Gay Republicans Who Might Win Drive LGBT Democrats Berserk

The Washington Blade ran an op-ed by a Joe Racalto, who was an advisor to former Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, denouncing the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund for endorsing openly gay GOP congressional candidate Richard Tisei, a former Massachusetts state senator who has a good chance of winning his race against Democratic Rep. John Tierney in the Bay State.

The Victory Fund, which also endorsed former University of New Hampshire dean Dan Innis (he faces former Republican congressman Frank Guinta in a GOP primary), supports openly gay candidates who can run competitive races, support measures advancing LGBT rights, and are deemed sufficiently pro-choice on abortion.

The Victory Fund declined to endorse former San Diego councilmember Carl DeMaio, despite the fact that (as the Washington Post noted, “DeMaio has perhaps the best chance at winning a seat in Congress, among the three.” Critics contend that DeMaio, who released a campaign video in which he holds hands with his partner, Johnathan Hale, at an LGBT pride parade, has been insufficiently supportive of gay rights legislation and accepted support from Republicans who opposed marriage equality in California when he ran for San Diego mayor. (DeMaio is fiercely opposed by the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage.)

Others point out that DeMaio infuriated government employee unions by championing public pension reform in San Diego, and that it’s one thing to support moderate gay Republicans, but endorsing a gay Republican who is actually a conservative (or “Homocon“) who takes on the unions on behalf of taxpayers is just too much to expect.

In any event, several comments on the Blade’s website take op-ed author Racalto and his online fans to task for decrying the Victory Fund’s modest effort at bipartisanship. For instance, Log Cabin Republican David Lampo writes:

“It doesn’t occur to you that elected gay Republicans talking to the leadership and fellow members might result in the party changing its stance? Wasn’t that part of the process of changing the Democratic Party? Republicans will hold the House for the foreseeable future, and yet you would rather have a Democrat in those two seats rather than pro-gay Republicans who can help change the terms of the debate in the party. Amazing.”

The LGBT movement is, to a large extent, controlled by the Democratic party through its operatives who cycle from working for Democratic officeholders and administrations (or for the party itself), to leadership positions with the major LGBT political lobbies, and back again. Changing the GOP’s opposition to gay equality would be bad for the Democratic party, so of course they oppose it.

The Victory Fund’s limited foray into supporting two of three openly gay Republicans running for Congress is a small step in the right direction. Their refusal to support DeMaio shows they still have a ways to go, and the overheated response by Democratic loyalists shows why they’ll need to show a lot more spine if they don’t want to be pushed back into being just another party auxiliary like the Human Rights Campaign.

More. From the comments, Craig123 observes, “it does explain why [LGBT progressives] seem more concerned about defeating gay or gay-supportive Republicans than in defeating actual homophobes.” Indeed.

And Elliott adds his take that openly gay and gay-supportive Republicans “are running in swing districts that a Democrat could win, whereas the ‘phobes are usually running in safely Republican districts.” Which also explains why LGBT Democrats have boots on the ground campaigning in these “winnable” (for Democrats) races—even though a Democratic win means forestalling change in the GOP.

Furthermore. Pew Research Center finds that 61% of young Republicans (under age 30) now favor same-sex marriage. LGBT progressives put hands over eyes and declare the GOP will never change, so no sense working to elect openly gay and gay-supportive GOP candidates to advance and reflect that change, which can never happen.

Still more. And this, related very much to the above: Oregon GOP vote backs gay marriage.

66 Comments for “Gay Republicans Who Might Win Drive LGBT Democrats Berserk”

  1. posted by Mark on

    I admire Stephen’s commitment to identity politics, but a search for his post(s) urging a vote for Tammy Baldwin in 2012 comes up empty. Certainly if having a gay voice in the House Republican caucus is so important, having a gay or lesbian senator for the first time in US history was even more important.

    If Innis, Tisei, or DeMaio is elected, their first vote will be for John Boehner for speaker (the man who has blocked ENDA from coming to a vote). Their vote for the GOP rules package will keep Republicans as committee chairman, meaning that Bob Goodlatte will be chair. (Goodlatte has said that he supports gay marriage bans and believes they’re constitutional: http://www.wset.com/story/24534218/rep-bob-goodlatte-reacts-to-herring-same-sex-marriage-announcement).

    Maybe having a token gay voice in the House Republican caucus is worth increasing the power of anti-gay congressional leaders. But it would be nice to see Stephen explain why this is so.

    • posted by craig123 on

      Everyone who knows politics knows that the GOP will maintain control of the House and may take the Senate. If these guys were running for senator, you might have an argument. But you just ignore Lampo’s point that since the House is going to remain in Republican hands, isn’t it better to have some openly gay Republicans in the caucus room?

      • posted by Mark on

        There’s no chance of the Democrats re-taking the House in 2014. But there’s at least an outside chance of the Democrats doing so in 2016. If they do, it would be by a very narrow margin, and losing any of these marginal seats in 2014 would make the 2016 task much more difficult.

        All of the House Republicans currently know gay people–many have gay staffers–and it doesn’t seem to have made any difference in their anti-gay votes. What possible effect would less than 1% of the caucus being openly gay have on the attitudes of a caucus whose overwhelming majority has strong anti-gay beliefs, and nearly all of whose members represent strongly anti-gay districts? It’s absurd to imagine Rep. Goodlatte or Majority Leader Cantor suddenly backing equal rights just because a district in California replaces a strongly pro-gay rights Democrat with a somewhat less strongly pro-gay rights, but openly gay, Republican.

  2. posted by Doug on

    The LGBT community was able to change the Democratic Party, and a lot of Independents as well, because most of the Democratic Party, and Independents, is NOT made up of right wing evangelical christians.

  3. posted by Lori Heine on

    To vote for a candidate simply because he or she is gay smacks, to me, of tokenism.

    The only thing that would change the GOP is straight Republicans who support equality growing a backbone and standing up for us. It’s good some of those who’ve retired from office have done this. Now it’s time for those IN office to begin doing it.

    I’m through giving straights a free pass when they sidle up to me, in the corner, and whisper that they like me.

    Are the token gays in the GOP who have managed to get elected doing much of anything besides going along to get along with their anti-gay colleagues? If so, I haven’t seen it. Up ’til now, the arrangement seems to have been, “If we let you in, you’d better not make any trouble.”

  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The LGBT movement is, to a large extent, controlled by the Democratic party through its operatives.

    A meme worthy of Michele Bachmann. If you had any idea how long and hard those of us working within the Democratic Party had to work to win the battle for “equal means equal”, you’d realize how preposterous this statement is. Hear the pop, Stephen.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Citation needed. Yes there are people who move from gay organizations to Democratic party jobs and back. Was there any chance they’d get hired but the GOP? The whole idea that this proves anything is hilarious. Also the idea that the Democratic Party controls anything is laughable. The DNC can’t even control itself much less anything else.

  5. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    If you can get stop cooking up paranoia about Democrats long enough to notice some good news, it looks like Oregon Republicans, prodded by younger Republican activists, might actually be headed for a change in the right direction.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Like almost every gay Republican I’ve ever met, Stephen is too focused on hating liberals and Democrats to notice anything else in politics.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        It does seem that the impetus for change in the Republican Party is coming from “young Republican activists“, presumably mostly straight, rather than from gay Republicans.

        And Stephen, who is probably as old as I am, or at least in the grey hair range (he worked for GLAAD in the 1970’s), seems to be fighting yesterday’s war.

        In that respect, he is not different than many of us of a certain age.

        That’s why, having achieved our goal of putting the state and national party platforms on record as supporting “marriage equality” (the earlier drafts of the national party used the term “freedom to marry”), the entire grey-haired leadership of the Wisconsin DPW LGBT Caucus stepped aside so that younger Democrats could take over.

        Our current Caucus leadership are all men and women in their 20’s, who have very different perspective than those of us who are older. That’s a good thing. We’ve fought and (for the most part) won our battle battle to turn the party, and it is time for new energy and direction.

