
The Democratic numbers from the generic-ballot test dropped from 45 percent to 37 percent, and Republicans moved up to 40 percent. This 10-point net shift from a Democratic advantage of 7 points to a GOP edge of 3 points in just over a month is breathtaking…
That won’t dissuade the one-party-is-all-we-need crowd, nor should anyone expect the once-nonpartisan Human Rights Campaign to begin endorsing openly gay Republicans (they opposed Tisei in his last run for Congress). Gay activists is San Diego also worked against DeMaio when he ran, and narrowly lost, the San Diego mayoral race to a Democrat who has since resigned due to serial sexual harassment charges.
69 Comments for “To Change the GOP, Support Openly Gay Republicans (because HRC won’t)”
posted by Houndentenor on
So I have to support a gay Republican candidate even though I disagree with him on important issues but you have no obligation to support gay Democratic candidates for the same reason. Did I understand that correctly?
For the record I plan to vote in the Republican primary in the fall (we have open primaries in Texas) because there will be NO Democrats running except for statewide office (and none of them are going to win anyway). My only hope of having a say in who represents me in Congress and the state legislature is to vote in the GOP primary. And no, I’m not doing this to help nominate a bad candidate who will be easily defeated in November because chances are except for Governor the Democrats won’t even bother running anyone. It’s too much to expect a pro-gay candidate in these parts. I’d be happy with one who wasn’t openly hostile to gay people. That’s the reality of the GOP in most of the country. So don’t expect a lot of sympathy for the Republican party from me at least not while I’m in exile here in deep red Teabagistan.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
–That won’t dissuade the one-party-is-all-we-need crowd
No doubt their are gay ‘die-hard’ Republicans and Democrats alike (and probably Green Party members, Libertarian Party members and so on and so forth). It is probably a human — if not American — trait.
However, I have never actual met a gay person involved in gay rights who has seriously said that positive legal change can happen only through one political party. Like it or not, America is a two-party system and most gay rights activists that I met or talked with or argued with generally know this.
—once-nonpartisan Human Rights Campaign
I am not sure what the Human Rights Campaign was every anything more then a professional center-left, gay rights organization. It has its good and not-so-good points to it.
Although, the area when the HRC was — apparently — nonpartisan was not radically better (in terms of gay Republicans making a difference within their party) then now.
—to begin endorsing openly gay Republicans (they opposed Tsai in his last run for Congress).
I would be interested to see why they opposed a candidate — any candidate. I generally know why they do not like to support candidates outside of the two major parties, but when they do not support an openly gay Democrat or Republican, I would like to get an actual reason as to why….
I suspect that maybe, the openly gay Republican did not have a terribly good record when it came to supporting gay rights and – for one reason or another — was not big on the entire ‘equal means equal’ concept. Again, if their is another reason, I would love to hear/read it.
—Gay activists is San Diego also worked against DeMaio
Again, it is NOT the job of every gay activist to help gay Republicans or (for that matter) gay Democrats get elected to public office.
No doubt, gay Democrats probably supported the Democratic Party candidate and gay Republicans supported the Republican Party candidate (same thing with the gay GP and LP members).
Again, I would like to actually hear why one candidate was better or worse then the other on gay rights issues. If you are going to make the case for an endorsement (in terms of the gay vote), that might be an issue
Also, I am not sure — again I do not vote in San Diego — but I doubt that it was WIDELY known during the election that the Democratic party candidate was pretty much sexually harassing anything with a skirt. The scandal came out after the election, so it may not have even been on the radar of gay voters during the election itself.
posted by Houndentenor on
At one time (and maybe this is still true) it was the policy of HRC to endorse incumbents unless there was an overriding reason (like the incumbent was anti-gay) in any race. I thought that was a dumb policy but it was the one they had. That may have been a factor here. I too would like to know what their reasons were for their endorsement. Isn’t there usually a statement accompanying the endorsement?
posted by Jorge on
What is suprising is that the House leadership would make it eminently clear it will support gay Republicans who secure their party’s nomination in congressional races…
Uhhh, no it’s not! *rolls eyes*
That old chain-smoking Marlboro Man just wants some friends to talk about cowboys and mountains… of tar, that is. The better to help his quest to end Obamacare, roll back the welfare state, and convert the rest of the world to licking America’s… feet. If it were ten years ago under a Democratic president (Bush being the leader of the Republican party then and having at worst the same position as Boehner), things might be different.
And it’s not like Boehner made a big coming out speech, either. Someone asked him a direct question and he answered it. That’s the problem with almost everyone in the Republican party who isn’t either a far-right social conservative or a relative of someone who’s gay: they don’t say anything about gays until you hit them. So now we have this official Republican organization saying they won’t discriminate based on “sexual orientation.” They’re actually use the words “sexual orientation” now! This may look like progress, but it actually heralds stagnancy–maybe the party’s message about gays will change, but their delivery won’t. They will still be silent unless asked.
