An optimistic viewpoint on the GOP and gay issues, via BuzzFeed: “While Republicans aren’t likely to join the fight for marriage equality en masse, the past week has shown that a growing core of the party is done fighting.”
Challenging the religious right so that Republicans again become the liberty party—as they were, historically, in the fight against slavery—is the way forward (and, let’s recall, southern Democrats were the party of Jim Crow, until Nixon’s “southern strategy” brought the “Dixiecrats” into the GOP). This will be a long effort, occurring throughout the states, as the fight in Texas shows. But generational change is coming.
More. A choice in California, via the WSJ (firewalled, though). In the GOP gubernatorial primary:
Republicans are presented with starkly contrasting candidates in former Bush Treasury official Neel Kashkari, a son of Indian immigrants, and Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, who led the Minuteman campaign to patrol California’s southern border and has likened illegal migrants to jihadists. … Like a majority of Californians, [Kashkari] is also a cultural liberal. Yet this makes him more attractive to a large swath of voters who would never consider a candidate who opposes same-sex marriage and abortion. That includes many young people and Silicon Valley techies.
Mr. Kashkari is also focusing on economic opportunity, especially for the poor. The political rookie has reached out to voters in the rural Central Valley and inner-cities where he is making the case that broad-based economic growth and education reform can redress California’s inequality and poverty.
More, unfirewalled, via Businessweek.
Kashkari may not win Tuesday’s primary, but his views on gay marriage are the GOP’s only viable future And this isn’t.
Update: Kashkari wins the primary. The Washington Post suggests, “Kashkari won’t win this fall but he may well be the building block/new face that California Republicans badly need to begin the long climb back to relevance in the state.”
Added: The Wall Street Journal editorialized: “Most local Republican parties had endorsed Mr. Donnelly for his cultural conservatism and firebrand opposition to immigration. Mr. Kashkari, a son of Indian immigrants with a libertarian cultural bent, ran an insurgent campaign on jobs and education. He hopscotched from soup kitchens to Rotary Clubs promoting the GOP as a party of economic opportunity for all.”
And more good news from California, sure to leave LGBT lockstep Democrats fuming.
58 Comments for “GOP Shift Is Slow but Inevitably”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“While Republicans aren’t likely to join the fight for marriage equality en masse, the past week has shown that a growing core of the party is done fighting.”
I think that is probably right — a core is growing, if not yet matured, and is not yet, by any means, certain of victory within Republican Party internal politics. For every Senator Hatch, there is a Senator Lee (the junior Senator from Utah) who disagrees.
Whatever the current state of affairs within the Republican Party — it is murky as far as I am concerned — I hope that the core continues to grow and eventually prevails.
I notice that Buzzfeed says this about Wisconsin’s Governor Walker:
I would be cautious about giving Governor Walker’s backtracking full faith and credit.
Walker is backtracking, to be sure (he is running dead even in his reelection bid and he wants the issue off the table because recent polls show Wisconsinites 55%-37% in favor of marriage equality), but he insists that his personal support for traditional marriage is unabated. His Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen, when asked about Walker’s statement, vowed to continue to vigorously defend Wisconsin’s anti-marriage amendment until the bitter end, and Walker, when asked about that statement, evaded the question. Add that all up, and what do you have, really?
What Walker basically said — and all he said — is that the courts are going to determine the constitutionality of marriage equality.
That is a hell of a lot better than making nullification noises, to be sure, but I would not be looking for Walker to do a Corbett if Judge Crabb rules in favor of marriage equality next fall, as expected.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Republican dilemma was on display at the Republican Leadership Conference and is encapsulated in two op-ed pieces from the past week:
CATO’s David Lampo wrote, in an op ed titled “Gay Marriage Will Destroy the GOP“:
Bryan Fischer’s response, in an op ed titled “Politico is right: Gay marriage will destroy the Republican Party“, typified the social conservative reaction:
The issue is likely to come to a head in 2016, when SCOTUS is expected to issue a national ruling. At that point, the Republican presidential nominee is going to have to respond, as are Republicans candidates for other offices.
Will the nominee take the Corbett/Hatch/Walker approach (the Supreme Court has ruled, marriage equality is the law of the land, live with it), or will the nominee take the Cruz/Paul approach (decry the opinion as judicial overreach and offer one or another path to long-term resistance), or will the nominee find a “third way”, perhaps blending an “activist judges” approach with a “the court has spoken” response? Time will tell, and two years is a long time in terms of politics.
Just about the only things we can be sure about are that the issue is coming to a head within the Republican Party and by 2020 the issue will be effectively a dead issue. The American people have come over to the side of marriage equality and, one way or the other, we are going to see marriage equality become a fact on the ground. The Republican response is important for the future of the party, but will not change that fact.
posted by Houndentenor on
As my mother always says, “Ya gotta dance with what brung ya.”