        Stephen and other old dogs of the Republican Party might consider lending support to the “young Republican activists” who can learn new tricks and will make a difference if unleashed.

  6. posted by Andy Cohen on

    On Carl DeMaio you are clearly missing the bigger point: He’s not reviled in San Diego because he’s a Republican, necessarily. He’s reviled by the LGBT community in San Diego because he’s an openly gay Republican who didn’t disturb a single hair on his head in working toward and promoting equal rights. In fact, he undermined the LGBT equality efforts by jumping in league with two of the biggest supporters and funders of Prop 8.

    His economic policies are as Tea Party as they come. His stance on government can be summed up thusly: Privatize everything. His purpose for being is to maximize private profits (at the expense of the public sector, mind you) while keeping wages at a bare minimum, which is why he is at odds with Labor–whose function is to ensure a livable wage for its members, and by effect non-union members alike. He is against the minimum wage, he is against the expansion of health care, he is anti-worker, and would obliterate every regulation protecting the public interest in the book if he could.

    But the most important point for the purposes of this discussion is that electing Carl DeMaio to Congress would do exactly NOTHING to promote equality for the LGBT community. You can be certain that he WILL NOT raise his voice in defense of equality, because that’s not who he is or what he does. That’s his record. Look it up.

    As the San Diego Free Press story pointed out, just because he’s a gay Republican does not mean he’s a moderate who will work to shift the Party’ attitude on gay rights. He’s not, and he won’t.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Rarely do I get any sense that any gay Republican gives a damn about gay rights. In fact, most of their comments about gay people are extremely negative. Your point is well taken. Why should I vote for a gay candidate with whom I disagree on most issues and who is open about not being interested in doing anything for gay people? Why would I support such a candidate?

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Rarely do I get any sense that any gay Republican gives a damn about gay rights.

        DeMaio is in a tough primary battle, and that Stephen could contribute to DeMaio’s primary campaign.

        It seems to me that would be more useful than castigating Democrats, the HRC and the Victory Fund. Maybe off message for him, but more useful.

    • posted by AG on

      “His economic policies are as Tea Party as they come. His stance on government can be summed up thusly: Privatize everything. His purpose for being is to maximize private profits (at the expense of the public sector, mind you) while keeping wages at a bare minimum, which is why he is at odds with Labor–whose function is to ensure a livable wage for its members, and by effect non-union members alike. He is against the minimum wage, he is against the expansion of health care, he is anti-worker, and would obliterate every regulation protecting the public interest in the book if he could.”

      That’s why I would vote for him if I lived in San Diego. Now I’m going to really root for him.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        I have learned that when Republicans say “privatize” they don’t mean “get government out it and let private businesses do what they will”. They mean “hand over taxpayer money to no-bid contractors to do what government used to do only without any oversight or accountability.” No thanks. It’s why no matter what Republicans say on the campaign trail, they are the worst offenders when it comes to government spending.

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          I have learned that when Republicans say “privatize” they don’t mean “get government out it and let private businesses do what they will”. They mean “hand over taxpayer money to no-bid contractors to do what government used to do only without any oversight or accountability.” No thanks.

          Exactly. And the result is usually lower quality service at higher cost.

  7. posted by Jorge on

    Torey Carter, COO of the Victory Fund, said Tisei’s election to Congress would “shatter a glass ceiling for the Republican Party” and “further the dialogue within the GOP about LGBT issues.” With all due respect to Carter, at what cost and at whose expense?

    Well that is the million dollar question, isn’t it?

    We must never, ever…

    Only a Sith deals in absolutes. And the author Mr. Racalto’s absolute…

    And, Congressman Tierney will do one thing Tisei will not do — vote for Leader Nancy Pelosi as the next Speaker of the House.

    …is one that is very dangerous for the social and political advancement of gays, and even more dire for transgender persons. The simplistic Nancy Pelosi = Good, John Boehner = Bad dichotomy ignores the fact that Boehner himself stood up to a call for the National Republican Congressional Committee to refuse to fund gay Republican candidates. This is not a hypothetical! Yet the author treats it as a pipe dream:

    Nor is it a secret that the GOP continues to block or stall every single LGBT advancement at all levels, and in all parts of the country.

    The author pretends to sound reasonable by establishing the opposing point of view, but picks and chooses from among the relevant facts without being upfront about things he can only make a judgment call about. We do not know “at what cost and whose expense” any more than we know the extent of the damage to the Republican glass ceiling or how valuable that damage will be. Yet ignoring and even attacking actual political and social advances will serve only to discourage them. Much is lost by a stubborn insistence on making absolute circumstances that can be easily mitigated.

  8. posted by Jorge on

    That said, I’m not at all convinced this post has proved the point made in the title.

    All of the House Republicans currently know gay people–many have gay staffers–and it doesn’t seem to have made any difference in their anti-gay votes. What possible effect would less than 1% of the caucus being openly gay have on the attitudes of a caucus whose overwhelming majority has strong anti-gay beliefs, and nearly all of whose members represent strongly anti-gay districts?

    Your confidence in the pallative effects of the closet would have Harvey Milk rolling in his grave. For that is where most of the gay people and gay staffers they know are. Oh, maybe not the social and career-crippling closet my elders are familiar with, but certainly a place where it can be convenient to forget people exist. I speak for myself in this: when people know that I am gay and I am watching them, there is a difference. Negative things are said with much less rancor.

    How many Republican politicians who we know know gay people personally have not changed or softened in some way? For every Rick Santorum there’s a Dick Cheney, for every George W. Bush there’s a Rob Portman. In fact look at any Republicans currently in Congress who consistently supports gay rights legislation and you’re highly likely to find a family connection.

    • posted by Lori Heine on

      Why do they need a family connection? Why is this, in the Year of Our Lord 2014, not merely a matter of common decency?

      Anybody who can empathize with absolutely nobody to whom they are not related, or who is not as much like them as possible, is a barbarian. That is little better than savagery.

      The excuses aren’t going to stop until we stop buying them.

      • posted by Jorge on

        Why do they need a family connection? Why is this, in the Year of Our Lord 2014, not merely a matter of common decency?

        Perhaps you could take some responsibility and answer that question yourself. Why haven’t you made it a matter of common decency, if that is so important to you? 10 years is certainly a long enough time. Why haven’t you not only failed to make support for legalizing same sex marriage a matter of common decency, but you haven’t even convinced all of your fellow GLBT people (certainly myself included) that it should be.

        Anybody who can empathize with absolutely nobody to whom they are not related, or who is not as much like them as possible, is a barbarian.

        As you say it, so shall it be. Fare thee well, Barbarian.

        • posted by Doug on

          In case you haven’t been paying attention the LGBT community has been pushing for civil rights for our community for many many years and the biggest majority of those are left leaning. As was pointed out most of the supportive right only come to that position after a family member comes out with the point being made that they seem to lack empathy for anyone but themselves.

          • posted by Mark on

            Regarding Jorge’s point about the allegedly transformative effect of having a gay colleague–as opposed to a gay staffer, or a gay family member (see Matt Salmon)–on the House Republican caucus: each and every member of the House Republican caucus already “knows” openly gay colleagues personally–Polis, Baldwin, Takano, Ciccilline, Mahoney, Barney Frank. It doesn’t appear as if knowing these openly gay colleagues had any effect on what remains an overwhelmingly anti-gay caucus.

            As far as I can understand it, Stephen’s argument is that knowing openly gay Democratic colleagues, openly gay staffers, and in some cases openly gay family members will have no effect on the House Republicans’ anti-gay attitudes, but getting to know a single gay Republican colleague will make such a difference (even though it didn’t when Jim Kolbe and Steve Gunderson were in Congress) that gay people should promote election of these gay Republican candidates, even though they’ll empower an anti-gay majority, and even though (in the CA race and maybe the NH race) their overall positions on gay rights are worse than the Democratic incumbent they’re challenging. Strange argument.