I’m all for progress by the Republican party, but we still need someone to hit them to get them to spit it out.
posted by Houndentenor on
In the interest of fairness, until VERY recently we had to do the same thing to get a pro-gay statement from most Democrats. It’s not just going to happen. Democrats didn’t embrace gay rights positions without a lot of pressure from gay people and our allies. The same will be true for Republicans, only it’s going to be harder and therefore will take even more effort. What I don’t understand is why gay Republicans seem more focused on blaming liberals for their failure to do for them what they can’t do through at least two separate gay conservative organizations (GOProud and LCR). It would seem to me that it would be more productive to fundraise and work with LCR than to blame HRC. As far as I can tell HRC has accomplished nothing while at least LCR waged a successful challenge to DADT. Yes HRC is a larger organization, but for all the money spent they have nothing to show for it. Show us that there’s a better way to do this. I challenge you. I’ll even dare you if that helps. I’ll be thrilled to see more Republicans voting for gay issues.
posted by ShadowChaser on
If the Republicans won’t support gay Republicans — hello, Randy Forbes — why should gay independents or other gay Republicans support gay Republicans.
If candidates Tisei and DeMaio want my contributions, I would want them to promise that they vote PRESENT should the GOP maintain its majority in the House of Representatives and Boehner be retained as Speaker.
posted by Doug on
It’s unfortunate but John Boehner does not control the GOP in the house, the Tea Party controls John Boehner. Another problem in voting for an out gay candidate is that when push comes to shove on a tough vote, the leadership can, 9 times out of 10, exert enough pressure to get the vote they want. While it’s great that Boehner said they should support gay GOP candidates lets wait and see if that actually happens before we start singing kumbaya.
posted by The Purple Elephant on
[…] We’ll keep our eye on it. But all in all, not a bad turn of affairs for the pro-equality wing of the Republican Party. As Stephen Miller of IGF Culture Watch puts it: […]
posted by Boehner wants to support candidates who will win, gay or straight | The Purple Elephant on
[…] We’ll keep our eye on it. But all in all, not a bad turn of affairs for the pro-equality wing of the Republican Party. As Stephen Miller of IGF Culture Watch puts it: […]
posted by Jorge on
Another problem in voting for an out gay candidate is that when push comes to shove on a tough vote, the leadership can, 9 times out of 10, exert enough pressure to get the vote they want.
How is that any different from voting for a straight candidate?
In fact, that’s actually a very good reason to vote for a gay candidate. With only a 1 in 10 chance s/he’ll be their own wo/man on any one vote, best pick the issue carefully. There’s a lot of competition out there and the leadership’s got a sharp whip. We need someone with spinelessness only on the issues that aren’t important to us.
posted by Doug on
It’s no different for a straight candidate. What I’m saying is that if you vote for a gay candidate they will likely be pressured to vote on anti-gay legislation and will probably cave just to get re-elected because the GOP is at it’s core anti-gay.
posted by Jorge on
You don’t find my rebuttal convincing, I take it?
Well, all right. We have had situations in which it can be argued that gay Republicans have been pressured into taking allegedly anti-gay positions (Mary Cheney, Ken Mehlman). In my mind this has never been proven, but neither can I disprove it. We also have had situations in which it can only be argued gay Republicans came to allegedly anti-gay positions naturally (GOProud). I think the latter is more common, but here again I cannot prove it. The latter accusation is easily disproven, but that is not relevant unless it can be proven that it is much more common.
posted by Doug on
How does a gay Republican come ‘naturally’ to an anti-gay position? Self loathing perhaps?
posted by Jorge on
That’s a double-edged sword if you believe in that. It makes people point at you and invent even more mental disorders.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Doug: How does a gay Republican come ‘naturally’ to an anti-gay position? –
Promises of M-O-N-E-Y and P-O-W-E-R and S-E-X.
posted by Doug on
Exactly. If you sell your soul to the devil. . . . someday you will be called upon to deliver.
posted by Jorge on
That’s… the opposite of natural.
Really, now.
posted by Don on
Gay republican candidates face some difficult choices sometimes. Often because the “anti-gay” option is not a conservative solution for the proposed problem. Hate crimes legislation and workplace discrimination protections being the most obvious ones. Conservatives generally oppose additional regulation of every stripe. So it is not especially anti-gay to oppose ENDA. Many virulently anti-gay people hide behind this veil, but not everyone on the same side of the issue came there the same way. Just as many libertarians oppose the Civil Rights Act as a bad idea, believing social norms and market forces are better avenues of change, there are lots of racists who jump in a shriek “me too! states rights! and kill all the . . .” oops. gotta shut up for that last part.
So libertarians get a bad rap as being racist. The Left demagogues around their worldview and they are left with little recourse for advancing a legitimate argument because “bad people” have joined their “good cause” for the “wrong reason.”
I disagree with Jorge as to Mary and Ken. Do we have enough evidence of their pressure to take anti-gay stances within the party to satisfy a court of law? No. But it’s pretty close. There is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest just that. Immediately following a shift in the power dynamics of their lives, they came out for full marriage equality. (Ken when he quit politics; Mary when her sister, not her father, was the politician)
I would submit, as it happened in my life, that Mary would defer to her father but not her sister. Paternal respect is admirable. But when my brother told me his (anti-gay rights) political views were more important than mine, it got a tad ugly. They are equals in the family structure, so the deference should be gone.
posted by Houndentenor on
I am familiar with the argument that eventually market forces would have ended segregation. I’ve heard it from anarchists as well as libertarians. I don’t buy it. I grew up in East Texas. The market forces in that region would have resisted segregation and it would still be in practice. In fact, in many places in this country for all practical purposes the schools are still segregated. (District lines are often drawn along racial lines.) Companies did not embrace hiring practices. When a sizeable majority likes the status quo the market forces would then work to maintain that status quo. The result was going to be violence. We had enough for that anyway, but it could have been a lot worse.
