There’s one point of interest, even with the limited information we have, regarding David Brat and his Virginia congressional primary win over GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. What we do know about Brat and gays is that he’s not a foamer. The New York Times says that in a paper Brat authored a few years back:
Mr. Brat attacked the conservative right for championing individual liberty but campaigning against abortion rights, gambling and homosexuality. He criticized the left too, for being too coercive with social programs. “What is the root word for liberalism? (Answer: Liberty),” he wrote.
That passage was curious, since Mr. Brat ran on an unswerving anti-abortion position. I’m not sure how he feels now about gambling, and we’re looking for his position on gay marriage.
Brat has not used anti-gay bombast in his campaign, following the pattern of many other Republicans who might have been expected to do so. The tea party isn’t the religious right, although the religious right is represented among tea party activists. There’s a libertarian strain in the tea party that could be helpful in redirecting the GOP away from its dominance by the religious right, a fact obscured in by the media’s equation of the two in the service of progressivism.
Still, there’s no doubt that anti-immigration positions dominated Brat’s attacks on Cantor and are common among tea party activists. Many are saying (with some justification) that illegal immigrants have now replaced gays as the boogiepeople for the Republican right.
Except in Texas, of course, where gays remain as big or bigger a scapegoat as immigrants crossing the border without documentation. [And then there’s Gov. Rick Perry.] But as James Kirchick writes (in an article quoting former Log Cabin Republican leader Rich Tafel):
The longer Texas Republicans keep acting like Neanderthals, the greater the chances that the politically unthinkable might happen. “As state after state embraces marriage equality, the Texas GOP resembles the George Wallace Democrats’ response to racial equality in the 1960s, grabbing harder onto their bigotry based in the fear of America’s growing inclusion,” Tafel says. “Their right-wing bigotry is single-handedly doing what Democrats have been unable to do—move Texas from a red state to a blue state.”
More. David Boaz on Big Business Vs. Libertarians in the GOP, and why tea party candidates’ critique of crony capitalism is resonating with voters.
31 Comments for “Brat’s Win and GOP Factionalism”
posted by Doug on
Given David Brat’s almost becoming a minister, attended Princeton Theological Seminary, and his abundant thanks to God for his winning the election, I think it’s a safe bet he is anti-gay and against marriage equality as well. Rather a strange combination since he also appears to be a devotee of Ayn Rand who was apparently an atheist.
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion.
posted by Lori Heine on
Wow, antireligious stereotype much?
I suppose you’d automatically come to the same conclusion about John Shelby Spong or Anne Lamott. Neither of whom has been the least bit shy about expressing Christian faith in public.
And Princeton Theological Seminary! A bastion of the religious right, I’m sure! All those Ivy League ‘phobes…what’re we to do with them?
Perhaps he will feel pressured to genuflect to the bigots in the GOP, but I’d rather wait until he does it than jump to the conclusion that he will, based on blind animus against religious faith.
posted by Carl on
That he hasn’t campaigned against homosexuality and gay rights in a primary election, especially considering the views of some of his high-profile supporters, is something to take note of. I am willing to give him a chance, although I don’t really hold out any hope.
One thing I always forget, even when I shouldn’t, is how, no matter how much they try to hide it or couch their words, anti-gay, desperate, grasping politicians wear it loudly and proudly. The current governor of Texas (we all know who he is) actually pulled this stunt in San Francisco, of all places.
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/In-S-F-Rick-Perry-compares-homosexuality-to-5546544.php
posted by Houndentenor on
I only did a quick google search so I may have missed something, but it doesn’t seem that Brat has much of a paper trail on gay rights. I’m sure someone will do some digging and find something, or better yet just ask him the question. Princeton’s Theology Department is not to be confused with a Fundamentalist Seminary. It doesn’t tell us much of anything about what he thinks on any issue. Let’s wait until we have facts before drawing conclusions.
posted by Doug on
This quote from David Brat’s website:
“Dave will protect the rights of the unborn and the sanctity of marriage, and will oppose any governmental intrusion upon the conscience of people of faith.”
Protecting sanctity of marriage is just evangelical code for opposing marriage equality.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think that seals any hope that Brat may be “gay supportive”. I’m sorry for Stephen. He obviously had his hopes up.
A “foamer”, maybe not, but standard social conservative positions, absolutely.
posted by clayton on
The phrase about “government intrusion upon …people of faith ” is code for “no florist should be forced to sell flowers for a gay wedding.”
posted by Nathan on
Protecting sanctity of marriage is just evangelical code for opposing marriage equality.