        • posted by Lori Heine on

          In case you care, Jorge, which your ignorance makes clear you don’t, I have been taking responsibility for this matter, in my own life and according to my own lights, for sixteen years.

          Where are you getting the assumptions you are making here about me? Other — that is — from your own ignorant, arrogant imagination.

          I don’t consider it my mission in life to prove to all “GLBT” people that same sex marriage should be a matter of common decency. Not everyone is capable of understanding that, clearly yourself included.

          If you want someone to call a barbarian, try looking in the mirror.

          • posted by Jorge on

            I read in a fictional book once that whenever you point a finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you.

            You speak of the efforts that you have made, but the facts remains that you do not have in this country the results you want. If it is not for lack of effort, lack of righteousness, or lack of correct tactics over the past–I will say 10–years when the issue has been marriage, then I would suggest the more likely explanation than “they’re barbarians” is that you have the wrong expectations. That 10 years is not enough to make a social revolution reach the point where all good people are on your side. I suggest such things to the point that I deliberately annoy you because I think your eagerness to dismiss other people out of loyalty to your own ideas is something that deserves a healthy dose of skepticism.

            I will go one further.

            I fail to see how empathy for one’s own blood over non-relatives is such a horrible moral failing that it makes one a bad person. I think loyalty to family is a good thing that is an excellent test for whether a particular moral value is good or bad. For in seeing the rules apply to your own family and experiencing that in your relationship, you feel a personal connection to their justice or injustice and become motivated to stand up to humanity.

            I do not believe it is beneficial to extend the same standards to society as a whole because that assumes a level of benevolence and goodwill that does not exist in society and which if it did exist would be to the detriment of our ability to compete against those who are in opposition to us when the stakes are high. Outside of family, reason should prevail. In some of those situations empathy is appropriate. In some it is not.

  9. posted by TomJeffersonIII on

    1. Well, goodness me! Some Republicans (who are serious candidates and demonstrate support for equality) are getting endorsed by the Victory Fund. Um, isn’t that sort of what the group is expected to do. Yes, gay Democrats are going to want to support Democrats and gay Republicans will probably want to support gay Republicans, but what is not what the Victory Fund has been about. If the Victory Fund has not had many Republican endorsements since its creation, it is probably for a similar reason why it rarely endorses Independent/third party candidates. i.e. not a serious candidate/unlikely to win or they do not support gay rights

    2. I disagree with the statement “The LGBT movement is, to a large extent, controlled by the Democratic party through its operatives…..”

    Gay Democrats spent years trying to move their own party forward on gay rights issues and (eventually) have been quite success in doing so. Gay Republicans either did not have as much interest in doing the same thing (working within the GOP — for as long) or have not really been very smart about it or both.

    That the leadership of a civil rights group tended to have a better working relationship with the major party that generally backs civil rights, is probably not a surprise.

    Historically speaking, conservatives have not been especially keen on civil rights in America. Civil rights work was basically left to liberals and centrist reformers are some of the small (if not wacky) third parties.

    The Republican Party was — many years ago — the home to a good number of liberals and moderate-reformers. Not so much since the ‘Southern Strategy’ and the efforts to appeal to Christian cultural conservatives.

    Likewise, the Democratic Party was once quite the conservative party with regards to civil rights, but now it is basically the home for serious, liberal and moderate civil rights reformers.

    The GOP is basically the home for the Tea Party, birthers, Southern Strategy and the “moral majority”. Their are exemptions and all of that, but just about every gay Republican I have known (which is quite a few) has told me horror stories about trying to get involved with the party as someone who supports gay rights — even a libertarian version of it.

    If — some day down the road — both major parties support gay rights, then gay voters will vote based on other issues and concerns.

  10. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    Personal/Family connections may help out. That is one of the reasons Harvey Milk talked about coming out. However, much of it is probably also down to careerism/political survival.

    I remember reading some where that the guy who promoted the law in the 1970s that would have banned public school teachers from support gay rights (California — Briggs) was pretty much doing it because it helped him get elected, not because he really hate gays or probably even really cared about the issue one way or the other.

    As the mob says (at least in movies) “nothing personal, just business”. Now as public opinion shifts, you will have politicians ‘evolve’ on the issue of gay rights (some more then others) because it will help them get elected.

    Eventually, opposition to gay rights will only work in a handful of (localized) districts in America and will increasingly hurting your ability to be seen as a serious statewide or federal candidate down the road.

    Again, I do not think we are their yet. When you got a gay Republican who feels like he has to — at least take the money of the pro Prop 8 folks — and not really do much about gay rights, it is clear that its still a work in progress for some….

  11. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The Victory Fund’s … refusal to support DeMaio shows they still have a ways to go …

    Really? Reading through the articles cited in the post and the comments to this thread, it seems to me that DeMaio is the one that may “still have a ways to go” in order to meet the criteria for Victory Fund endorsement.

    Holding hands with your boyfriend in Pride parades demonstrates support for holding hands, but does not, in and of itself, “demonstrate support of federal, state or local efforts to advance LGBT civil rights via the legislative or regulatory process”.

    That’s the Victory Fund criteria, not holding hands. So let’s examine DeMaio’s record.

    DeMaio’s campaign website:

    (1) makes no mention of his sexual orientation (see “About”); and

    (2) contains a single reference (see “Issues, Other Issues”) about LGBT issues (“Carl DeMaio supports marriage equality. The US Supreme Court has now settled this issue as one of equal protection under the law as it pertains to government, while also protecting the right of religions to define marriage within their own faith.“), and he follows that up with “While these positions will guide Carl DeMaio’s votes on these issues should they come up, Carl believes Washington should be focused on balancing the budget, revitalizing the economy, and providing quality services to taxpayers – and leave the social issues out of our politics.

    You read that right. DeMaio wants to “leave the social issues out of our politics”. Uh, huh. How does that square with the Victory Fund’s criteria that an endorsed candidate “demonstrate support of federal, state or local efforts to advance LGBT civil rights via the legislative or regulatory process”?

    You’ve got me.

    Okay, so there isn’t much indication of support in his present campaign. How about his previous efforts to champion LGBT civil rights?

    If the news articles about his record are half-accurate, DeMaio’s record of support is nothing to write home about, and I think that even Stephen would have to admit that …

    So?

    I’m not affiliated with the Victory Fund, but if I were looking to endorse candidates that met the Fund’s endorsement criteria, I’d give DeMaio a pass. It looks like the Victory Fund came to the same conclusion.

    DeMaio’s explanation that he didn’t get the nod because “When it matters, this group is about a liberal agenda.” is almost laughable considering the Victory Fund’s endorsements of Innis and Tisei. Neither is exactly a wild-eyed liberal, and that’s a fact.

    While the Republican bench isn’t deep when it comes to pro-equality candidates, it does have candidates who have earned our support.

    If you want to support pro-equality Republicans this election cycle, think about giving DeMaio a pass and making a contribution to Minnesota State Representatives Jenifer Loon (R-Eden Prairie) and David FitzSimmons (R-Albertville). Both voted for marriage equality last year and, as a result, were refused the Republican Party’s endorsement.

    • posted by craig123 on

      Arguing with a public union advocate/activist from Wisconsin seems rather beside the point, but since Victory Fund isn’t saying why it won’t back DeMaoi, I think the suggestion that it could likely be the opposition by public employee unions is extremely probable. For liberals, unions are sacred, and “public” unions most of all — with their gold-plated pensions funded by taxpayers who don’t have pensions, their no-cost health care funded by taxpayers who pay a large chunk or all of their own premiums, and their above-average pay compared with similar private-sector positions.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        … since Victory Fund isn’t saying why it won’t back DeMaoi, I think the suggestion that it could likely be the opposition by public employee unions is extremely probable …

        Sometimes the simple and obvious answer — that DeMaio doesn’t meet the stated criteria for endorsement — is the correct answer. It seems rather a stretch to conjure up an unrelated reason when the obvious answer is right in front of your face. If DeMaio’s anti-union stance was the reason why he was not endorsed but the two Republicans that the Victory Fund were endorsed would suggest that both are pro-union. I can’t say that I know, but somehow I doubt that either has any great enthusiasm for unions.