The GOP openly courted social conservatives and now they run the party in most of the country, especially in the states where there is a Republican majority. In much of the country the religious right IS the GOP. (If you don’t believe me go look at debates for statewide office or Congressional seats in any deep red state or district.) I don’t get a sense that the GOP leadership ever thought much of that “Jerry Falwell crowd” (David Koh even wrote a book about his experience in the Bush White House) but they are not in charge except perhaps when it comes to choosing the presidential nominee. (Even that is probably out of their hands in 2016.) Anyway, yes, a GOP less hostile to gays is probably inevitable but it’s going to take some time and it is going to meet with a great deal of anger in much of the country when people make any statements that seem to favor gay rights.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
The Republican Party has always had an internal struggle between the liberals (then called ‘radicals’ or ‘black Republicans’), the moderates who generally agreed with the liberals and the conservative factions. These struggles did not magically appear with Nixon southern strategy or the third party.
The main difference is that the liberals and the moderates ran the GOP, at least it came to civil rights and making public investments in education, health care and infrastructure.
In the 1930s, conservatives get very upset over the New Deal, and you can start to see the GOP conservatives gaining some more ground in the 1920s – 1930s. A similar thing happened with Goldwater in the 1960s (and to some extent the American Independent Party in the late 1960s).
Eventually the conservative faction in the GOP took control — probably sometime in the late 1960s — if not by the 1970s –.
posted by Jimmy on
Yes, the influx of southern conservatives into the GOP empowered the right, allowing it to, with very sharp elbows, purge all others who weren’t deemed conservative enough from the party. That leaves the religious right, which will always fight equality, and right wing regressives, including the occasional gay ones, who aren’t really that concerned about equality, because with enough money, you can secure your own equality, especially if you live in a place that isn’t hostile to gay people.
The latter is who, presumably, the now defunct GOProud was supposed to….what exactly?
posted by Jimmy on
“Inevitably” the continental plates will move to different positions, too.
On the question of equality, here in red Indiana, Hoosier Democrats have affirmed it as a priority.
http://www.bilerico.com/2014/06/indiana_democratic_party_affirms_marriage_equality.php
posted by Jorge on
“At the same time, though, they believe the country has reached a point where spending time and energy on fighting the issue is no longer worth it. And, the cry of “activist judges” has been replaced with deference to the judicial process.”
And why is that?
“It’s been less than a year since the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and allowed California’s Proposition 8 to be found unconstitutional.”
OR
“It has been a long time coming, the result of decades of work.”
I think Tom Scharbach points to an important consideration: the failure of the opposition to credibly state why it is important to dig in as they have lost ground:
“The Christian Right spokesmen’s pious pleas for tolerance for their anti-gay religious convictions will fall on deaf ears (and should) as long as they continue their own intolerance for those who practice different faiths or have different sexual orientations than they do.”
This is not a winning message. Threat to society is, but since the end of DADT (among many other milestones) that is no longer in the picture.
“…The GOP saw that in 2012 when four million conservative voters stayed home because they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Mitt Romney, a candidate with no deep social convictions.”
This is incorrect. It’s unknowable at best, and premised on an incorrect perception. You cannot tell me that Mr. “Binders Full of Women” did not have deep social convictions.
Romney’s campaign had many other weaknesses. Foremost among them so far as the right was concerned was that he burned bridges. In 2008, when Romney was clearly winning, Mike Huckabee refused to drop out of the race until Romney won a majority of delegates. Much the same happened in 2012 when Rick Santorum made no endorsement of Romney after he conceded. Santorum was willing to condemn Obama, sure, but he did nothing to help Romney. For both Huckabee and Santorum it was believed that personal animus motivated them because of Romney’s and his PACs’ negative campaigning. The decisions of Huckabee and Santorum, as powerful leaders, surely had an impact, but it wasn’t ideological. Huckabee claims a strong loyalty to Republicans he has slight disagreements with, on the grounds that he won’t keep his mouth shut either. Rick Santorum ran on neoconservatism, and Romney picked up that torch. It was personal.
The religious fanaticism position is being forcibly separated from the social order position. Religion alone will fall. The social order position, when kept to consistently, will grow steadily weaker, requiring ever more concessions until it is disproven or integrated outright, but it will also slow or even stop the gay rights movement. “Family is important.” Who can argue with premature success when gays swear fealty in action and word?
posted by Houndentenor on
The best evidence of Stephen’s thesis is the GOP Governors and AGs not appealing court decisions overturning their state’s ban on gay marriage. One could also argue that a good conservative (small-c) should not waste money on a fool’s errand, in this case fighting a case that is not winnable. Such a fight would easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, money which any state could easily put to better use.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The crux of the Republican conundrum is that both Lampo and Fischer are right — if the party does not turn on “equal means equal”, the party will be marginalized, but if the party does turn on “equal means equal”, many conservative Christians will not turn out for the party.