Markets are good for a lot of things. I have personally seen many examples of innovation and competition creating good for both business and customers. But neither the free market nor government intervention is the solution for all problems.
posted by Jorge on
When Ron Paul tacitly argued against the principle of the Civil Right Act during the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, I thought he effectively laid out a case that today there is a force that makes government intervention unnecessary for good of the highest order to result.
Where libertarians go wrong is saying that force is the market. The free market simply cannot carry all the burdons and needs of humanity on its shoulders. It can make things easier, but it can’t actually cause things to happen. There must be an agent for change.
posted by Don on
it was a clumsy statement, I admit. there are many, non-market forces for social change. secular and religious. unfortunately many of them fight against positive social change. Ask the Baptists their thoughts on racism.
posted by tom jefferon 3 on
–So libertarians get a bad rap as being racist.
I am not sure how ‘bad’ this particular rap may be. Remember that folks like Norm Chomsky — who reflect the original left-libertarian sentiment — are rarely actually described as being libertarian anymore.
In America the bulk of the groups and parties that like to call themselves ‘libertarian’ are only vaguely libertarian when it suits them. Simply put; the big business owners, the racist state’s rights activists, my-church-is-the-only way, cultural-reactionaries took over the libertarian movement, sometimes under the banner of Ayn Rand or fighting the ‘Reds’ or under the vague notion of ‘freedom’.
Congressman Paul and — later on — his Senator son created a quite lucrative empire by playing this game. Ayn Rand did so — before them. Right-wing libertarianism is a con and should be treated as such.
With Mary Cheney — switching gears a bit because she has never claimed to be a libertarian — I would accept (to some degree) the notion that she acted out of father-daughter loyalty or deference.
Although I suspect that most of it — in terms of her near silence during the Bush administration and her sudden willingess to gently speak in public about it, probably comes down to money.
I suspect that her father’s connections, probably help land her some pretty good jobs. She probably just did not want to ‘bite the hands that fed’ her….
That applies much less, after the Bush administration and when she is talking about opposing her sister’s public statements on marriage equality.
posted by Don on
Opposition to gay marriage I view differently than opposition to ENDA or hate crimes legislation. Conservatism is about skepticism of social change, mostly due to unforeseen consequences. Was it good to provide extra public assistance to women whose husband would not marry them and women earned much less than they do today? Absolutely. And yet, it incentivized women refusing to marry the fathers of their children.
But opposition to gay marriage, contrary to what Jorge seems to believe, is merely skepticism of social change. It is clearly fear of the other. If marriage were only about procreation and child rearing, we would have made fertility and offspring a requirement for admission to the club. But it seemed cruel to elderly who wished to remarry late in life. Same with infertile heterosexual couples. It would be cruel to slight them again after fate dealt such an ugly blow.
So why then slight same sex couples? In short, fear of divine retribution and unmooring from biblical teachings. Many won’t vote for it for fear of a hurricane or an earthquake or economic calamity as “wages of sin.” While many liberals scoff at the belief as foolhardy, many still believe the exact same thing. They just call it “karma.”
I do tend to believe in Karma rather than the Guy in the Sky punishing people. If you will, a good luck/bad luck based on being kind and loving/mean and selfish. I believe that if anyone is causing the hurricanes, it’s the anti-gay side with such petty meanness toward “the other.” (no, I don’t think anyone’s causing hurricanes. but there is something to karma. just can’t define it all that well) Laugh if you must.
Now, unlike Stephen, I do not ascribe the fault of virtually no conservative solutions to gay issues on the heads of liberals. I blame conservatives. Because they still refuse to see there are problems for gays at all.
Most conservatives see no problem with income inequality and therefore offer no solutions either. But Marie Antoinette shared that belief, too. Things didn’t turn out the way she hoped either.
posted by Jorge on
But opposition to gay marriage, contrary to what Jorge seems to believe, is merely skepticism of social change.
I assume you are basing this on my comments in other blog posts, because I do not know where you are getting this impression from. In any case it is a false one.
Others would say “the preservation of the social order”. And of personal integrity.
If marriage were only about procreation and child rearing, we would have made fertility and offspring a requirement for admission to the club. But it seemed cruel to elderly who wished to remarry late in life.
Men remain fertile late in life. Women can still bribe their way into the club with dowrys late in life, especially if they’re widowed. Compassion is short in a sexist world.
So why then slight same sex couples? In short, fear of divine retribution and unmooring from biblical teachings. Many won’t vote for it for fear of a hurricane or an earthquake or economic calamity as “wages of sin.” While many liberals scoff at the belief as foolhardy, many still believe the exact same thing. They just call it “karma.”
People would do something they know is wrong out of fear of being punished by God? Doesn’t that make them Satanists? No… no, those people exist, and you can smell their ugliness a mile away. People who believe in God do what they know is right.
posted by Don on
preservation of social order would leave us with public stonings and selling our daughters into slavery. where do you draw the line?
And people often do wrong things because they believe their religion instructs them to do so. And all religions have been culpable of this. See Crusades; Fatwas.
posted by Jorge on
preservation of social order would leave us with public stonings…
We’re not much better. We used to use the electric chair (some states still allow inmates to choose it). I am not moved at all.
…and selling our daughters into slavery. where do you draw the line?
Where to draw the line? Ask yourself this: Is it evil? Is it harmful? Does it serve no purpose? If the answer to these questions is no, then there is nothing to complain about.