  12. posted by Jorge on

    2. I disagree with the statement “The LGBT movement is, to a large extent, controlled by the Democratic party through its operatives…..”

    Your post implies a boomergang effect.

    Gay Democrats>> Gay Democratic Political Operatives>> Other Democratic Political Operatives>> Gay Democratic Political Operatives>>Gay Democrats

    The leadership of the LGBT rights movement, I propose, occurs neither at the highest levels of political operations nor at the grass roots. Though both are terribly powerful, the highest energy is at the intermediate levels, drawing power from both directions. The grass roots is ultimately responsible because it throws the boomerang, but the striking arc and the catch belong to the… curve.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I don’t know about boomerang effects, but I’m inclined to agree with you.

      The energy in the struggle for gay/lesbian rights, it seems to me, has always come from the bottom up, with the so-called “leadership” almost always playing catch-up.

      We saw that with Stonewall, where a bunch of drag queens finally had enough, fought back one night, and sparked street “riots”, protests and demonstrations. The Mattachine Society was left in the dust as angry gays/lesbians formed the GLF, the GAA and a chaotic mess of other groups around the country get the police out of the bars and out of the parks.

      We saw that with AIDS, which put the spine in gays and lesbians my age, changing us in ways none of us could have imagined beforehad. As was the case with Stonewall, we started making progress when ground-level gay/lesbian anger at all the dying around us led to the formation of a host of in-your-face groups like ActUp, that took direct action, scared the bejeezes out of people, and finally prompted attention/action.

      And more recently, we’ve seen it with marriage equality. The so-called “leadership” (HRC and the like) nagged gays and lesbians to execute a careful, step-by-step, state-by-state, incremental strategy, only to see individual gays and lesbians push the issue by bringing lawsuits over which the “leadership” wrung their hands. And look where the chaos has taken us? Does anyone seriously question, any more, that we would be anywhere close to where we are now if gays/lesbians on the ground level had followed the incremental approach?

      Having said that, I think that both the ground-level activists and the “leadership” have a role to play — the ground-level pushes and shoves, not making nice, and the “leadership” soothes and cajoles, claiming to be the adults in the room, trying to keep the horses in power from getting too scared to sign on.

      I think that we need both roles played, too — the HRC, for example, has played a key role in moving American companies down the path of the “Corporate Equality Index”, which the ground-up energy couldn’t accomplish.

      But I think that the energy has always come from the ground-up, and stayed a step or two ahead of the “leadership”.

      I think that there is a reason for this odd conjunction. Groups that provide “leadership” are inherently conservative, in the non-political sense of the world, working to hold onto the gains and risking as little as possible, inherently cautious and incremental. Ground-level pressure is always activist, angry, unsettling, pushing the envelope, rolling the dice.

      In fact, I think that we are seeing this conflict being played out right now, on this list. The folks who put a priority on maintaining our gays are unsettled by the handful of pissed-off gays and lesbians who are pushing for enforcement of public accommodation laws, and these people are condemning ground-level “intolerance”, wringing their hands about “backlash”. The folks who come at this from the perspective of the ground-up are saying “Screw it. I’m tired of this crap. Obey the law.” The “make nice” folks are dressing the conflict up in theory (the ground-up folks less so) but it is the inherent conflict between caution and risk being played out.

      The gay rights movement has always been messy, chaotic, unruly, angry and probably will be for a long time to come. Over time, as “equal means equal” becomes mainstream and gays and lesbians are treated more and more like ordinary citizens — the day when a gay high school boy is just another high school boy — I think that the anger will calm down. But I think that the movement, whatever direction it heads in from time to time, will be messy, chaotic and unruly. I hope so, anyway.

      Taking this line of thinking a step further, the reason why Stephen’s core thesis about the gay rights movement — that it is being orchestrated by the Democratic Party to screw the Republican Party — is unhinged is that it has no reality in fact. It depends entirely on the idea that someone, somewhere is in charge in the movement. That just isn’t so.

      I don’t doubt — in fact, I know it to be true — that there is an interchange between political operatives coming from the Democratic Party and the so-called “leadership” organizations. Operatives are operatives, and they move around from campaign to campaign, organization to organization.

      But the idea that the “LGBT movement is, to a large extent, controlled by the Democratic party through its operatives who cycle from working for Democratic officeholders and administrations (or for the party itself), and leadership positions with the major LGBT political lobbies …” is something that can be conjured up only by someone who has spent too much time hanging around Alphabet-Street bars in Washington, and thinks that what goes on in the movement has much of anything to do with what goes on in Washington.

      All that idea demonstrates is a total lack of understanding of what has been going on for the last four decades.

      The gay rights movement has never been centered in Washington. The gay rights movement has never been centered in the streets. The gay rights movement has never been shaped or molded by the so-called “leadership”. And it probably never will be.

      • posted by craig123 on

        Taking this line of thinking a step further, the reason why Stephen’s core thesis about the gay rights movement — that it is being orchestrated by the Democratic Party to screw the Republican Party — is unhinged is that it has no reality in fact. It depends entirely on the idea that someone, somewhere is in charge in the movement. That just isn’t so.

        Tom, this isn’t at all what Stephen is saying, and leads me to the conclusion you are being intentionally mendacious (in a very obvious way, actually) in order to dismiss that which with you disagree. That’s a sophomoric debating tactic.

        Stephen’s point, made frequently and clearly, is that the leadership of HRC and other key LGBT lobbies is closely tied to the Democratic Party, and that these organizations have an agenda that is not always in synch with the interests of gay people. That is, to “serve the party” by organizing gay labor and directing gay dollars to electing Democrats, at the expense of working to change the GOP by electing openly gay and gay supportive Republicans.

        Given that the current and past chiefs of HRC (and now GLAAD — and I’m sure many other LGBT groups, if you look), all worked for elected Democrats (and the former HRC chief is now doing party organizing, I believe), he seems to make a case that stands up. And it does explain why HRC and other LGBT progressives seem more concerned about defeating gay or gay supportive Republicans than in defeating actual homophobes.

        • posted by Lori Heine on

          Both Tom and Craig are making observations that are true. In a sense, you’re both saying the same thing.

          We can’t simply place blind trust in ANY political organization’s leadership — not in the HRC, not in the Republican Party, not in the Democratic Party, and certainly not in our elected officials.

          Careerism, ambition and hubris abound in the higher echelons of power. Everywhere there is power to be had, they can be found.

          The only way any of us can exert a positive influence — wherever we go — is to be royal pains in the butt. To act up, to speak out, to ask questions, to challenge.

          A lot of people waste a lot of time, on commentary threads like this one, defending one hierarchy against another. But there’s a reason for the comically-hyper-inflated scare rhetoric against the advocates of liberty. It’s why both Fox and MSNBC are so highly (unintentionally) entertaining.

        • posted by Tom Jefferson III on

          —Stephen’s point, made frequently and clearly, is that the leadership of HRC…

          That may or may not have been his intention. But the post in question clearly seems to imply that the “LGBT movement” is somehow — perhaps behind the curtain like in the Wizard of Oz film? ;0 ) — run by the Democratic Party. That is simply a BS statement to make.

          The leadership of the Human Rights Campaign — which is not the entire “LGBT movement” may generally have a better working relationship with Democrats, but that is a far cry from the Democratic Party calling the Human Rights Campaign and saying, “OK, the Democratic Party would really like it, if every gay American wore green tomorrow. Make it happen”

          The Human Rights Campaign got started in the mid/late 1980s (I believe) and frankly, their were not too many Democrats or Republicans in the 1980s who were especially eager to be seen as supporting any gay rights issues.