Actually, it’s pretty veiled code — most of them say “sanctity of marriage between a man and woman” or some such language. Personally, I happily admit to the sanctity of my marriage to my spouse.
posted by Al G. on
I agree. It’s the absence of the clarifying “between a man and a woman” that’s the real veiled message here, signaling that he’s given the barest of lip service to the anti-equality crowd.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Julie Ingersoll has an interesting perspective on Brat titled David Brat: Catholic, Calvinist, and Libertarian, Oh My! , in which she looks at his thinking a reflected in an essay titled “Interpretation: A Journal of Bible & Theology”, published in 2011.
posted by Houndentenor on
Forgive me for asking, but how can one be Catholic AND Calvinist? I realize that we live in an era in which people worship both Jesus and Ayn Rand, but still I have to ask…WTF???
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
A elected official Expressing religious beliefs in public does not – necessarily — mean that you are opposed to the human rights of say, gay people (or people who do not attend your church).
However, it looks like — initial reports and worth less speculation being what it is is — David Brat will probably quite Ayn Rand when it suits him and then quite the Bible when it suits him.
The fact that Ayn Rand was an atheist — pretty hardcore from what I read — gets obscured by some conservative folks that quote her to justify their economic viewpoints, while also claiming to be the voice of ‘freedom’ and ‘limited government’.
Hey, I am all for the Republican Party growing up and acting its age on gay rights (and immigration).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
However, it looks like — initial reports and worth less speculation being what it is is — David Brat will probably quite Ayn Rand when it suits him and then quite the Bible when it suits him.
We certainly see that in Brat’s statements/positions concerning abortion. As the quote Stephen cites notes, Brat can, at one and the same time, criticize the “conservative right for championing individual liberty but campaigning against abortion rights, gambling and homosexuality” and hold an “unswerving anti-abortion position”.
His public record on “equal means equal”, one way or the other, is non-existent, as far as I can tell from what is available online right now. We are simply going to have to wait until he speaks on the issue before we have a clue about where he stands. I’m not even going to guess.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If Brat is “not a foamer”, that’s a step forward for the Virginia GOP.
I imagine that he will be asked about his position on “equal means equal” sooner or later during the campaign, and we won’t have to speculate after that point.
Let’s see what he has to say.
posted by jerrel on
“Not a foamer”. That strikes me as damning with faint praise.
posted by Houndentenor on
No opinion here on Brat. I’m too busy enjoying the Schadenfreude of Cantor’s defeat. I do, however, think it’s odd that you are ignoring the Texas Ex-Gay platform plank. So much for the GOP moving forward.
posted by Doug on
And don’t forget Tea Party candidate Scott Esk in Oklahoma who thinks it’s ok to stone gay folks to death.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Well, is their a possibility that by “stoned” he meant a date with Mary Jane? (;
posted by Carl on
I think he may have commented on that obliquely by complaining about the Texas GOP.
posted by Eric C. on
Esk is a religious right fringe candidate, but there’s no evidence he’s back by tea party groups, despite all the headlines in progressive blogs. See Miller’s point about lazily equating the two.
posted by Doug on
The problem with fringe candidates in the GOP is they keep getting elected.
posted by Houndentenor on
I realize that there’s a difference between the Tea Party and the Religious Right, but as far as I can tell, the overlap is somewhere around 99%.
posted by Jorge on
That word’s been repeated too many times.
Anthony Weiner wrote an interesting column on Cantor’s defeat. It’s good enough for me.
…
The current governor of Texas (we all know who he is) actually pulled this stunt in San Francisco, of all places.
So much for him running for president again.
“Commonwealth Club interviewer Greg Dalton then asked him whether he believes homosexuality is a disorder.
‘”Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that,’ Perry said. ‘I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.'”
…..
You know, every so often I find it mystifying that in this age of hypersaturated media, that people can be so blase on these things.
“Not knowing” if reparative therapy works?
Comparing homosexuality to an addiction to drunkenness?
But, no, I think my second instinct was right. Rick Perry is a coward. He would not be saying this if he weren’t settled in whatever backlash he thinks Texas is a part of and desperate to ride its coattails. We would simply refuse to answer the question on the grounds that he wants to run for president.
posted by Jorge on
That should read “He would simply refuse to answer the question…”
posted by Houndentenor on
The fact that someone thinking of running for president in two years is afraid to admit that a long-discredited quack therapy is not legit just shows you how bad the GOP is on gay issues.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I have not really seen much of a libertarian influence in the Tea Party movement. Maybe it exists — just not so much in the Upper Midwest.
Here we get people quoting Ayn Rand to selectively decry ‘socialist’ programs that they dislike (while generally supporting the ones that they do like).