In the long term, the latter will not be an issue, because younger Christians are embracing “equal means equal” along with the rest of the country, but the conundrum posed by the Lampo/Fischer pieces poses a real problem for 2016.
How the party deals with the question in 2016 is going to have a significant impact on the party’s prospects for 2016 and, depending on exactly how the party handles the issue, for a few election cycles thereafter.
posted by Lori Heine on
First, the reactionaries must trash the place; then they’ll leave. And whatever is left of the GOP, after the temper-tantrums of the spoiled brats who’ve ruled the party for thirty years, can pick up the pieces and move on. To survive beyond that, it will need to.
For a while, I was a swing voter, but no longer. The latest B.S. from the Repubs is just too much for me. Whatever one’s personal beliefs about the issue may be, the line they’re currently pushing — that no people of traditional faith are LGBT, and that all traditional religious believers condemn “homosexuality” — is simply factually untrue. Moreover, it is crafted to serve the purpose of destroying us.
So it rankles when IGF, GP and other gay conservative fora take us to task for not standing athwart the gay left’s excesses and shouting “Stop!” Indeed, many of us have been doing that for years. But we are, supposedly, to blame because we are not magically able to change other people’s minds.
Gay conservatives will bleat, in protest, that they can’t magically change the minds of anti-gay social conservatives, either. But they’re not only failing to do that. Nor are they simply sitting by and letting the slanders go, which would be worse still. They are guilty of something even worse than that: they are actively promoting that lie and slander.
Yes, what gay conservatives are now doing is carrying forward a message they know to be a dirty, rotten, lowdown, filthy lie. This, as it turns out, is exactly how low they’ll sink just to win favor with the GOP and the social right.
If they’re getting any venom from commenters here, they richly deserve it.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’ll probably be voting for more libertarians in November than you! There will be almost no Democrats on the ballot but usually someone runs as a Libertarian as a Green. I’ll protest vote or just leave it blank. (I seriously dislike the idea of someone running unopposed. It seems undemocratic to me.) As I’ve said many times I had planned to vote in the GOP primary to help some more moderate candidates. There weren’t any. I sometimes think that a lot of Republicans who aren’t of the religious right variety really have no idea what their party is like outside their safe, liberal enclave.
posted by Jorge on
So it rankles when IGF, GP and other gay conservative fora take us to task for not standing athwart the gay left’s excesses and shouting “Stop!” Indeed, many of us have been doing that for years. But we are, supposedly, to blame because we are not magically able to change other people’s minds.
Gay conservatives will bleat, in protest, that they can’t magically change the minds of anti-gay social conservatives, either. But they’re not only failing to do that. Nor are they simply sitting by and letting the slanders go, which would be worse still. They are guilty of something even worse than that: they are actively promoting that lie and slander.
Well if it makes you feel better, I find your woefully boomeranging self-righteous barb a little annoying (I’m getting over it quickly, though). Actually I like the first paragraph I cited. But you had to go and find a way to look better than everyone else, and you dragged a card from the bottom of the deck to do it.
But I suppose I deserve it. You don’t want to know which “lie and slander” from the religious right I was ruminating in my head in dead seriousness yesterday.
posted by Doug on
My question is this: Why were you ‘ruminating’ about ANY ‘lie and slander’ that the religious right panders to. Such lies and slander deserve nothing more than dismissal not serious thought.
posted by Lori Heine on
Because I often minister to LGBT’s, especially younger people, who exist in a community with a suicide, substance abuse and alcoholism rate that is off the charts — largely because of that sort of crap. They find it hard not to internalize the lies and slanders, even if they know they’re BS and don’t consciously want to.
We can’t all retreat to some safe little enclave and ignore this stuff. Before we found that enclave, many of us were out there where these people are.
Community is important, but we have one precisely because somebody else was there to welcome us when we arrived. I believe we should pay that forward.
As for Jorge, sorry, but I can only understand what you’re talking about maybe half the time. When you’re trashing me, and not making a coherent point, I find that I must simply move on.
posted by Jorge on
When I go through a spiritual reflection, I feel that I learn a few things about important principles and how to apply them. I take this very seriously. An idea crosses my brain. I move forward with it. Sometimes the story I see resembles a statement that has already been made by someone else. There is far more to say afterward.
The religious right and the gay rights movement sometimes act in concert with each other. That such a thing can happen is far from impossible from God and well within His sense of humor.
God exists. And His voice can be heard amidst the storms of humanity’suffering. To control God is impossible, to contend is mankind’s destiny.
posted by Lori Heine on
Bless your heart, that is very true. I hope you’ve got a faith community where you are welcomed and able to be yourself.
I have been blessed to find two of them. Because of the contention that is mankind’s destiny, it has certainly taken awhile.
Now we’re trying to see how we can fit in the homeless, the addicted and the mentally ill. Those outsiders find far less of a welcome than we do — and I mean anywhere.
posted by Jorge on
Not a high priority. I was raised non-practicing.
posted by Lori Heine on
I suppose the two really erroneous and objectionable things in your comment are coherent enough to be addressed.