          However, serious candidates for federal office (which pretty much meant either a Democrat or a Republican) who had a moderately progressive platform on civil rights/social issues were at least willing to find some sort of gay rights issue to be supportive of, i.e. equal opportunity in employment and AIDS/HIV research.

          By the 1980s, you did not have that many socially liberal Republicans getting elected to federal office. John Anderson comes to mind, although I think he became an Independent.

          It was before my time, but how many serious GOP candidates for federal office (in the 1980s) supported gay rights?

          Heck, President Eisenhower would have had a hard time wining his party’s nomination, because the GOP had moved to the far right and wanted to appeal to (mostly) white, blue collar voters (Reagan Democrats), as well as folks that fit into the Southern Strategy/Religious Right.

          The National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce was and (is) generally more progressive then the Human Right Campaign, and generally likes to see itself as the activists who have not ‘sold out’. At least, that as how it seems to me, some other (more matured) folk might have more of a history.

          Although, that does not mean that the ‘LGBT movement’ is always lock step with the Democratic Party.

          Although, I met quite a few libertarian-Democrats at Stonewall DFL meetings and the centrist Independence Party of Minnesota (we have three major parties in our state) does appeal to a certain ‘class’ of gay voter.

          • posted by craig123 on

            the post in question clearly seems to imply that the “LGBT movement” is somehow…run by the Democratic Party. That is simply a BS statement to make.

            The post says the LGBT movement (in the sense of major national LGBT political lobbies) is run by Democratic operatives who cycle back and forth from government to leadership of LGBT organizations. Sorry, but this is clearly a fact.

            As for the Democratic party exerting direct influence, see the recent report of how the White House controls the supposedly independent progressive think tank ThinkProgress (http://zaidjilani.tumblr.com/). I have no doubt that HRC gets the same kinds of calls.

          • posted by elliott on

            To clarify, ThinkProgress is the website at the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAP). It was CAP that got the White House phone calls. If you don’t want to wade through the long article linked to by Craig123, this is the key point made by a former ThinkProgress/CAP staffer who posted a critical piece on Obama’s Afghan policy:

            “But then phone calls from the White House started pouring in, berating my bosses for being critical of Obama on this policy. … Soon afterwards all of us ThinkProgress national security bloggers were called into a meeting with CAP senior staff and basically berated for opposing the Afghan war and creating daylight between us and Obama. It confused me a lot because on the one hand, CAP was advertising to donors that it opposed the Afghan war … But what that meeting with CAP senior staff showed me was that they viewed being closer to Obama and aligning with his policy as more important than demonstrating progressive principle, if that meant breaking with Obama.”

            I think craig123 is probably right when he says no doubt HRC gets the same kinds of calls.

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          Tom: “Taking this line of thinking a step further, the reason why Stephen’s core thesis about the gay rights movement — that it is being orchestrated by the Democratic Party to screw the Republican Party — is unhinged is that it has no reality in fact. It depends entirely on the idea that someone, somewhere is in charge in the movement. That just isn’t so.

          Craig123: Tom, this isn’t at all what Stephen is saying, and leads me to the conclusion you are being intentionally mendacious (in a very obvious way, actually) in order to dismiss that which with you disagree. That’s a sophomoric debating tactic.

          Stephen’s point, made frequently and clearly, is that the leadership of HRC and other key LGBT lobbies is closely tied to the Democratic Party, and that these organizations have an agenda that is not always in synch with the interests of gay people. That is, to “serve the party” by organizing gay labor and directing gay dollars to electing Democrats, at the expense of working to change the GOP by electing openly gay and gay supportive Republicans.

          Stephen clearly said — in this post as he has in other posts — that the Democratic Party controls the LGBT movement:

          The LGBT movement is, to a large extent, controlled by the Democratic party through its operatives who cycle from working for Democratic officeholders and administrations (or for the party itself), to leadership positions with the major LGBT political lobbies, and back again.

          The movement is … controlled by the Democratic Party through its operatives

          I don’t know how Stephen could possibly have said it any more clearly.

          I don’t know if you consider manipulating the movement “to ‘serve the party’ by … electing Democrats, at the expense of working to change the GOP by electing openly gay and gay supportive Republicans …” the equivalent of “screw[ing] the Republican Party”, but I do.

          You can call my shorthand “mendacious” if you want to, I suppose, but I think that what Stephen writes speaks for itself.

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          And it does explain why HRC and other LGBT progressives seem more concerned about defeating gay or gay supportive Republicans than in defeating actual homophobes.

          You and Stephen cling to this meme like a life preserver, but I don’t see any substance behind it. So I’m with Houndentenor on this — back up the statement with facts.

          HRC endorsed well over a hundred candidates in 2012. How many of those races involved a “gay or gay supportive Republican” as the opposition? Look through the list and let me know. I’ll bet you can’t find even a handful, and certainly not enough to give any credence to your statement.

          I can’t speak for the entire country, but I know Wisconsin politics. Not one of the 2012 races where HRC made an endorsement in Wisconsin (Tammy Baldwin (D – Senate), Mark Pocan (D-2), Ron Kind (D-3), Gwen Moore (D-4), Pat Kreitlow (D-7)) involved a “gay or gay supportive Republican”.

          Wisconsin has eight Congressional Districts. The HRC made endorsements in four of them — the four in which strong pro-equality candidates were running. I suspect that pattern is true countrywide.

          As far as I can tell, HRC sticks to its criteria when making endorsements, and that’s no different than any other interest group.

          • posted by Elliott on

            One reason groups like HRC are seen as more active in fighting moderately supportive Republicans is that these candidates are running in swing districts that a Democrat could win, whereas the ‘phobes are usually running in safely Republican districts. And since one Republican is always as bad as another….

  13. posted by Lori Heine on

    There is no “Reply” option to Jorge’s latest rant against me, so I must respond to it here. It’s all over the place, and appears to have no point except to counter me. As it also makes clear he doesn’t understand what he’s responding to, a reply is difficult.

    Jorge, I AM getting “the results I want.” Things are changing for LGBT people — and changing fast. I view results by what real people do, not by what leadership does. I am a libertarian. Please make at least the minimal effort of clicking your mouse a few times to find out what that means before saying very silly things to me about fingers pointing back at people.

    I’m in A.A. I hear slogan all the time. Repeating cutesy slogans, in the middle of a commentary thread exchange, does neither of us any good.

    I stand by my assertion that those who want to use government to do us harm are not good people. They aren’t. If you don’t like the word “barbarian,” then feel free to insert another. But those whose circle of concern are so narrow that they exclude absolutely everybody not like them are not good people.

    It is especially offensive when they violate the teachings of Christ in such a way, then turn around and claim to be Christians. Taking the Lord’s Name in vain doesn’t only happen when you turn the air blue after whacking your thumb with a hammer.

  14. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    [I must have missed something, because the recent ‘flame war’ between Jorge and Lori is not making that much sense]

    • posted by Lori Heine on

      No, Tom III, it’s not making much sense. Not if it is taken at face value. Nor is it a “flame war,” because I am uninterested in fighting one. That’s the sort of thing I wanted to leave behind at Gay Patriot.

      Jorge seems conflicted to me. He knows that a hell of a lot of what’s being done to LGBT people, by conservatives, is not right. But for reasons best left to a psychologist, he feels it necessary to contend against anyone on a commentary thread here who acknowledges that.

      I am not particularly interested in why he does this. He says a lot of very silly things about me, and it’s probably better to simply let them go instead of rising to challenge every one of them. They say far more about him than they do about me.

      At least we’re not calling each other’s mothers whores and accusing each other of being streetwalkers — as would happen on Gay Patriot. I appreciate that there are some standards here.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        Ugh. I was called all manner of names over at Gay Patriot. I finally left, however, after it became obvious that the only gay people who ever posted there at the time (this was 2007-8) were moderates to liberals and that all the conservatives who posted there were vehemently anti-gay. But the last straw as when I went to the blog of a frequent poster there and it was filled with overtly racist anti-Obama rants. There’s just no reasoning with people that far gone and it’s not even worth the time to try. (Also bad for my blood pressure.)

