A revealing article about politics today (hat tip: Walter Olson):
Fisher says he has friends who usually vote Democratic but are thinking about switching sides because “they’re really unhappy about the situation they’re in,” with too much of their paycheck going to the government.
He, too, chafes at high taxes. He sticks with the Democrats mainly because of their liberal social agenda — mindful of his aunt, a lesbian, who has “come out of her shell more” as states have legalized same-sex marriage. He would consider crossing the aisle if Maryland Republicans took a more libertarian approach to social issues, taking the government out of people’s personal lives.
“It would be very cool to see a Republican who says, ‘I’m for gay marriage,’” Fisher says. “If the Republicans got on board with that, it would be a really difficult decision for me.”
Which is what frightens LGBT Democratic partisans. They much prefer their Republicans like this.
35 Comments for “The Divide”
posted by Doug on
Are you ever going to get off your totally debunked mime of Democrats being afraid of the GOP becoming LGBT supportive?
posted by Houndentenor on
Even if it were true, how does what Democrats want affect positions held by Republicans?
posted by Jimmy on
It’s not matter of what kind of Republicans ‘we’ prefer. The Ralph Reed types of Republican is, by and large, the types that run the state GOPs. This is of no one else’s making and helps explain why fewer and fewer people identify as Republican. What is being done to change this?
It’s a disconnect for someone to take the fairly progressive position of marriage equality, and gay rights in general, and yet somehow still be regressive in other matters like funding head start, real immigration reform, marginal tax rates, and reproductive rights.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t doubt there are people who vote for Democrats because of social issues. There are also even larger groups of Americans who vote for Republicans only because of those same issues. Yes, probably more gays would vote for GOP candidates if gay rights (not just marriage. I’m so sick of people talking about marriage as if it were the only gay rights issue!). There are also millions of poor and financially strapped people who are only Republicans because they are against gay rights and abortion. Take those off the table and it benefits the Democrats far more than the Republicans.
posted by Lori Heine on
The post’s assertion makes no moral sense. A certain sort of cynical political sense, maybe, but that’s all.
So if the GOP goes on denying the reality of climate change, permitting the planet to slide still further toward becoming uninhabitable, the American infant mortality rate to continue rivaling Cuba’s, and — despite our unrivalled prosperity and natural resources — the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, it’s all good, as long as they accept gay marriage.
The party’s abysmal treatment of gays is only a part of a much larger problem. It is run by sociopaths, who care about nothing but power. We’re a fanatically religious nation–our fervency certainly exists on a par with that of, say, Pakistan. But we’re rotten to the core.
After several years of seeing the Republicans up very close, trying to work with them and (an exercise in absolute futility) trying to reason with them, I must say I’m farther than ever from having any respect for them whatsoever. I’m with Noam Chomsky. The GOP is a very large and un-funny joke.
posted by Houndentenor on
I think that the issue with the gay Republicans is that most of them seem to live in deep blue areas where the Republicans they meet are often very moderate to liberal on social issues and the Democrats they meet are loony-tunes lefties. (I have lived in such areas. This is from experience, not speculation.) I don’t think they interact much with the base of the party and therefore choose to ignore what is now the core of the Republican party as the “lunatic fringe”. If only that were true.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“It would be very cool to see a Republican who says, ‘I’m for gay marriage,’” Fisher says. “If the Republicans got on board with that, it would be a really difficult decision for me.”
Which is what frightens LGBT Democratic partisans.
I can’t imagine why you think that “LGBT Democratic partisans” are frightened of a pro-equality Republican Party. You might consider asking whether conservative gays and lesbians are the ones running scared.
Consider two recent examples:
(1) The Human Rights Campaign, working with Gill allies, is reaching out to Southern religious conservatives. You complained about this in an earlier post, but your complaint doesn’t address a question that should be addressed: What haven’t conservative gays and lesbians reached out in the past, and why are they attacking HRC/Gill for doing so now?
(2) Dan Innes, openly gay and a supporter of equality, is running in New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District Republican primary for the opportunity to run for Congress. His opponent is Frank Guinta, who has a long history of opposing equality. Guinta fought against marriage equality in 2009 when New Hampshire was considering the question, and then supported efforts to repeal marriage equality in 2010. Given that record, you would think that conservative gays and lesbians would be fighting hard for Innes. And yet I can find no evidence of any significant support that Innes has received from conservative gays and lesbians. In fact, even Richard Tisei, an openly gay Republican Congressional candidate from Massachusetts, tossed Innes under the bus and held a joint fundraiser with Guinta. WTF?