(A) Self-righteousness is in the eye of the beholder. Anytime we have a valid point about anything, we’re always called self-righteous, so I’m used to that. But how does my “barb” woefully boomerang? That sounds like canned soc-con cant to me.
I have a long, well-established and well-documented history of demonstrating exactly what I claimed — which is, that I’ve attempted to take the gay left to task for its excesses. That makes me pretty well qualified, I would think, to remark about it now.
I have highlighted a distinction between that and serving as the foot-soldier for a lie, as is being done by many gay conservatives. If you think I erred, kindly show how, instead, of mindlessly babbling about boomerangs.
(B) I would suggest to you that, when I was — as you put it — trying to find a way to make myself “look better than everyone else,” I was indeed drawing that distinction. Try not being so threatened by my remark, or having such a need to kowtow to people you still seem to feel a reflexive need to play to, and read it through again.
posted by Jorge on
Anytime we have a valid point about anything, we’re always called self-righteous, so I’m used to that. But how does my “barb” woefully boomerang?
I believe your post overreaches when you accuse gay conservatives of promoting the lies expressed by the anti-gay religious right. Declaring your principled opposition is one thing, but this allows you to deny the very legitimacy of the people you disagree with, based on slim to no evidence.
It lends itself to the unflattering idea that your goal is simply to say that you are right and others are beneath you without demonstrating it.
So I was annoyed. Everyone else who posts on this site plays the “I’m annoyed, therefore I am” game. I’m entitled to a good minute or two of it, and I do not regret taking it, but it is over.
posted by Lori Heine on
“I’m annoyed, therefore I am.” Is that anything like crashing in the forest when no one’s there to hear?
IGF is certainly less guilty of this than GP. But when the bloggers buy into the whole “look at those poor, victimized social conservatives — savaged by hordes of gay fascists” — line, that’s what is going on.
I don’t recall the “Duck Dynasty” hoax being pushed at IGF. (I’m old, so I don’t remember, but I don’t think so.) But there appears to be a general line of woes and lamentations here about those thuggish leftist gays who want to destroy the free market and religious liberty.
Then we see what happens in Mississippi and North Carolina, and what the dreadful leftists on this site predicted would happen — did.
The general public is getting tired of the soc-con’s victim meme. It isn’t buying what they’re selling. And as it increasingly comes to light that the soc-cons are full of B.S. and never really wanted freedom for anyone but themselves, the gay conservatives who believed that they ever did are going to be wiping egg off of their faces.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A side note: SuchIsLifeVideos has put together a 70-minute compilation of media reporting on the post-Stonewall struggle for “equal means equal” during the 1970’s.
The compilation is a good snapshot into the movement of that period, as well as the hostile culture in which the movement operated. As an old man who reached adulthood in the late 1960’s, the was an interesting and moving look back at the years when I was young, a reminder of what was and what we have, together accomplished. For those of you who are younger, the compilation might provide insight into how much things have changed, and how little things have changed.
In any event, I want to give a shout out to SuchIsLifeVideos for creating this gift for Pride month.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Thanks Tom for the video link! I hope this outfit makes similar ones for the ’80s and ’90s. I promptly put this one in my favorites list.
I don’t know if it’s OK to mention this, but lots of firewalls can be broken through. I clicked on Stephen’s WSJ link, got the title of the column, then just went back to Google, entered the title plus “wsj” and in I went. I do that with several Boston Globe articles as well.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Another side note: Zack Ford has an interesting look back at a 1974 debate — yes, that’s right, 1974 — about whether or not society should permit gays and lesbians to marry. The article includes a link to an OpenVault video of the debate itself, with a transcript. What is most fascinating about the debate is that the arguments in favor of marriage equality then are the arguments in favor of marriage equality today.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Tom,
I was living in SF in the early 80s – and even then I remember the SF Bay Guardian (local alternative publication) writing an editorial re: marriage for gays and lesbians (circa 1981).
And, of course, the ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ nomenclature was commonly used to describe those in committed, long-term relationships in the community. Regardless of any legal validity to the terms. At the time.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Speaking of the fight in Texas that Stephen referenced, the Dallas Voice reports this morning that the worst of the anti-gay language has been removed from the Texas Republican platform draft going forward to the convention:
It is a start, but a start beats a blank. Let’s hope that the convention supports removal of the language.
posted by Mike in Houston on
But they kept in the part that calls for the LGBT-carve out of non-discrimination laws…
And the “men can legally enter the women’s room” hysteria is reaching fevered pitch here in Houston… facts notwithstanding.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well, yeah, but at least they aren’t asserting that God thinks like Texans. A start on bringing Texas — too small to be an independent country, too big to be an insane asylum — into the real world.