  15. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    More. From the comments, Craig123 observes, “it does explain why [LGBT progressives] seem more concerned about defeating gay or gay-supportive Republicans than in defeating actual homophobes.” Indeed.

    Craig123 referred to “HRC and other LGBT progressives”. You’ve truncated out the HRC. Fair enough. Craig can handle the HRC.

    I asked Craig to let me know how many of the HRC’s hundred-plus endorsements in 2012 involved a race where “a gay or gay-supportive Republican” was running against the HRC-endorsed candidate, and challenged him to come up with even a handful.

    So let me ask you the same question related to the broader base of “LGBT progressives” — The Victory Fund, state LGBT organizations, whatever. Come up with cases in which whatever organizations you might have in mind endorsed a candidate in a race where a “gay or gay supportive Republican” was running (I’ll bet that you can’t come up with a handful, either.) and compare that to the number of endorsements in which the same organization endorsed a candidate in which the other candidate was not pro-equality.

    To keep it simple, let’s look at state legislative, statewide races, Congress and the Senate.

    I think you and Craig are both all toot and no salute on this one, Stephen.

    • posted by craig123 on

      You might want to revisit Stephen’s post here:

      https://igfculturewatch.com/2012/10/28/failed-policy-hrc-doubles-down/

      It links to candidates backed by GoProud and/or LCR that were opposed by HRC and notes (as I referenced in my comment): “So instead of targeting the worst homophobes, the nation’s largest LGBT political pac is working to defeat gay-supportive Republicans (in open races, or races where the Republican is the incumbent).

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        It links to candidates backed by GoProud and/or LCR that were opposed by HRC and notes (as I referenced in my comment): “So instead of targeting the worst homophobes, the nation’s largest LGBT political pac is working to defeat gay-supportive Republicans (in open races, or races where the Republican is the incumbent).

        I would encourage you to look at those LCR and GOProud lists, too.

        I went over the HRC, LCR and GOProud lists Stephen provided in the links, finding only five conflicts — two with LCR, and an additional three with GOProud. Five conflicts out of hundreds of HRC endorsements. The numbers don’t support your assertion.

        So lets look at the specifics. In each case, a 100% pro-equality Democrat was running against an anti-equality or, in a couple of cases, a half-loaf equality Republican. In none of the cases was the Republican even close to 100% pro-equality.

        President
        HRC: Barack Obama
        LCR: Mitt Romney
        GOProud: Mitt Romney

        Romney was, by no objective reading of his positions on equality, “gay supportive”.

        US Senate – Connecticut
        HRC Chris Murphy
        LCR No Endorsement
        GOProud Linda McMahon

        Chris Murphy is a strong partisan for equality, and has a long track record. Linda McMahon was anti-equality until shortly before the election, when she reversed her previous position and endorsed marriage equality, half-heartedly.

        US senate – Massachusetts
        HRC: Elizabeth Warren
        LCR: Scott Brown
        GOProud: Scott Brown

        This is the only case in which a plausible argument can even be made the HRC failed to endorse a “gay supportive” Republican on the conflict list. Brown voted for DOMA repeal. But on other issues, Brown remained anti-equality. Warren was 100% pro-equality and had a good track record on that score.

        US Senate – Wisconsin
        HRC: Tammy Baldwin
        LCR: No Endorsement
        GOProud: Tommy Thompson

        Tommy Thompson could be considered “gay supportive” only in an alternate universe. Tommy supported Wisconsin’s 2006 anti-marriage amendment and supported “traditional marriage” in the 2012 race against Baldwin. Thompson took not a single “gay supportive” position in the race. Not one. Tammy Baldwin was 100% pro-equality, with a very strong pro-equality Congressional record (she’s my Representative, so I know), and she’s open about her orientation as well.

        Congress – Rhode Island 1
        HRC David Cicilline
        LCR No Endorsement
        GOProud Brendan Doherty

        Cicilline is openly gay and 100% pro-equality. Doherty’s campaign website didn’t even mention equality issues. Doherty might have been “gay supportive”, but he was certainly quiet as a grave about his “gay supportive” positions.

        • posted by Elliott on

          It’s short-sighted to argue, as you do repeatedly, that a 100% Democrat is better than an 80% Republican. Long term, it’s better for gay people to transform the GOP from being extremely bad on gay issues to being fairly good, if not as good as Democrats. A nonpartisan approach would recognize that.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            It’s short-sighted to argue, as you do repeatedly, that a 100% Democrat is better than an 80% Republican.

            That may be, but that is a different argument than the argument that Stephen and Craig123 are making, and a different argument than the one to which I am responding.

            Stephen and Craig123 are making the argument that “the HRC and other LGBT progressives seem more concerned about defeating gay or gay-supportive Republicans than in defeating actual homophobes”. I think that is demonstrably, objectively false, and cannot be backed up by credible evidence.

            I am not an HRC member, but I can read the endorsement criteria the group uses.

            HRC endorses candidates with a strong, proven, pro-equality record. HRC favors incumbents. It is concerned with electing 100% pro-equality candidates. It does not endorse half-a-loaf candidates. It is a pretty high bar.

            That’s why, when you look at the endorsement list from 2012, you’ll see that HRC endorsed only about 20-25% of the 535 Democrats who ran for Congress that year. It picked out what it describes as “champions” and endorsed them.

            I simply do not think that there is any substance to Stephen’s and Craig’s assertion; and I think that the citations both use to “prove” the assertion proves, in fact, the opposite.

            So let’s look at your argument — that it is “short-sighted to argue, as [I] do repeatedly, that a 100% Democrat is better than a 80% Republican”. I don’t recall having made that argument, but let me address it.

            I am, as everyone who has read this list knows, a Democrat. I served as chair of the DPW’s LGBT Caucus from 2009-2013, and I’ve been actively involved in helping out “gay supportive” Democratic candidates for about forty years now. I’ve never supported a candidate who was anti-gay, Democrat or not, judged by the standards of the relevant time period (the standards have evolved as our movement has evolved — in the 1970’s for example, marriage equality wasn’t even on the horizon).

            I have long track record, on this list and elsewhere, of urging Republicans to do the work in their party that we’ve done in ours. I have a long track record, on this list and elsewhere, of urging Republicans to get involved in the campaigns of “gay supportive” Republican candidates, particularly in primary elections. I’ve contributed money, on occasion, to “gay supportive” Republican candidates in Republican primaries, although I don’t vote in Republican primaries. I’ve even helped out, in a few instances, by writing campaign plans for “gay supportive” Republicans running in Republican primaries. So I’ve been no slouch when it comes to supporting efforts to help the Republican Party become pro-equality, and I have the track record to prove it.

            I involved myself in those tasks because I look forward to the day when both candidates running in a general election, Democrat and Republican alike, are 100% pro-equality. I’ve worked toward that end as best I can, as an outsider.

            With that background, though, I feel no obligation to support Republican candidates in general elections. I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s political positions on most issues. I don’t see it as my job to vote Republican in an election, just because my vote might help the party turn toward rationality on equality. I vote to elect people who support, as near as possible, my views and my political philosophy.

            As I see it, I have an obligation to work to ensure that the Democratic candidate running in a general election is 100% pro-equality, or as near to that goal as is possible. And that’s it.

            By extension, I don’t see why anyone of a progressive bent should vote against their political philosophy, just because that might help elect a “gay supportive” Republican.

            I’ve never asked a conservative gay or lesbian to vote for a Democrat, and I never will. Conversely, I don’t think that any gay or lesbian has an obligation to vote against his or her political philosophy to help turn the Republican Party, no matter how important that goal may be.

            Long term, it’s better for gay people to transform the GOP from being extremely bad on gay issues to being fairly good, if not as good as Democrats. A nonpartisan approach would recognize that.