In fact, I look at what is happening in the Republican Party right now, and I wonder if you are looking down the wrong end of the telescope. Perhaps the legitimate question is “Are conservative gays and lesbians more concerned with keeping hard-core social conservatives in the Republican fold than in turning the party toward equality?”
posted by Jorge on
It’s a disconnect for someone to take the fairly progressive position of marriage equality, and gay rights in general, and yet somehow still be regressive in other matters like funding head start, real immigration reform, marginal tax rates, and reproductive rights.
Gay deserve marriage, and legalizing marriage has no economic or social cost.
In contrast, women can afford condoms without government help, and many people reasonably consider abortion to be murder. The term “reproductive rights” is used in a way so contrary to its logical meaning that I cannot recognize the term to have any legitimate meaning. (Abortion I get, but that’s too contraversial.) Illegal immigrants are just that. Other than a few special cases it’s hard to justify giving them any special consideration–and even those cost money. I’m a supporter of immigration reform but I’d be just as happy deporting everyone. Head Start is a well-intentioned program, but oft as not it’s only glorified child care offering no academic gains, especially once children enter crappy schools. That’s money down the drain.
Really, Jimmy, progressivism makes for a nice platform issue, but only if you are actually a progressive. If you’re not, progressivism is only a set of ideas along a theme, some of which work, some of which don’t. The rigidity with which you and some other people seem to expect fealty to the entire progressive coalition or platform strikes me as an intellectually deficient form of communism.
Which is what frightens LGBT Democratic partisans.
Everything that could possibly lead to a long-term Republican or conservative victory on the merits of gay rights frightens LGBT Democratic partisans. This is a boring post.
The thing that most frightens them is gay-tolerant politicians who are against gay rights. The farther to the right they accomplish this, the more LGBT Democratic partisans fear them.
posted by Doug on
First of all, condoms are not paid for by the government, unless you are talking about ‘give a ways’ in some cities. Second, deporting all illegal aliens is truly intellectually deficient to use your phrase. That is just a knee-jerk conservative talking point that could not be implemented.
posted by Houndentenor on
1) It is in now way “reasonable” to equate abortion with murder. (Considering that the same church that squawks the loudest about this issue was recently discovered to have dumped the remains of 800 infants and toddlers into its septic tank just shows you how little they really think of children once they are born.)
2) There is nothing for “LBGT Democratic partisans” to fear from an upsurge in support for gay rights from Republican politicians. I am no more afraid of that than of being abducted by aliens.
posted by Lori Heine on
I guess it makes gay conservatives feel important–big and strong–to think that gay liberals spend all their time in a cold sweat over the possibility that Republicans will become more gay-friendly.
Those who actually understand human beings, and the workings of the political system, see things quite differently.
My disillusionment with Democrats came about because they so often failed to live up to their lofty rhetoric. They were really beginning to have a hypocrisy problem. That happened for a reason few on either left or right will acknowledge.
When conservatism really sinks to its lowest points, progressives get lazy and complacent. They won’t admit it, but in many ways the standard is set by the opposition. When the opposition’s standard is lower than a snake’s belly–as it was in the Bush II years–those who fancy themselves progressives don’t have to set their own bar very high to exceed it.
If conservatives in general become more gay-friendly, it would force progressives to raise the bar. I really get sick of hearing them make excuses that basically amount to “Well, the right wing is worse!” If Republicans raise the bar on this issue, Democrats will raise their own.
That’s how real progress is accomplished. Only cynics who see politics as nothing more than a game–totally disregarding the real human beings that politics affect–think that people sit around worrying that their opponents are going to pull their heads out of the anatomically-awkward places where they’re lodged.
I’m still waiting to hear those loud pops around the country. I catch the sound of one once in a while, here and there. I still don’t hear it happening very often.
posted by Houndentenor on
I grew up as a moderate Republican. I loved the Fords as a kid (I still think Betty Ford was the best FLOTUS of my lifetime!). That’s not the GOP of 2014. Even Reagan wouldn’t be right wing enough for today’s GOP primary voters. I’m not that crazy about or excited about being a Democrat. But given the choices it’s a pretty obvious one to me. (Besides, the modern Democratic party is to the right of the GOP c. 1975 on almost ever issue.) And as if the national parties weren’t enough, at the local level every primary where I live is a clusterf*ck to be as anti-gay as possible.