I suppose I could say the line that with new knowledge we learn of sins in the existing order that were not previously known to us.
But until that happens you have no objection.
posted by Doug on
“People who believe in God do what they know is right.” How do you figure that? People who believe in god to bad things all the time.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s always amused me that so many people who claim to believe in God are far more afraid of public condemnation than divine punishment. (Bishops who shuttled child raping priests around the country, Ted Haggard and his ilk, etc.) I call bullshit on the lot of them. Yes, there are people who truly believe but they are, in my experience, far less likely to make a big show of it.
posted by Jorge on
I hope you’re not seriously endorsing the idea that people who believe in God do things they know to be wrong because they’re afraid of being condemned to hellfire. If you are I simply have no further response than what I said earlier.
posted by Houndentenor on
One other thing. Pro-gay Republicans matter not because of this week’s polls but because in most cases where we have passed pro-gay legislation (the repeal of DADT, various state laws for gay marriage etc.) there were a few Republican votes that were necessary in order to get the bill passed. Majorities tend to be relatively narrow in most states so just support from one party is not enough, especially if a Democrat from a conservative district chickens out. This is why LCR is so important. What I don’t understand is why there is so much whining about HRC and so little promotion of specific candidates or appeals to work with LCR, etc. There were Republicans who voted for ENDA in the Senate. Some of them may be facing primary challengers because of that vote. They may well need your help. It’s certainly not in any of our interest for that seat to go to an anti-gay Republican (especially since some of those seats are just not going to go to a Democrat).
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I think Miller constantly asks ‘everybody/somebody’ to help gay Republicans get elected – because he has lost any hope that the Republican Party will move forward re: this issue, on its own.
The repetitive denunciations of HRC, the whining about gay Republican candidates who don’t get support from every lgbt political organization (without reviewing the context for that lack of support) – it’s a smoke screen to obscure the heart of the matter.
The Republican Party has cornered itself re: lgbt civil equality. The social conservatives/religious fundamentalists comprise a significant core constituency of the Party. And as Rev. Rick Warren just noted – support for such issues as marriage equality is nowhere on the horizon from the evangelical, fundamentalist crowd. And per Rev. Warren, will never be…
Can anyone here imagine the abuse Miller would receive if he took his plea to support gay Republicans to the conservative sites he frequents?
What would happen if Miller took his arguments for equality to the sites that he links in his posts?
In an above link, he takes us to ‘Hot Air’ – which is Ed Morrissey’s site. Morrissey would remind Miller that marriage is all about ‘theoretical procreation’, and that same sex couples somehow can’t have kids, or the kids they do have don’t count. Or something like that. (Morrissey believes that marriage is all about procreation. But marriage might be left to the states, with no federal/judicial oversight at all.)
Or perhaps Miller could write an article to submit to Lifesitenews.com – the rigidly conservative site (Miller linked to in his previous post) which conflates homosexuality with abortion and euthenasia, all of which, the site contends, will destroy western civilization’s morality.
You can imagine how well any argument for civil equality will go on that site.
So – the sites Miller mines for his posts here on IGF – are exactly the sites which would forthrightly reject the gay Republicans Miller is so concerned with electing.
Which means he has to come here. Linking his posts to conservative sites with decidedly anti-gay ideologies. While criticizing the lgbt organizations for not doing what his own ideologically-compatible organizations won’t do themselves. (If that makes any sense?)
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, that makes sense. And well stated. You did a much better job of making the argument that many of us have been trying to make for some time now.
posted by Mike in Houston on
While I’m not one to get between folks and their enmity towards the Human Rights Campaign and their political endorsements, I would point out that their criteria is pretty damn straight forward (see http://www.hrc.org/issues/pages/federal-pac ) and the prosepective endorsees have to agree to a face-to-face interview, not just a questionaire filled out by a staffer.
Some of the criteria?
Endorse the HRC position on ENDA, hate crimes, marriage equality, etc.
History of leadership on LGBT equality, including pushing fellow policy-makers on these issues.
Active rapport with the local LGBT community.
The candidate must also be viable.
HRC favors incumbency and when an elected official in a particular seat works consistently on behalf of LGBT Americans, HRC rewards that loyalty.
So… not many Republicans (gay or straight) match that… even the gay candidates that Stephen keeps carping on.
Political endorsements aren’t the only thing that HRC does. Arguably, the most effective effort of theirs is the Corporate Equality Index which just released their 2014 report today… take a look: http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/corporate-equality-index
posted by Kosh III on
“Just as many libertarians oppose the Civil Rights Act as a bad idea, believing social norms and market forces are better avenues of change,”
How’d that work out from 1865 to 1965? Got any crow Mr Jim?
posted by Don on
precisely why I generally favor the liberal answers to those types of problems. I readily acknowledge that government-less social progress exists and even thrives. But most of the time, it cannot muster even the tiniest support for the most egregious of wrongs.
Same with gay rights. Virtually all of the opposition to the legal protections is based on the desire to discriminate. Not all, but virtually all. Whenever faced with someone who opposes this in principle, I say ‘well, if people were principled, this legislation wouldn’t be necessary. besides, if no one violated the law, no lawyer could sue. so you’re basically defending the bigot over the victim.’