However, they generally have zero interest in applying Ayn Randian or libertarian views on social issues. At least that has been my own experience.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a side note, having failed (so far) to obtain a court order from either the Western District of Wisconsin or the 7th Circuit stopping County Clerks from marrying same-sex couples, Wisconsin AG Van Hollen turned up the heat today.
Van Hollen advised the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel that County Clerks issuing marriage licenses could be prosecuted under a law providing a penalty of $10,000 and 9 months in jail for anyone violating state marriage law:
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More. David Boaz on Big Business Vs. Libertarians in the GOP, and why tea party candidates’ critique of crony capitalism is resonating with voters.
The primary thrust of this post (“The tea party isn’t the religious right, although the religious right is represented among tea party activists. There’s a libertarian strain in the tea party that could be helpful in redirecting the GOP away from its dominance by the religious right.“) seems to have gotten lost in the discussion of David Brat.
The article by CATO’s David Boaz was interesting and apt. But there is another side to the story, evidenced by CATO’s Michael Tanner, who recently wrote “Why the Tea Party’s Waning, Not Winning” in NRO:
CATO is a think tank that tracks the conservative movement from a libertarian-minded point of view. I don’t know which of the two are more likely to be correct about the future of the Tea Party movement, but both make valid points in my opinion.
It does seem to me, though, that as the Tea Party has expanded its agenda, the “libertarian strain” in the movement, although continuing to exist, has waned in influence.
No libertarian-minded conservative in his/her right mind could have supported Virginia’s Cuccinelli/Jackson ticket in 2013 (Stephen, for example, did not, most emphatically), and yet support for the ticket among self-described Tea Party adherents was very strong.
While it is certainly true that “the tea party isn’t the religious right”, there is also little evidence that this means anything in terms of movement attitudes toward “equal means equal”.
We’ve discussed this a number of times over the years on IGF, and the marked strength of opposition to marriage equality among self-described Tea Party adherents has been noted in those discussions.
The most recent data that I know about looking at this question is March 2013 report on Edison Research’s November 6, 2012 General Election Exit Polls. The report notes this:
That’s a stunning result, and food for thought for those who are looking to men like David Brat in order to turn the Republican Party on “equal means equal”. It may be that Brat — libertarian-minded on economic issues, Tea Party on immigration, and social conservative on “equal means equal” — does indeed represent the current state of the Tea Party.
posted by Houndentenor on
This reminds me of all the crowing on msnbc in early 2009 about the demise of the GOP. These political predictions by pundits are wrong more often than tabloid psychics. Why does anyone bother paying attention to either? The Tea Party is not dead. Not by a long shot. In fact the angry old relatives of mine keep sending me incoherent forwarded emails on a regular basis. Sorry, but this isn’t going anywhere and it’s just wishful thinking by both the GOP establishment and everyone to the left of Ted Cruz to believe that it is.
posted by Lori Heine on
I flirted briefly with the notion of getting involved with the Tea Party when it was new, and its ideas still in the process of formation.
Shortly thereafter was that crackpot pastor in my state — the one who advocated the death penalty for all gays — invited to speak for the Tempe TP chapter. When I complained about this, my TP friends said he was only speaking about immigration. As if this reflected any less badly on them.
Whether this latest loon, Eck, Ick, Esk or whatever his name is, is “really” a member of the TP or not is irrelevant to me. I found out several years ago which direction the movement was headed.
The political right is simply not serious about liberty. I was wrong in ever imagining that it was. The only people, in either “wing,” I hear now really voicing concerns about libertarian issues are leftists. Social conservatives (including the TP) seem utterly uninterested in doing anything but using “liberty” as a front to push causes that actually attack liberty.
The left needs to wake up about a lot of issues, but its thinking is more hospitable to liberty than anything I’ve seen on the toady-to-power political right. Plenty of leftists are very critical of left-wing abuses of liberty. The bloggers here make no effort whatsoever to find them, even though they wouldn’t have very far to go.
Was the outcry from the right against abuse of power anywhere near the same, during eight years of Bush II, as that on the left has been during the Obama years? Any claim that it was would be so nonsensical, that of course nobody has made it.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Frankly, it seems like the Tea Party wants to selectively quote from the likes of Ayn Rand to justify backing corporate interests and their survival of the fittest politics.
Beyond that, they (at least from my own experiences) are VERY VERY VERY opposed to any sort of Ayn Randian social policy (and more then a few have refused to even admit that she was an atheist).
Basically, the Tea Party could be at home with the American Independent Party or the Constitution Party.