posted by Mike in Houston on
They’re not even really hitting the so-called “religious liberty” angle much either… over heard a couple of the pastors of prejudice talking about using that argument outside of Council chambers… lamenting that “Becky Riggle really screwed us up on that one. I had a whole set of quotes from a queer blog about using the power of the state to force religious folks to violate their conscience that I can’t use now.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I can’t say that I admire Becky, but at least she was honest about it, which is more than I can say about most of the “religious freedom” proponents.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yup, Mike. I didn’t want to comment until I had seen the platform draft, but it is pretty much standard Republican fare in all respects. See Sections 2-1 to 2-5, and Section 2-7 (page 13, I believe) for the specific planks.
posted by Don on
We just had a big win in Florida yesterday. Our judge denied the anti-gay religious groups the right to intervene. In doing so, she ruled that the Governor and Atty General could intervene by statute if they really wanted to but obviously haven’t done so for whatever reason. The clerk defending the case has publicly stated he’s neutral to the issue.
In the ruling, the judge said nothing will happen to the proposed intervenors if same sex marriage is legalized. She also made a handful of other good findings. Looks like Florida will be joining the club of 19 really soon. Our hearing on MSJ is July 2. Wish us luck!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And more good news, sure to leave LGBT lockstep Democrats fuming.
Stephen, get over it. The only one likely to be fuming is you, fuming that “lockstep Democrats” won’t rush to support DeMaio because he is gay.
DeMaio is not seeking support from progressives, and in particular support from progressive gays and lesbians. Instead, he is using them as a foil to solidify his conservative credentials. Understandably, progressive gays and lesbians are not likely to flock to support DeMaio. Making progressive gays and lesbians the enemy isn’t going to win anyone on the left over to his side.
But DeMaio’s campaign strategy aside, even if DeMaio were seeking support from progressive gays and lesbians, it is a hard fact of the world that progressives (including, specifically, progressive gays and lesbians) tend to support Democratic candidates and conservatives (including, specifically, conservative gays and lesbians) tend to support Republican candidates, regardless of whether the candidate from the other party is gay or lesbian. You continually complain about the former, but, oddly, never object to the latter.
The expectation that gays and lesbians aligned with either party will abandon their core political philosophy to support a candidate who does not share that political philosophy, simply because the candidate is gay or lesbian, is not realistic. It hasn’t happened in the past, it isn’t happening now, and it is not likely to happen in the future.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Whoops, formatting error. Here is is again:
And more good news, sure to leave LGBT lockstep Democrats fuming.
Stephen, get over it. The only one likely to be fuming is you, fuming that “lockstep Democrats” won’t rush to support DeMaio because he is gay.
DeMaio is not seeking support from progressives, and in particular support from progressive gays and lesbians. Instead, he is using them as a foil to solidify his conservative credentials. Understandably, progressive gays and lesbians are not likely to flock to support DeMaio. Making progressive gays and lesbians the enemy isn’t going to win anyone on the left over to his side.
But DeMaio’s campaign strategy aside, even if DeMaio were seeking support from progressive gays and lesbians, it is a hard fact of the world that progressives (including, specifically, progressive gays and lesbians) tend to support Democratic candidates and conservatives (including, specifically, conservative gays and lesbians) tend to support Republican candidates, regardless of whether the candidate from the other party is gay or lesbian.
The expectation that gays and lesbians aligned with either party will abandon their core political philosophy to support a candidate who does not share that political philosophy, simply because the candidate is gay or lesbian, is not realistic. It hasn’t happened in the past, it isn’t happening now, and it is not likely to happen in the future.
posted by Houndentenor on
Stephen will no doubt be crowing about DeMaio’s primary win yesterday so let me be the first to print his money quote:
“We want the party to return to its traditional roots of standing up for personal freedoms where we allow individuals to decide social issues in the context of their own personal views on faith and family without interference from their government.”
That’s not my idea of supporting gay rights. It’s actually a license for the same discriminatory policies to continue. So no, I will not be supporting him.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
From what I’ve read of your politics over the years, I suspect that you have basic disagreements with DeMaio on a number of issues, as I do. Given that, why would you support him even if DeMaio were 100% solid on “equal means equal”?
After all, Republican gays and lesbians (e.g. LCR) are battling against gay Democrats (e.g. Jared Polis) similarly situated. Why should Democrats roll over on other issues when the Republicans run a gay candidate, even if the candidate is 100% supportive?
Isn’t that the whole point of the exercise — to have both parties solidly in the “equal means equal” camp, so that we can vote on other issues?
posted by Don on
Oh I definitely would vote for DeMaio under those circumstances. I have been a sucker for a gay republican who actually speaks to gay issues without bashing gay people in the process (vote for me! I’m nothing like Them!) Carl doesn’t quite pass that test. But I would put aside many of my more socially moderate agenda items to get this off the table for the Rs. They need this issue to die for them to survive.