The conversation doesn’t last that long.
posted by Houndentenor on
And it’s not as if things were slowly getting better for black people in the south during that 100 year period. In fact they got progressively worse. it’s even reflected in the popular culture of the time. (Most of it is not widely promoted because it’s so amazingly ugly. You can, however, find bound collections of sheet music from about 100 years ago in which the front 1/3 are operatic arias, the middle 1/3 are genteel parlor songs (Stephen Forster, etc) and the final 1/3 minstrel and “coon” songs. If you don’t know what a “coon” song is, you’ll have to do your own research because they are too revolting for me to look at again for some time (if ever again). it was uglier than our history texts show. The careful editing of history has allowed Americans to undervalue just how ugly things got leading up to the Civil Rights movement. That was not going to correct itself through “market forces”.
posted by Don on
And you have explained exactly why I prefer the liberal answer to this particular problem.
posted by John D on
I know I’ve mentioned this before, but maybe it bears repeating. I can only hope that Stephen reads this comment, since he seems to miss what is the central mission of the HRC.
The mission of the HRC is to elect pro-gay candidates. Note that’s “pro-gay,” which isn’t the same as “gay.”
Let’s make up two extremes.
Candidate 1 is pro-ENDA (trans-inclusive, natch), pro-marriage equality, and so on down the line. She’s a heterosexual woman with three adult children, all of whom do seem to be heterosexual themselves.
Her opponent, Candidate 2, is a gay man. However, he favors the abolition of all anti-discrimination law and a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
Easy question, Stephen. Given HRC’s mission, which candidate in this race should they endorse?
What happens in real life is that whenever there’s a pro-gay Republican, the Democrat is even more pro-gay. Therefore, the HRC is going to support… It’s an easy question. The more pro-gay one.
posted by Mike in Houston on
HRC’s endorsement criteria are pretty straightforward and listed on their website @ http://www.hrc.org/issues/pages/federal-pac .
And the gay GOP candidates that Stephen cites so often simply didn’t meet that criteria. (Few GOP folks do.)
The only PAC that gives solely to LGBT candidates is the Victory Fund — and they don’t give to the “I’m gay but don’t expect for me to advocate for equality” crowd either.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen misses the point when he asserts “To Change the GOP, Support Openly Gay Republicans“.
It should read “To Change the GOP, Support Pro-Equality Republicans.”
The two are not equivalent, as several have pointed out.
Fairy dust isn’t going to change the Republican Party. A concerted and sustained effort by pro-equality conservatives to support pro-equality Republican candidates, and to withhold support from anti-equality Republican candidates, might, over time.
posted by Mike in Houston on
To get an HRC endorsement, you have to 1) be a leader in promoting pro-LGBT policies, 2) have an active rapport with the local LBGT community and 3) agree to a face-to-face on-the-record interview with the selection committee (versus having a staffer fill out a questionaire that you can disavow later).
The only GOP House member to go through that process was Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL-27).
And the gAyTM isn’t monolithic either — While Stephen’s poster-boy Tisei did not seek the endorsement of HRC, the Victory Fund did endorse him and give money to his campaign.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I have also heard this libertarian (right-wing) attack on civil right laws. Ayn Rand and her followers shared this anti-civil rights viewpoint.
Yes, Technically, ‘Jim Crow’ refers to government-sponsored or required discrimination. Laws were put on the books that forced racial segregation. OK, I can conceed this point (which is almost always how Objectivists and libertarians start out the argument)
Yet, their was also systematic discrimination by private entities and, I have no doubt that had — for some odd reason — Jim Crow laws not been required by the government, much of the private sector would have installed Jim Crow anyways.
posted by Mike in Houston on
See “Gentlemen’s Agreement” with Gregory Peck.
posted by Houndentenor on
That’s an excellent film. Everyone should see that one!
posted by Lori Heine on
I won’t vote for an anti-gay Republican. My reason for joining the GOP in the first place was to push for change, so to vote for a homophobe would defeat my purpose in being there.
In an election pitting an anti-gay Republican against a statist liberal, I would choose the Libertarian option.
Knowing quite a number of actual small-l libertarians — as opposed to those who populate the imaginations of many commenters here — some (like me) are in favor of legal measures to strengthen civil rights for racial minorities, at least in some instances. For example, I think the public schools must be mandatorily desegregated. After all, African-American and Latino voters’ pockets are being picked to pay for them, right along with everyone else’s.
Beware the easy answer, particularly the one mindlessly repeated by those inside the bubble. I don’t fit neatly into any category, and I catch heck for it everywhere I go. I get impatient when I see others afraid to color outside the lines.
posted by Houndentenor on
“pockets being picked”? Barf.
Public schools are a necessity. We all have to chip in to pay for them. That’s no more theft than stopping at a stop sign is a violation of my rights. What a bizarre way to see the world. If you have problems with HOW the tax system works, I’m all ears. No one likes paying taxes but we have to have streets, roads and highways, schools, police and fire departments. Theft? Only when we don’t get what we paid for. (which is too often true, and again I’d join you in reform but not so long as you continue in this tone.)
Meanwhile…I had planned to vote in the GOP primary next year because otherwise I have no say in who will become my governor, senator, congressman, state representative and state senator. Today I discover that both my senator and Congressman who to me are far right nutjobs are both likely to face challenges from the right. Yay me. I will get to spend the next six months watching people I pay taxes to represent me (okay, I’m starting to be more sympathetic to your “theft” meme) fight over who hates gays more and who is more willing to drive the country off a cliff rather than compromise in any way. Oh joy, oh rapture. Oh for a gay Republican to support. As if that would happen here in deep Teabagistan.
posted by Lori Heine on
When our money is being taken — by force — to pay those who attack us and actively attempt to do us harm, then theft is exactly what it is. I stand by that definition.