            I agree with the first sentence. As to the second sentence, assuming that you are referring to HRC and other groups that issue campaign endorsements, I don’t think that it is my business to tell a group to which I don’t belong how to run its affairs.

            The Victory Fund holds itself out as non-partisan, has its criteria for endorsement, and endorses accordingly. I think that this is the first election cycle in which openly gay Republican candidates were even available for endorsement, and The Victory Fund endorsed two out of the three gay Republican candidates running. It declined to endorse DeMaio, but it seems obvious to me that it withheld its endorsement because DeMaio did not meet its endorsement criteria. All in all, it seems to me that The Victory Fund is doing what it is supposed to do.

            HRC has not issued endorsements yet this year, as far as I know. It has its endorsement criteria, as well. If a Republican candidate meets its criteria, I would hope that HRC would endorse the candidate. The HRC holds itself out as non-partisan, and it should act accordingly when the opportunity presents itself.

            But I don’t believe in some sort of “affirmative action” for Republican candidates, a system in which a Democrat has to score 100% on the endorsement issues but a Republican only 80%. It seems to me that whatever the endorsement criteria may be, a group issuing endorsement ought to stick to them and apply them evenhandedly.

            On the other hand, I’ve said, quite a number of times, that I favor the NRA’s approach to candidate endorsement — pick the relevant issues, grade the candidates on those issues, and publish the “scorecard” as widely as possible. Let the voters then decide how to weight the candidates’ respective scores into the voting decision. That would, it seems to me, be both non-partisan and useful. I don’t know that any such group (or anything close to it) exists, but I would support if it came into being.

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            I will once again repeat my challenge. This is open to anyone. Can anyone think of a race for any office in which the Republican candidate had a better record or a better platform on gay issues than the Democrat. There must have been at least one somewhere. Anyone?

  16. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Furthermore. Pew Research Center finds that 61% of young Republicans (under age 30) now favor same-sex marriage. LGBT progressives put hands over eyes and declare the GOP will never change, so no sense working to elect openly gay and gay-supportive GOP candidates to reflect that change, which can never happen.

    Would you like to provide some evidence to back this statement up? Like a series of quotes from “LGBT progressives”, maybe? Even one would be evidence of good faith.

  17. posted by Jorge on

    Jorge, I AM getting “the results I want.”

    Hmm…

    If you are getting the results you want, why do you need to ask, “Why is this not a matter of common decency in 2014?” (Although I realize I was initially referring to supporting gay rights legislation. Not supporting same sex marriage. I conflated the two somewhere along the way.) I can read no other meaning than that you expect things to be better. I can read no other meaning in your answers to my pointed questions than that you have in fact made a concerted effort to change this country for the better. Now you say you are getting the results you want and I’m making assumptions.

    I really don’t understand where you’re coming from. I will have to call this a miss.

    I am a libertarian. Please make at least the minimal effort of clicking your mouse a few times to find out what that means before saying very silly things to me about fingers pointing back at people.

    I’m a center-right moderate with both a progressive and a social conservative streak. Your statements about my ignorance fall wide of the mark.

    I think I once read on this board an attribution to Ayn Rand of the quote, “Judge, and prepare to be judged.” As Ayn Rand’s works are conventionally considered to be libertarian influence in the US, and the expression has a certain right-wing laisseiz faire ring to it, I think your objection to me stating this principle and sitting in judgment against you after you have chosen to judge others as barbarians, on the grounds that I do not understand libertarianism, is on shaky ground.

    [I must have missed something, because the recent ‘flame war’ between Jorge and Lori is not making that much sense]

    I’m usually stronger on sticking to the subject of my original objection.

    • posted by Lori Heine on

      Jorge, you seem to be a very nice person. But I’ve got to say, when I get through reading some of your comments, I want to bolt down a handful of aspirin and wash it back with a good, stiff martini.

      I don’t know exactly what you’re talking about. I’m wrong because Ayn Rand…or something. But as I’ve said repeatedly on threads here that I don’t think much of Ayn Rand, and disagree with much of what she had to say, I feel no compulsion to answer for some quote of hers you may have found somewhere.

      The Christian concept of concern for others involves widening the circle to include more and more people not related to oneself. The barbarian concept shrinks it ever narrower. Then the barbarians hijacked Christianity and used Christ as a figurehead while they violated His precepts.

      You’re welcome to misunderstand what I mean by that if you want to. I think it’s pretty clear.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        Sorry. I think of you being a Randian because on your own blog once you talked about meeting NorthDallas30 and feeling good about the future after seeing a young person with a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Please correct me if I am misremembering. I’m trying to cram a role into my head before rehearsals begin on Monday so it’s possible you said something much different.

        • posted by Lori Heine on

          I remember that meeting with NDT, and yes, I did say that. I consider it encouraging that young people are reading Atlas Shrugged instead of Karl Marx or — on the other extreme end — James Dobson.

          I also wanted to see how NDT would react to my remark. He didn’t say anything. Whether that was because he saw it as insignificant or because he doesn’t like Ayn Rand, I don’t know.

          I have never been able to make it through more than half of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. Rand hammers her points over readers’ heads. My professors in college would have told her to “Show, not tell.”

          Some of her ideas, I actually do agree with. She thought it was important to remember the individual — who she said was “the smallest minority.” She also understood a good deal about human nature, as pertains to why immigrants (like her family) come to America in the first place. That those who become good citizens come to contribute, but that they’ll only make a contribution if it benefits them.

          Nothing wrong with those ideas. It was the anti-gay stuff and the anti-Christian stuff — as well as how absurdly far she took the concept of self-interest (to the point of eclipsing every other consideration) that lost me.

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            I never made it through any of her books. She’s a terrible writer. Her characters are two dimensional archetypes and her villains are like parodies of straw men. I don’t understand the fascination with her works. Atlas Shrugged reveals that she knows nothing about business other than her idealized notion of it. Steel industry and rail roads in the 1950s? Is she serious? Those industries were already dying at that time. I do think she has a point with The Fountainhead. Critics and even people who make decisions about artistic matters are too often talentless hacks who despise anyone with an original idea or who has an independent vision. History is full of artists and musicians who had to fight against the status quo of their own day. (Mozart is perhaps the best example of this but there are easily dozens of others.) Of course the problem is that ever talentless hack thinks he’s a true genius and “misunderstood” rather than just not all that good and therefore ignored. So there’s that as well. But I do think the point is a valid one even though as you said she does beat you over the head with it repeatedly. (She may well be an example of the kind of person who should NOT read the book. LOL)

            As for young people reading Marx, is that a thing? I have to admit to never having read a word of Marx or Engels but it all sounds dreadfully dull. I did read Animal Farm which is a great read and also a good explanation of what will inevitably go wrong under communism. Less well known but also with it’s moments is Kurt Weill’s opera The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny which is about a town constructed on libertarian/Randian principles. It’s an easy target since if we all only acted in our own self-industry no one would want to do the grunt work and society would come to a halt. It’s good to teach some degree of self-reliance and self-respect but we do all have to cooperate in order to live in a society. Rand’s problem is that she can’t stop over-reacting to the communist nightmare she escaped to imagine how the society she envisions would actually work and is too busy making enemies out of anyone with empathy or compassion for others. I have seen enough interviews with her to see how short-sighted she is. Perhaps she was a necessary counterweight to Marxism but in what was is the other ridiculous extreme an improvement. Unfortunately we now have national leaders in business and politics who spent their youths jerking off reading Atlas Shrugged. Paul Ryan comes to mind. Or Alan Greenspan. And worse, the merging of Randian ideas with fundamentalist Christianity (mostly coming from Wheaton College in the early 80s) is perhaps one of the most odd “strange bedfellows” of all time. Nothing could be less Christian than Ayn Rand’s teaching and nothing was more repugnant to Rand (other than communism) than Christianity. What strange times we live in that one regularly hears the most mean-spirited ideas of Ms Rand from Christian pulpits (to be fair usually from people who have no idea where these ideas come from.).