A close friend of mine is an orthodox jew who is super-duper tea party. But he absolutely believes that “no child should go hungry” and thinks that is exactly the role of government to ensure that doesn’t happen. Otherwise, he sits with Tea Party orthodoxy 100%. Is he a RINO? I wouldn’t think so just because he makes an exception for some social welfare programs. But many would.
While many like to bash the commenters here as liberals posing as conservatives, I’ve been for free trade agreements, means-testing welfare state, phase-in solutions for carbon pollution, spending cuts, and a host of other (former) conservative planks, including no infringements on the 2dA (mostly because nearly all gun control schemes don’t actually solve our gun problems).
But I can’t pull the lever for a party that wishes to abolish Social Security by privatizing it, eliminate universal private health insurance, and blank checks for the military with a penchant for invasions. Not to mention incessant calls for no government (not less government) all the while spending half their time trying to write biblical beliefs into laws everyone must abide by.
Conservatism used to be for conserving our natural resources not “drill baby drill”; reticence to military intervention; and a strong, sensible military. Those people are all “independents” voting for Obama now.
The old joke has come full circle. I haven’t left the Republican Party, it left me.
posted by Ryan J.P. on
Don, many gay people seemed to have jumped on the anti-DeMaoi bandwagon for reasons that don’t add up: his campaign ad shows him holding his boyfriend’s hand at a gay pride rally; HRC’s charge that he didn’t oppose Prop 8 has been refuted, etc. I think Stephen is right: the public-sector unions hate him, and the liberal establishment follows their lead. The gay liberal opposition is so intense because he is a conservative, not because he’s not strong enough for gay rights. He’d help change the GOP — we should embrace that instead of putting partisan politics in the driver seat.
I also have to say, it’s bogus to claim that the GOP wants to destroy Social Security by privatizing it. Individual SocSec accounts would be a firewall against the government spending FICA tax money and using deficit chits to “fund” future SocSec obligations. You can argue about the specifics — what the money can reasonable be invested in, including guaranteed-return federal bonds — but the system (as is Medicaid) is headed to default without huge general revenue infusions. Let’s be willing to think outside the box on this one.
And as for means testing SocSec, doesn’t that mean that people of modest income (like me) that have deferred savings in IRAs or 401ks wouldn’t get our SocSec contributions back, but those who spent every cent they had would get a government income. And that includes many who most certainly could have saved? I don’t see how means testing in this instance is remotely fair.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t see how means testing in this instance is remotely fair.
I think that the more relevant question is how we preserve social security resources for the elderly who need it most. We’ve got to do something to keep Social Security intact for future. A “means test” — say a 50% reduction in benefits for retirees with other gross income over, say, $150,000, doesn’t strike me as outrageous. It isn’t “fair”, in the sense that it reduces the benefits of the well-to-do, but it might be sensible.
We do a form of “means testing” now, through taxation — 85% of Social Security benefits are taxed, at whatever the recipient’s marginal rate might be (typically 28% to 35% for the well-to-do, 15% for the wealthy) if the recipient’s income is over a threshold.
That’s not “fair”, either, but to me it makes sense. I pay the taxes without a grumble.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The gay liberal opposition is so intense because he is a conservative, not because he’s not strong enough for gay rights. He’d help change the GOP — we should embrace that instead of putting partisan politics in the driver seat.
Is that embrace a reciprocal rejection of partisan politics, or is it affirmative action applicable only to gay Republican candidates?
posted by Don on
As Tom has taken the time to point out, my positions are not that out there on the right. Maybe for the contemporary right. But certainly not during Reagan’s tenure. My positions would have been smack in the middle of the Gipper’s vision and times.
My point as to DeMaio is that he is running a campaign that has smartly positioned himself as gay “but not like THEM.” I won’t re-cite the dozens and dozens of examples in the threads here of his efforts to do exactly that.
My belief regarding privatizing social security is that it is simply a giveaway to the finance industry to charge rents and to eliminate safeguards. I am a strong antagonist to privatizing things generally. All it does is promise cheaper rates and first and then heftier profits later. Prison industry? We need more prisoners. Military industrial complex? We need more wars. Schools? One may long for the days of public education nightmares by the time they’re done with that one.
The only way my 401k has not been savaged with fees was when I took over the investment decisions from my broker who kept me in low growth, high fee funds of funds and then basically lied to me about what they were by using gimmicky words to try and trick me.
You may long for privatizing and put in safeguards all you want for such things. But liberals have been fools for putting together grand plans for decades only to find out that enterprising people always find a way to game whatever system they design. Same will be said for the beloved privatization of SS. Especially if we have another economic meltdown like 1929 or 2008.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, let’s hand over the Social Security trust fund to the people who brought us mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps! What could possibly go wrong? If we do something like that we’d be better off just liquidating the program and sending everyone a one-time check. I’m not in favor of that but at least the people who paid in would get something back. The current generation of banksters care nothing for the future or for our country and would take every penny from the fund and then claim there was nothing less. Hells to the no! (Note: as I was leaving NYC they were going after the state pension funds. I hope they were unsuccessful. I don’t know. All I did was book their travel and make copies of their presentations. It made me want to puke and I was thrilled to have one foot out the door already. These crooks are going to bleed this country dry if we let them, that is if they haven’t already.
posted by Jorge on
“We want the party to return to its traditional roots of standing up for personal freedoms where we allow individuals to decide social issues in the context of their own personal views on faith and family without interference from their government.”