It’s only nutty if it isn’t true. Increasingly, this country is becoming so nutty that calling it what it is can only be seen as sane.
When African-Americans are taxed to pay for schools their kids can’t attend, likewise, it is theft. Always has been. Which is why this libertarian DOES support government-enforced desegregation.
Things must really be horrible in Texas. I don’t think I’d ever want to move there. In Arizona, there are plenty of crazies, too. They are simply more diluted in their power, because the urban areas tend to be more purple than red.
posted by Houndentenor on
If your point is that it’s wrong for people to be taxed and then denied equal rights, then we agree. That’s also unconstitutional. My object is your use of the word “theft” to describe taxation because theft is an illegal act punishable by law. I would suggest that you find a different term because that one makes you sound like a nut and I don’t think you really are.
As for Texas vs Arizona, six of one and half dozen of the other. I’m not actually in a city or things would be much better at least for Congressional representation. I’m outside a metropolitan area in a college town where we have been gerrymandered to dilute Democratic votes. I’m out of here as soon as I can to someplace not run by idiots (Perry) and the insane (Cruz).
posted by Jorge on
The idea that racially segregated school districts comprise of blacks paying for white schools from their tax money is a new one to me.
I’ve always considered it the other way around, as in white flight.
posted by Lori Heine on
You seriously believe that in the heavily-segregated South of the Fifties and Sixties, not a dime of African-American tax money went to support the schools from which their children were barred entrance? Surely you don’t buy into the statist-Right B.S. that African-Americans don’t pay taxes!
That you admit to the existence of “white schools” indicates you realize that segregation still exists — despite the claims so frequently heard from the Right that it doesn’t.
Supporting conservative principles shouldn’t mean denying reality. Yokels like this Randy Whoever in Congress would doubtless also insist that global climate change is a myth, and that rape victims can’t get pregnant if they stand on their heads and recite the Lord’s Prayer immediately thereafter.
posted by Jorge on
Surely you don’t buy into the statist-Right B.S. that African-Americans don’t pay taxes!
I think it’s a little disingenuous of you to be use the very different economic strata of the 1960s to support your argument. Highlighting the time when there was a vibrant black middle and working class makes for a good stand on principle, but only serves to stand in contrast to the reality of what we have today: racial stratification of income and poverty, and resistance to inter-generational upward income mobility among African Americans. A little more courage on your part is in order.
Your use of the word “statist” adds nothing to understanding.
That you admit to the existence of “white schools” indicates you realize that segregation still exists
Actually, no. “Still” exists? It could easily have been dismantled and then re-animated by “market forces”. That would be a different kind of segregation. I did say white flight, didn’t I?
Segregation as most Americans understand the word isn’t just about racial stratification. It’s about not even being allowed to go to a school, it’s about a denial of freedom, of opportunity. Not one black person could go to a white school. One white person should not associate with a black school (I’m sure some must have gotten through on rare occasions). Yet the current segregation is an expression of freedom, with people using their opportunity to segregate themselves. What these two segregations have in common is a power differential, with whites having more discretion and power. Interracial busing was an intervention that took choice away from parents and students.
posted by Don on
I’m actually really starting to enjoy this particular thread. Although I get a lot out of all of them. Lori’s worldview is definitely complex as she has stated before. And quite refreshing. No offense meant, but I think a lot of libertarians would say you don’t belong in their group as you would use government “force” to right societal wrongs that are better left to natural forces to right. (I’m totally with you. That’s nuts and would never happen.)
And I’m with Houndentenor in that calling taxation theft makes almost everyone who doesn’t use the term in that manner wince. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t have at least one big government expenditure that they disapprove of. Military/SS/EPA/OSHA whatever. But it is part of living in a society.
I, personally, don’t mind paying taxes at all. (which probably could get me booted out of here) but I think the roads and bridges I use for “free” are a heckofalot cheaper because we all pay for them. And I like our limited welfare system generally. One dollar of my taxes can provide millions with food assistance because there are 300 million other dollars going into that pot. No church could pull that off. (okay, nobody excoriate me for the flippantly inaccurate math. it’s the principle I’m describing)
I’m not a Tea Party guy because I know our taxes are lower than they have ever been in any living American’s lifetime. I’m not “taxed enough already.” And I don’t see us choking to death on welfare and handouts. We give the lousiest handouts in the developed world.
I guess all of that is because I try to be a glass half-full guy. Things could be better. Especially on gay rights. But as far as this country goes, we’re doing an enormous number of things right.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. The Gentleman’s Agreement and Crossfire are two great, 1940s films about anti-Semitism. Although one of them was originally about homophobia, but was modified.
anti-Jewish discrimination in America tended to work differently then discrimination against African Americans. The American government rarely passed a law saying “You must exclude Jews”, but their certainly was a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ put into place.
Again, it illustrates that even without government-mandated discrimination, discrimination was still a problem, and continues to be today.
Houndentenor; Sorry to hear about your political situation? Have you ever thought about running as an Independent, just as a protest vote or something?