posted by Wilberforce on
I was never a republican, but I was raised by a republican businessman. And I know exactly what you mean. In those days, you could talk to the business people, who were often quite well educated. No more. Now they are either from the hopelessly ignorant base or off the scale corrupt like Stephen and friends, never looking for common ground but only attacking the dems in order to secure their precious and idiotic tax cuts.
posted by Houndentenor on
When I was living in Germany (to sing and audition) I had an unlimited Eurail pass. (I don’t think they even have those any more.) As a result I got to ride first class on all the trains in Europe (including the high speed ICE trains!). Most of the people I met in my travels were either other classically trained musicians (at gigs or auditions) or business people (on the trains) and people on the bases where my friend (with whom I stayed much of the time) worked. Anyway, what is considered center right there would be the left of the Democratic party in the US on most issues. It was quite educational to discuss current events (not argue about but to try to understand their take on world events since it was often quite different from what I was used to in the US). I’m not really that liberal in the grand scheme of things. But in the US I’m often called a leftist. That’s hilarious and just shows how far off the deep end the GOP has gone that people would accuse me of such.
posted by Jorge on
It is in now way “reasonable” to equate abortion with murder.
With all due respect, Houndentenor, I think it is very well-established that your position here is untenable.
posted by Doug on
It is neither well-established nor untenable.
posted by Houndentenor on
Well-established? Untenable? Reasonable? You keep using these words. I do not think you know what they mean.
posted by Jimmy on
“The term “reproductive rights” is used in a way so contrary to its logical meaning that I cannot recognize the term to have any legitimate meaning. (Abortion I get, but that’s too contraversial.)”
I don’t find it illogical to assert a fundamental right to physical autonomy, which is the underlying basis for reproductive rights. The state has no business deciding what happens with/to my physical body while I am conscious and in full faculty of my ability to decide. The same applies to the other half of the population that can get pregnant.
A wanted pregnancy is a wonderful thing, and may that fetus come into the world with hosannas and even a parade. If the pregnancy is unwanted by the one who is expected to provide a venue for said gestation, it is no different than a parasite IMO. If I had a tape worm, I would want it gone (after it had rid me of the twenty pounds I could stand to lose).
Your comment on condoms is silly and sexist.
“Head Start is a well-intentioned program, but oft as not it’s only glorified child care offering no academic gains, especially once children enter crappy schools.”
As a substitute teacher, I am in many kindergarten classes in the inner city and you don’t know what you’re talking about.
posted by Jorge on
Your comment on condoms is silly and sexist.
I’ll grant it’s sexist, and I affirm that shamelessly. It’s also true, no sillier than the caricature that now carries the label of reporductive rights in this day and age, and relevant to the question of whether what are commonly labeled “reproductive rights” represents a significant social issue worthy of recognition.
I believe they do not. Your attempt to belittle my considered scornful dismissal of this part of the progressive platform as silly and sexist does little to inform why people who are supportive of gay rights are self-contradictory if they do not conform to the entire progressive agenda.
If anything, it reveals why it is the progressive agenda which is itself silly and sexist. I reject any suggestion or demand to conform my ideology to any conservative or progressive mindset on the basis of false labels that are used to demean people over reasonable disputes of principle and policy. You do not have to agree with that and you don’t have to like it, either. But it makes no difference to me whether you do or you don’t.
posted by Jimmy on
In other words, you don’t care what I think, and I really don’t care what you think. That works for me.
“I’ll grant it’s sexist, and I affirm that shamelessly. It’s also true, no sillier than the caricature that now carries the label of reproductive rights in this day and age, and relevant to the question of whether what are commonly labeled “reproductive rights” represents a significant social issue worthy of recognition.”
It’s unsurprising that you are so dismissive of half of the earth’s population.
posted by Don on
Where I am frustrated is the alternate reality some are living in where our taxes are insanely high and spending is out of control.
1) our federal taxes are lower than they have ever been for any living person, regardless of income.
2) if the republican party were the least bit interested in cutting spending, they would have agreed to cuts in military spending and farm subsidies. they are complete non-starters.
3) as my friend, a tea-party purist, regularly reminds me, the republicans have no intention of cutting spending one iota for programs they like. they want to increase that spending. but they will not raise taxes for it. they just want to cut the spending democrats like to pay for their increases. and that’s why he can’t bring himself to vote for the current incarnations and why the tea party is still revolting against the establishment.