That’s not my idea of supporting gay rights. It’s actually a license for the same discriminatory policies to continue. So no, I will not be supporting him.
Suppose, then, that the question of discriminatory policies is decided. In other words, take DeMaio’s advocacy for inertia and place it in a time and place where we do not have discriminatory policies. Would you support him then?
What is discrimination? DeMaio’s statement only makes sense if discrimination is artificial, overt, coercive, and deliberate. Then “returning” to “let individuals decide social issues in their homes” means human behavior will end discrimination. His statement does not make sense if discrimination is covert, as progressives these days tend to believe. Conservatives love to argue that there is no “need” for ENDA, because people are fired for their homosexuality very rarely. But when you hear the advocates argue for EDNA, there is a heart and soul of the need which is more… I don’t want abstract, but it is aimed at a type of harassing environment that is difficult to pin down, but still alleged to be very powerful.
So here is the question that is key: Does Carl DeMaio support EDNA?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Relating to the “slow but inevitably” shift in the Republican Party, Media Matters has an interesting take on Fox News’ relative silence on the marriage equality cases we have been winning (10 minutes covering the 13 court decisions in favor of marriage equality since Windsor):
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a side note, SCOTUS, acting en banc, issued a one sentence opinion denying NOM’s request to intervene in the Oregon case.
The Court did not explain why the petition was denied, but the fact situation fit Hollingsworth v. Perry in which the Court refused to allow the sponsors of Prop 8 to pursue an appeal.
I think that is the end of the Oregon trail for NOM.
posted by Jorge on
I see on my Yahoo! News some bad news that is more apt to have LGBT lockstep Democrats sneering.
“The Texas GOP Is Thinking About Endorsing ‘Ex-Gay Therapy'”
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-gop-thinking-endorsing-ex-gay-therapy-174500872.html
My, my. I cannot help but admire the beauty of such a clueless sneak attack.
“Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin.
Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.We recognize the legitimacy and value of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment to patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.”
Look, I’m strongly opposed to banning ex-gay therapy too, but a little compassion isn’t too much to ask. No, expressing compassion for people who don’t want to be gay is not enough. This reads like a Mike Huckabee tract. Whatever happened to the noble party of George W. Bush? At least the Catholic Church hardliners try to talk about balancing science and faith (although I could do without their disdain for the gay rights movement). Someone needs to go to their convention and spit on a Ronald Reagan poster or something. Yes, I’d still condemn it.
posted by Doug on
A sneak attack? Not hardly, Texas has been openly antigay for a very long time so this should not come as a shock to anyone.
You are opposed to banning ‘ex-gay’ or conversion therapy. That is truly sick IMHO. Conversion therapy is snake oil and akin to alchemy in terms of scientific thought.
posted by Jimmy on
“I see on my Yahoo! News some bad news that is more apt to have LGBT lockstep Democrats sneering.”
Just LGBT Democrats? More like all reasonable people. At least you did recognize the news as bad.
posted by Jorge on
Disgust might be universal, but I think only LGBT Democrats would be gloating.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Yeah, the Texas GOP platform has a long history or being VERY OVERTLY opposed to any gay rights…even going so far as to support anti-gay criminal laws and now…snake oil therapy.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Added: The Wall Street Journal editorialized: “Most local Republican parties had endorsed Mr. Donnelly for his cultural conservatism and firebrand opposition to immigration. Mr. Kashkari, a son of Indian immigrants with a libertarian cultural bent, ran an insurgent campaign on jobs and education. He hopscotched from soup kitchens to Rotary Clubs promoting the GOP as a party of economic opportunity for all.”
I don’t want to burst the Libertarian David versus Tea Party Goliath bubble, but the “insurgent campaign” wasn’t exactly running out of a garage:
(1) Republican heavyweights like Mitt Romney, former California Gov. Pete Wilson and Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House oversight committee, worked hard for Kashkari’s campaign, as did a lot of current and former state Republican elected officials, fearing that a Donnelly campaign would tank any hope of Republican gains in the general election.
(2) Kashkari’s campaign out-raised and out-spent Donnelly’s campaign by about 4:1 ($4 million to $500,000). Many of Kashkari’s contributions came from donors at financial firms, including Morgan Stanley, Capital One, the Carlyle Group, Leach Capital Corp., Baron Equities and Goldman Sachs.
I’m glad Kashkari won. I wish more like him would win in Republican primaries. The party needs to change, and candidates like Kashkari can help change it.