  18. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    I have said here — and elsewhere — that I known quite a few young Republicans (gay, straight and undecided) who tend to have a much more liberal-libertarian view on gay rights (and also pot). However, at least in the Midwest anytime they try to have any sort of tangible influence in moving their party on the issue of gay rights, the party leadership tells them to take a hike.

    Young people — Democrats, Republicans and Independents are simply not as homophobic as their parents and grandparents were (or tended to be). That is all fine and dandy, but the younger generation does not seem to be running the GOP and Independent/third party candidates rarely win elections.

    It is hard to believe that the party of Lincoln and Ike has become the party of Tea Partiers, God-fearing Objectivists (think about that for a moment), Southern Strategy/Birther racists and religious right wackos.

    It is hard to believe that ‘radical Republican’ once meant a liberal Republican who supported expanding federal civil rights and federal social services and infrastructure….sorry. been reading alot of books about the civil war/reconstruction period….(we all sure got screwed with the 15th amendment)

  19. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    In the UK much of the big gay rights progress came in 1997 when the Socialist Labour Party moved to the political center and (more recently) when the Conservatives-Liberal Democrats also moved to the political center.

    It is possible that something like that will happen in the United States, although we do not really have a strong, third party like they do in the UK.

    As a practical matter the hardcore ‘religious right’ voters within the GOP primaries are either going to have to (a) die off, (b) change their views drastically or (c) get shuttled off to some sort of third party. I am not trying to be mean or anything, but that is basically when will have to happen for the GOP to support gay rights.

    They are anywhere between 20 – 30% of the GOP base and make it almost impossible for the GOP to have any sort of sane policy on gay rights (or women’s rights or climate change or pot)

    So, it is possible that these voters end up bolting to the Constitution Party or the American Independent Party or something of that that….but right now they are holding onto their power within the GOP….at least from what I see and hear in the Midwest.

    • posted by Lori Heine on

      It’s happening in Arizona, too. My state is having what used to be politely called a “nervous breakdown.”

      Republican friends who are taking me to task for jumping ship back to the Democratic Party keep telling me to hold on and be patient. My patience has all run out.

      I do hope the GOP evolves — for America’s sake, because we need two major parties for sane people. But even the politicians who are “evolving” in the GOP on social issues, I will never trust.

      There’s just something wrong with people who can do the things they have done, and say the things about, other human beings that they have. Whether their real views were reflected by what they’ve done in the past or by what they’ve “evolved” into doing, there’s something seriously wrong with anybody who can support a lot of their positions.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        We do indeed need two (preferably sane) parties. And every candidate needs a challenger. For so many reasons, including the corruption that sets in when one party is in power for too long and that anyone running for office needs someone to challenge their record and debate them on the issues, even if that challenger has little chance of winning. Where I currently live the Teavangelical nonsense mostly goes unchallenged even though there are plenty of people who don’t like that political view at all. I was even going to vote int he Republican primary recently but there wasn’t a single Republican on the ballot that was any better than any of the others on any issue I care about. I used to be a moderate Republican. Truth be told on many issues I still am. Of course moderate Republicans are now called moderate Democrats. The GOP has gone so far to the right that it’s become mostly screaming incoherent know-nothings. It’s frightening. I don’t know how any sane person can’t see that. It’s not that the Democrats are perfect. It’s that there’s no other alternative until the GOP purges the religious nutjobs, the racists, the sexists and the anti-gay bigots. I’m not holding my breath.

        • posted by Lori Heine on

          The Religious Right is trying out a new approach, and they’re fashioning a new meme they hope will permit them to hold onto power in the GOP.

          If they frame their anti-gay bigotry as “religious freedom,” they hope to con young people into accepting them. Or at least into not hurting their tender little feelings by disliking them. They’ve figured out that they can’t go on scaring young voters away from the party and continue to be welcome there themselves.

          The problem with that is that it is a lie — a Trojan Horse. They want to reinforce the ignoramus stereotype of ALL Christians as of necessity anti-gay, and ALL gays as anti-Christian. Their new approach won’t work unless low-information voters continue to believe that.

          I have come to conclude these things, and I am very much afraid that it will work with young Republicans — who were, for the most part, raised by old Republicans. That is the primary reason (though there are others) that I have returned to the Democratic Party.

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            Agreed. It will work with some young Republicans and send the rest running for the hills. This approach is also turning young people off of religion because not only as the fundamentalists so anti-everything, but the moderates and even some liberals are too lily-livered to take a stand most of the time. (There are other reasons as well but that’s a completely different topic for a different forum.) This idea that it’s Christians vs. gays is absurd. For one thing the country is about 3% gay and about 85% Christian so that wouldn’t even be close to a fair fight. It’s also true that most Christians are not anti-gay (or at least not hostile towards gay people) and most people are not only not anti-Christian but most ARE Christian. (Even the gays who are not religious just want the anti-gay Christians to stop using the law to discriminate against us.) But there’s absolutely no logic or facts with the Teavangelical crowd. Every conversation I have comes to “Christians are being persecuted in America now” and other ridiculous statements with no basis in reality. Any tiny offense is blown up into an overwhelming national trend even if that tiny offense only happened once or twice (and the story is told in an incredibly one-sided fashion). Of course this is the Fox News watching, talk radio listening and Wingnut Daily reading crowd. Ugh. They seem to be growing more and more divorced from reality as the media that pander to them grow more and more outrageous. It scares me and I really don’t know what to do about it. Sending them the snopes.com debunking their latest forwarded emails has no impact at all. Suggestions?

      • posted by AG on

        Lori,
        Didn’t you claim to be a libertarian? How can you possibly support the Democrats? Is it even possible for the Dems to be more anti-libertarian than they are right now?

        • posted by Lori Heine on

          AG, how is it possible for the Republicans to be any more anti-libertarian than they are right now?

          I believe libertarians should work to change hearts and minds, and we can best do that where we would be politically interacting with others whose hearts and minds need changing. Libertarians are never going to “take power,” and that really is not the goal of the libertarian movement.

          I came from the Left. I was a Democrat for almost thirty years. Almost all of my family, friends and associates are Democrats — or at least somewhere to the Left of center. I know how to reach them.

          I have no clue how to reach Republicans, because I don’t understand them. I’ve been trying mightily to for the past few years, but God help me, the little I’ve come to understand I don’t much like.

          Nothing that has happened lately has given me any reason to change my opinion.

          • posted by Lori Heine on

            And as a P.S., just a few indications that the Democrats (at least some of them) get liberty in a way the GOP doesn’t:

            Gay marriage, reproductive rights and marijuana legalization (leaving the choice to individuals– whichever choice they make — in accord with the religious freedom conservatives claim to hold so dear). Getting us out of crazy, stupid and wasteful wars and minding our own business around the world. Stopping torture. Stopping the Big Brother-ish encroachment of government on our personal liberties.

            To name just a few things.

  20. posted by Lori Heine on

    Houndentenor, the only suggestion I can give, for overcoming the lunacy, is for us to simply be ourselves and live our lives. We need to trust that most people are sane and honest enough not to be swayed by the loons.

    Precisely because the Wingnut Daily crowd is becoming more barking-at-the-moon crazy all the time, this is almost certainly already happening.

  21. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    Fox News — remember how someone here once said that their coverage of gay issues was wonderful — has milked the issue of ‘religious freedom’ for all they can get out of it. Not sure if they think its like milking a cow or extracting a boil, but the message they keep repeating is clear; their is a widespread attack on religious liberty in America (which apparently only means conservative Christianity) and the only solution is to give corporations more power and coming up with more total ‘the sky is falling’ BS. They peddle this BS with the ‘birther movement’ and in their attacks on Muslims (i.e. where they can build a mosque) and this idea that ‘entitlements’ are bad for the disadvantaged, but really good for the elderly or the privileged and powerful.

Comments are closed.