Until a post considers those particular realities in our polity, I find posts like this one bizarre and incredibly disingenuous. If we elected nothing but republicans to every office in America, we would never get what Stephen proposes. Not even close.
What we have is a political class that promises slogans: “lower taxes!” that they know they cannot actually deliver without “higher deficits!” because not even the tea party REALLY wants to cut spending. If Stephen says he’s for half our current military spending over time, then I would believe that person as a true conservative. THAT would get me to vote for Republicans regularly.
(cuz we’re gonna get gay marriage and equal rights sooner or later whether soc cons like it or not)
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s easy to find a consensus on the idea that government spends too much (or wastes too much money). The disagreement arises when you get to the details of what spending is good and what is wasteful. It’s always in the details when these discussions get bogged down. I think our government could cut spending but getting those pork cuts through Congress is unlikely since every dollar of spending benefits someone somewhere and you will hear from them.
posted by Jimmy on
Just re-elected Thad Cochran certainly was happy to remind Mississippians how much money he brought back to the state.
posted by Doug on
But was he happy enough to say ‘thank you’ to the African Americans who crossed party lines and voted for him to save is sorry a- – . I sincerely doubt it.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. Most people who support gay rights — and have a decent understanding of the political process — would certainly welcome the day when both major parties support equality. Why? When both major parties tend to agree on something (in a two party system), it pretty much becomes the consensus/policy of the nation.
2. It is difficult to say what will happen — politically — when such a day comes. Gay voters and their allies may still vote for Democrats or still vote Republican or for some other type of candidate or party. I suspect that other “non-gay” issues will impact how people vote when both major parties are on the same page with regards to equality.
3. I just had to roll my eyes with this quote, “women can afford condoms without government help.” While the female condom does exist, the hot button issue has largely been focused on birth control (which can be used to prevent pregnancy, although it does have other uses). I am not sure that assuming that every woman (or every man) has the income needed to access family planning services. Then again, some people thought it was OK to refer to women as “sluts”…..
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m carrying on the Houndentenor/Wilberforce conversation, but didn’t want to reply up there because I didn’t want their comments to be separated.
I very well may vote for Hillary. (I’m being inundated every day with “Ready for Hillary” stuff, including–of course–appeals for money.) I wish I could be more excited about the potential candidacy of the first woman to seriously have a shot at the White House. But Hillary’s hard to get wholeheartedly behind. She’s sort of symptomatic of what’s wrong with the Democrats these days.
I suppose I could write-in Noam Chomsky, but he’s (A) a lot older than Hillary, (B) is Jewish, and therefore, unfortunately, probably unelectable for that reason and (C) would never in a million years want to run for president.
posted by Doug on
I’m not a big Hillary fan either and quite frankly I think this country has had enough Clinton’s and Bush’s in politics.
That being said ,just one look at what the GOP is offering in the way of presidential material and I’m running, not walking, into the Hillary camp. Depressing but true. And I’m afraid to waste my vote on someone, with no chance of winning, just to stand on principal. The stakes are too high.
posted by Houndentenor on
I really don’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton. I will if it comes to that. I’m not going to vote for a third-party candidate and hand the election to whatever nutjob Teavangelical the GOP nominates (and I think that’s what’s going to happen. I’m no Nate Silver so feel free to hope I’m wrong because I hope so too!). How sad that our electoral system is so upgefuktet that we only seem to be able to recycle the same old people every election cycle. We have 50 governors and 100 Senators plus a good number of other politicians with some stature who could run. The idea that there’s no one else but Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush is insulting to dozens of people who’d be at least as good as either of them as chief executive.
posted by Wilberforce on
It’s kind of disturbing to keep running into this naive view of the process.
Here’s a reality check. The Clintons are politicians, and liberals, and they will do what they can for liberal causes according to political realities. Obama is no different except that he is in power during different times.
The Clintons are also very skilled at the political dodge and weave. While the naive left hates them for that, I admire it and think they could accomplish a ton in these times.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Clintons are politicians, and liberals, and they will do what they can for liberal causes according to political realities. Obama is no different except that he is in power during different times.
The operative phrase, when it comes to “equal means equal”, being “according to political realities“. Politicians support “equal means equal” as and to the extent that it is politically expedient for them to do so, and that is as true of Democratic politicians as it is of Republican politicians. Politicians are usually the last to come to the battlefield.