But I want to be careful that we don’t get caught up in myth-making. Kashkari ran a sophisticated, well-financed and smart campaign backed by national and state Republicans. This was not David versus Goliath.
posted by Aubrey haltom on
Congrats, Tom! And Wisconsin as well.
Was a stay issued? Or are there couples lined up?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Thanks. It feels very good — I mean very, very good — to have our marriage recognized in our home state, even if only for a few days pending an appeal and the issuance of a stay.
I’ve worked long and hard for this day. Finally it has come.
The legal situation is somewhat confused. Judge Crabb did not issue a stay, but also did not immediately issue an order blocking the enforcement of the law banning marriage equality. Lawyers are debating whether Judge Crabb’s decision means that couples can marry now, or must wait until Judge Crabb issues a further order enjoining state officials from enforcing the law. Judge Crabb said she would then address whether to stay her decision while the matter is on appeal.
Her order calls for briefs to be submitted with respect to a stay by June 16, with a briefing schedule of responses after that … So it will probably be at least two-three weeks before Judge Crabb issues a stay, if she does, and it is not certain that she will.
The state will probably ask the 7th Circuit for an emergency stay, when it files its appeal. Attorney General Van Hollen confirmed that the state will appeal the ruling as soon as possible, possibly as early as Monday.
The only thing that is certain is that couples are being married. As we speak. At least one county clerk has announced that their offices will remain open all weekend. Licenses are being issued in several counties this evening, and several couples have already been married.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
An update: Wisconsin’s two largest counties (Milwaukee and Dane) have begun issuing licenses and marriages are taking place.
Attorney General Van Hollen has filed a petition with Judge Crabb for an emergency stay. General Van Hollen also issued an advisory to the effect that the ban remains in full force.
This will, no doubt, be going back and forth for the next few days. I would expect a stay, either from Judge Crabb or from the 7th Circuit, sooner or later.
But right now, folks are getting married. A friend called me a few minutes ago. He is headed back home from the DPW convention this evening to be married in Dane County, possibly tonight. I hope that he makes it.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
“Appling said. “When did marriage between a man and a woman become unconstitutional?” –
Um. A marriage between a man and a woman is still perfectly legal in America and every State. What the court said — rightly — was that the government has failed to put forth an argument as to why — in terms of civil (secular) marriage law, it (the state) is entitled to insist upon a specific gender.
In short; what can a man and a woman do that a man and a man or a woman and a woman NOT do that is relevant to civil marriage law?
Procreation? Well, that is not a requirement for civil marriage. It may be within a religious context, but that is a different ball game.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A second update before I head for bed:
(1) Wisconsin’s Brian Brown, Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action, is “furious” according to news reports in the Wisconsin State Journal:
Cluck, cluck, Julaine.
(2) Marriages continue into the night, in both Milwaukee and Madison. I don’t know about the rest of the state. In Madison, the police were helping hand out pieces of wedding cake to the celebrating crowds.
(3) Many of the marriages are being conducted by state court judges. General Van Hollen must be happy as hell about that …
(4) A friend called from PrideFest in Milwaukee, and told me that folks there are just wildly celebrating. Its great that the ruling came down today, which coincides with the opening of our largest pride event.
(5) Michael just got a call from a friend in Nairobi. We’ve both been getting calls and e-mails right, left and center. Several couples I know are now married. This is a good night.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Congratulations, Tom!! Wisconsin makes it 20! Score! (Yes, that’s a purposeful play on words).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Thanks, Jim.
Michael and I were married in Minnesota a few months ago, so neither of us thought that this would change things much, but it makes a difference that we are now married where we live, notwithstanding the pending stay.
I had no idea how personal this decision would be emotionally.
The world seems different this morning.
Julaine Appling (who I debated a number of times in the 2006 amendment fight, and think is a snake) can hiss about “benighted judges” all she wants. AG Van Hollen can issue advisories about how “nothing has changed” until he runs out of ink and electrons. Stephen can carp about how mean we are for wanting to be treated like everybody else, and hype undergraduate foolishness into a universal condemnation of “leftism”.
None of it makes much difference.
posted by Jorge on
AG Van Hollen can issue advisories about how “nothing has changed” until he runs out of ink and electrons.
…
I had no idea how personal this decision would be emotionally.
The world seems different this morning.
I am glad you are having such an experience. And from something you have been working hard on, too.
I find that to be recognized personally feels like a very different type of self-affirmation than when I make the decision of how things will be. It is what makes it worth it to do right things for myself that will probably be forgotten and are likely to be maligned–the two go hand-in-hand. Someone is saying there will be a place for me. It is not a freebie, simply a recognition that the seeking has merit.
We have such a situation with marriage laws. It won’t change by people sticking their heads in the sand. The clock will not be turned back to a time when homosexuality was private and personal. Whether American gays feel we fit in as people of value now depends on where we fit in within society and law, not family and community. This country needs to make the best of that decision.