Yeah, the mantra of the Libertarian-Right is that “taxation is theft” or even “taxation is unconstitutional”. I kid you not, I actually had went to a campus libertarian potluck recently and (along with singing the praise of the Tea Party) the video they showed argued that tax laws are all unconstitutional.
posted by Mike in Houston on
“Pot luck”? You mean where everyone brings something (according to the abilities) and shares (according to their needs)?
Sounds like communism to me!
posted by Don on
OMG. I cannot stop laughing. Seriously.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Yeah, that is what a Minnesota “pot luck” basically is, and (to top it off) this event was being held at a public University.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m not running for office. I did vote for “anyone but a Republican” including Libertarians and Greens in 2012. I did my homework before going to the polls. It was a motley crew the GOP put up here and every last one of them won. Hardly any of them had a serious challenger. Sad, really.
As for the “all taxation is theft” meme, that’s straight out of Ayn Rand. Maybe it wasn’t original with her, but I hear it from Randians all the time. Oh no, I’ve accused someone of liking Rand when she doesn’t, but she does. Confused? You’re not alone. I’ve never been able to get a straight answer from any Libertarian (or Teapartier for that matter) about what they are FOR except in the vaguest terms. They all seem to know what they are against. That’s rather childish. It’s all well and good to dislike the current system. We all have parts of it we don’t like. But you have to tell us SPECIFICALLY what you want to do instead. Otherwise you’re just an old coot sitting on your port screaming at the kids to get off your lawn!
posted by Lori Heine on
I am for non-aggression in politics. I am for non-aggression in citizens’ dealings with one another. The problem is that this is TOO specific, and so those who shy away from it need to pretend it isn’t clear.
“Progressives” claim they favor the most direct possible democracy. Permitting citizens to choose where to spend their OWN money, based on their own priorities, is the most direct form of democracy possible.
I don’t know why there’s such a derangement syndrome on this site about Ayn Rand. It’s almost Pavlovian, and it’s very funny. As I am, evidently, less obsessed with Ayn Rand than many of the other commenters here, I actually do not pause to consider, every time I form an opinion, what she might or might not have thought on the subject.
Tea Party is another big Pavlovian ding-ding here. Dinnertime! Begin salivating!
I will attempt — again — to explain the general libertarian attitude toward the Tea Party. As the TP movement is about as non-monolithic and anarchic as any could be, different groups are very, very different in various areas. Some are heavily infested with social conservatives, others are practically run by Right-of-Center gays. Libertarians evaluate their local group according to whether it sticks to stated Tea Party principle (which they like) or strays into soc-con land (which they don’t).
As many Tea Party people (often erroneously) believe that they are libertarians, they tend to run around calling themselves libertarians. We take that with a grain of salt.
Don is correct that some libertarians would not like my support for the government enforcement of civil rights laws. But it is perfectly in keeping with libertarian principle to believe that people who expect to get special goodies from the government (as white people did, during the Civil Rights Era especially) ought to play by its rules.
I also believe that as long as the Boy Scouts have their hand in Uncle Sugar’s pockets, the government should tax the hell out of them.
posted by Lori Heine on
Oops, excuse me. SPECIFICALLY, Houndentenor, I would permit taxpayers to specify, to the government, where their tax money would go. We’d quickly learn what “the people” really supported and what they didn’t.
There — direct democracy in action!
posted by Doug on
No offense intended but that is a totally unworkable situation, it may make a nice fantasy but is totally unworkable in the real world.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I would permit taxpayers to specify, to the government, where their tax money would go. We’d quickly learn what “the people” really supported and what they didn’t.
Tell me how this would work in the real world, using a single area of the federal budget.
I support a small, well equipped, highly trained, professional standing military, with emphasis on special operations and quick reaction forces, backed up by a larger, non-professional ready reserve military for trained for conventional warfare, manned by univeral service and training.
Accordingly, I would reduce the standing military from about 1.5 million to about 250,000, and increase the size of the ready reserve from 850,000 to about 3 million. I would eliminate the National Guard altogether, to reduce duplication in forces and eliminate state entanglement in military affairs, which is a federal function.
I support a self-sufficient, self-contained military.
Accordingly, I would eliminate the military’s dependence on civilian contractors, which contributes mightily to our bloated military budgets through waste, inefficiency and fraud, and introduces forces exempt from military discipline into areas of operation.
I could go on, but you get the drift of how I would change the military.
In your theory, how would I designate use of the roughly $9,000 I was taxed to support the Department of Defense last year to effectuate those changes in policy?
The idea of taxpayer specification is popular among the right-wingers around my area of Wisconsin. I hear about it from somebody, usually accompanied by a “We the People …” diatribe, at least monthly.
But I have yet to find anybody who would explain to me how taxpayer specification to actually change policy. What I hear, to be blunt, is the desire to use taxpayer specification to eliminate “Commerce, Education and, uh …“
posted by Jorge on
I’m beginning to think the real reason Rick Santorum came in second in the primary was because people saw how awful Ron Paul’s ideas were. Social conservative never looks so good as when libertarians put their ideas on the table.