The reason that Democratic politicians are currently more or less uniformly taking public pro-equality positions is because gays and lesbians working within and outside the Democratic Party created an environment — a political reality if you will — in which it is politically safe for them to do so, and politically impossible for them not to do so.
The reason that Republican politicians are currently making increasingly absurd waffles (e.g. Wisconsin’s Senator Ron Johnson’s recent assertion: ““I think marriage is between a man and a woman. But, again, if the voters decide that they want gay marriage, I’m not going to oppose it.”) is that Republicans are now caught between the political reality that Americans now favor marriage equality and the political reality that the Republican base does not.
The left can pound on Hillary, and the right (e.g. Andrew Sullivan’s silliness quoted in the previous thread) can snipe away at her to their heart’s content, but it doesn’t change that fact.
I spent a lot of time in the political trenches over the years, working on “equal means equal” on the Democratic side of “The Divide”. The spinelessness (“I’m with you, but I can’t go public …) of Democratic politicians in past years was frustrating, but not surprising. It, in itself, was a political reality with which we had to work in order to advance “equal means equal”.
Gays and lesbians in the Democratic Party — leveraging and building upon the courage of thousands upon thousands of apolitical gays and lesbians who laid the groundwork by coming out to family, friends, neighbors and co-workers — changed the political realities for Democratic politicians.
And the political realities have changed for Republican politicians, too, thanks to the rapid increase in support for “equal means equal” over the last five years. In time, Republican politicians will figure out a way to handle it. Right now, watching Republican politicians try to cope with reality is like watching the Keystone Kops. Its mean, but I’m enjoying it.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I do not really see many serious GOP candidates supporting gay rights, much less equal means equal this time around.
Governor Christie is probably the only GOP 2016 (likely) candidate who could bring himself to support any gay right legislation at all, and it was something on banning ex-gay therapy. The NJ Governor Chris Christie is probably still running for President (or maybe a VP slot), but has less and less chance of being a serious candidate in the GOP primary. Who else?
Rand Paul may indeed run, but he is simply playing the con game that his father did (quite well). He appeals to libertarians and the sort of folk that would probably like the American Independent Party or the Constitution party.
It takes plenty of political gymnastics to pull it off — it helps that in-depth, investigative journalism by professionally educated people is pretty rare.
At and rate, Paul has basically taken the ‘state’s rights’ position on just about every single gay right issue (when he takes a particular position). Who else?
Jeb Bush will play the same sort of folksy ‘compassionate conservative’ game that his brother played. Although (to be fair), Jeb Bush didn’t blow most of his brain cells on booze and drugs (or at least I don’t think he did).
posted by Don on
Florida atty general Pam Bondi just moved to intervene in the Florida case that is leading to make all marriages legal in the state (there are other federal cases, but they are for particular aspects of DOMA). She is expected to make the same arguments she has made in the federal cases: which could have been written by Bryan Fischer of the AFA.
It looks like Florida is going to double down on crazy town. So much for taking gay rights off the table here.
Progressives just got a triple shot of anger to go after the atty gen and governor who both face re-election this year and were already looking kinda weak.
posted by Jimmy on
A good day for my Hoosier state and the pursuit of liberty and justice for all.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/25/judge-throws-indiana-ban-sex-marriage/11354083/
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The 10th Circuit ruled in favor of marriage equality today in Kitchen v. Herbert. The 10th’s ruling is the first appellate level court to rule on marriage equality since Windsor.
The ruling suggests that the 10th Circuit will also rule in favor of marriage equality in Bishop v. Smith (Oklahoma).
In response to the ruling in Kitchen, which presumably will apply to other states in the 10th, several county clerks in Colorado have announced that their counties will begin issuing marriage licenses.
posted by Mike Alexander on
Tom inquired earlier:
Perhaps the legitimate question is “Are conservative gays and lesbians more concerned with keeping hard-core social conservatives in the Republican fold than in turning the party toward equality?”
Right now, it doesn’t matter what the very small minority of gay / lesbian conservatives want. The know damned well who is driving the bus in the GOP. Some would say it’s the Tea Party…. But it’s not. The Tea Party, as much as they want to be thought of as be fiscally conservative…. They are not. They are the Social Conservatives who found a quick way of distancing and separating themselves from the flailing Bush legacy.
Some might brissle at this assertion.
In which case I have to ask this… Please name six prominent Tea Party candidates who are not also fiscal conservatives. Also… Please tell me how Rick Santorum and Michelle “Social conservatism is fiscal conservatism,” Bachman are fiscal conservatives.