No! Why should we let people create a tax system in which their own notions of power are the only thing that matter, which permits them to take any sort of advantage they wish over any sort of less powerful person they wish? Perhaps such a thing is inevitable, but I say let us at least have a principle that stands for what is honorable, fair, and good, so that people remember, take some responsibility.
posted by Don on
Unfortunately, Jorge, I don’t think social conservatives ever look good to anyone else but other social conservatives. Their agenda of enforcing their moral code on others through law and policy makes a large coalition majority recoil in horror. Those inside the social conservative tent don’t see it. They believe all would be better in the world if we turned back time to pre-birth control. That is essentially their message. I’m just not sure how you get women out of the workforce except teaching, telephone operators, and housewives. But if you think that message sells better than the most extreme libertarian proposals, good luck with that. Heck, they couldn’t even get Phyllis Schlafly to stay at home rather than work. And trust me, libertarians, liberals and establishment republicans would nearly all agree the world would have been a better place if she had.
posted by Jorge on
Unfortunately, Jorge, I don’t think social conservatives ever look good to anyone else but other social conservatives.
True, and well-documented. But I think social conservatism looks good to people from the center-left to the far-right.
Those inside the social conservative tent don’t see it. They believe all would be better in the world if we turned back time to pre-birth control. That is essentially their message.
One of the more common rebuttals to religious conservatism is to point to Jesus and his preaching and example of the forgiveness of sins. This rebuttal is at its best when it deflates self-centered self-righteousness, but it often concedes that the subject in question is truly a sin. It’s the pink elephant in the room.
There are good things about past social mores of sexual morality. Their loss is to society’s detriment. It is right to mourn them.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. Ayn Rand is generally VERY influential with the Libertarian Right and the Tea Partiers. Rand disliked the Libertarian Party and was a right-wing Republican. She also had no problem living off of ‘socialist’ government benefits. Again, the Libertarian-Right tends to dominate the libertarian movement in America (cannot say for other nations).
2. The Tea Party — from what I seen and heard — is probably closer to the Christian Reconstructionist ‘Constitution Party’.
They may selectively quote from Ayn Rand, but the Tea Party groups are largely ‘My-Church’-Should-Rule’. They are not socially liberal or even libertarian. I doubt if they would even pass as being libertarians in economic policy, given the fact that so many of them seem to have no problem with government benefits, as long as they benefit and not those “other people”.
Its pretty much the modern version of the late 1960s American Independent Party or the Constitution Party.
posted by Lori Heine on
TJ III,
1. Something very traumatic must have happened to you, early in life, for you to have such a fear-obsession about Ayn Rand. What on earth is your problem? You bring her up in almost every comment.
She was, evidently, a very unpleasant woman. She got into fights with almost everybody she knew and she didn’t like libertarians — or gays. She was a militant atheist, with nothing good to say about religious faith. Please get over the notion that every libertarian loves Ayn Rand.
2. From what you’ve seen or heard, you believe you know all there is to know about Tea Party groups everywhere in the country? Are you serious? You must be widely traveled, indeed.
posted by Doug on
Let me point out that Paul Ryan essentially worshiped Ayn Rand and handed out her books and is generally considered to be one of the Tea Party leaders.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Lorie: TJIII: Something very traumatic must have happened to you, early in life, for you to have such a fear-obsession about Ayn Rand. What on earth is your problem?
Doug: Let me point out that Paul Ryan essentially worshiped Ayn Rand and handed out her books and is generally considered to be one of the Tea Party leaders.
I read Atlas Shrugs when I was younger, and the book was a mess, half-baked intellectual nonsense and boring to boot. As someone (I don’t remember who) said on IGF a year or so ago, Ayn Rand has great appeal to middle school boys, but most of them grow out of it. That’s accurate. Nobody with half the sense that God gave grasshoppers would take her seriously.
But a significant number of Republican politicians take Rand seriously. Paul Ryan does, if his statements to the Atlas Society are to be taken at face value. Rand Paul said “I am a big fan of Ayn Rand. I’ve read all of her novels.” Michele Bachmann frequently uses Randian phrasing and concepts. John Campbell follows Ryan’s practice and gives interns copies of Atlas Shrugged. Kevin McCarthy tweeted about his intellectual awakening after reading Atlas Shrugs. Wisconsin’s Republican Senator, Ron Johnson, not only quotes Rand frequently, but went so far as to purchase and erect (on private land, thankfully) a huge gold statue of Atlas, tweeting and giving newspaper quotes to the effect that the stature was a tribute to Rand. The “maker versus taker” meme so popular among Republicans in recent times is pure Rand.
It is not so much that Rand herself is taken seriously — intellectual midgets aside — as it is that the worst of her ideas (e.g. that (a) laissez-faire capitalism, unrestrained by government interference or regulation, is the basis for a moral society, and (b) “makers” are somehow morally superior to “takers”, and so on), although somewhat homogenized and bowlderized in the translation, are taken seriously by too many conservatives.
Rand is not important in herself — taken on her own merits, she will be cast aside as a curiosity in a few decades — but that she is providing a moral underpinning for a number of dangerous ideas is important, at least for the short run.
Lorie, I don’t mention Rand, because she’s not the problem. Her adoption by a relatively significant number of conservatives is the problem. And I don’t think that you or others like you are Randians. You have a brain and use it.
But don’t dismiss TJIII’s concern about Ayn Rand as an obsession. He is a college student and you can bet that the young conservatives he encounters are full of Rand, as well as that other stuff. So he lives in an environment were Rand is more a matter of day-to-day intercourse than we do.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. Ayn Rand is certainly a MAJOR influence among most of the libertarians and conservatives that I interact with in the (1) University setting and (2) most of the public events I been to where libertarians or the tea party has had a booth.
2. Yes, Rand was an atheist (which the Tea Party crowd generally overlooks). She was also pretty homophobic (which the Tea Party crowd is generally happy to support).