You’d never guess it from the liberal media/blogosphere echo chamber, but social conservatives increasingly feel alienated from the GOP as the party distances itself from culture war issues (at least outside of Texas and the fervid mind of Michele Bachmann). As the Washington Post reports:
Many social conservatives say they feel politically isolated as the country seems to be hurtling to the left, with marijuana now legal in Colorado and gay marriage gaining ground across the nation. They feel out of place in a GOP increasingly dominated by tea party activists and libertarians who prefer to focus on taxes and the role of government and often disagree with social conservatives on drugs or gay rights. …
The disconnect between social conservatives and the GOP has become a “chasm,” said Gary Bauer, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 and is now head of the Campaign for Working Families. …“Values voters have been treated as the stepchildren of the family, while the party has wanted to get on with so-called more electorally popular ideas,” Bauer said.
Interestingly, the paper notes the antipathy social conservatives feel toward tea party activists (whose concerns focus on over-reaching government). If all you read are progressive diatribes, you would necessarily think “tea party” and “social conservatives” are one and the same.
More. Maryland’s gubernatorial race is a case in point:
Republican Maryland gubernatorial candidate Larry Hogan on Friday said his position on marriage rights for same-sex couples has “evolved.”… Hogan said marriage rights for same-sex couples, extending in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants and other social issues “are really decided in Maryland.”
“They have no part in this campaign whatsoever,” he said. “We’ve been completely focused on the issues that all Marylanders are focused on right now, and that’s economic issues.”
Furthermore: Cuyahoga County Republicans welcome Gay Games to Cleveland. As I’ve previously noted, it was reported that the Texas GOP’s rearguard anti-gay antics were a factor in costing Dallas the 2016 GOP convention, which is going instead to gay-welcoming Cleveland.
Relatedly.Via David Lampo at the Daily Caller: Why Republicans Should Pray The Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage:
In short, all but the true believers realize the war has been lost. Unfortunately, those true believers are still the loudest voices in the Republican Party, the ones who write its platform and set its agenda. With them as the face of the party, 2016 presidential candidates who want to grow the party and expand its reach (think Rand Paul or Paul Ryan) will have a very difficult time doing so.
Yes indeed.
39 Comments for “Social Conservatives Feeling Left Out”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You’d never guess it from the liberal media/blogosphere echo chamber, but social conservatives increasingly feel alienated from the GOP as the party distances itself from culture war issues …
You need to get out more, Stephen. I’ve been reading articles in the “liberal media/blogosphere” about the discontent of the conservative Christian movement for at least a year. I’ll bet I can come up with a dozen examples from the Washington Post along over the last six months.
Interestingly, the paper notes the antipathy social conservatives feel toward tea party activists (whose concerns focus on over-reaching government). If all you read are progressive diatribes, you would necessarily think “tea party” and “social conservatives” are one and the same.
Christian conservatives and Tea Party adherents have differing government philosophies to some extent, in theory. Christian conservatives are financially dependent upon the government (“faith-based initiatives”, property tax exemptions, charitable deductions, government-funded adoption agencies and charities, and so on), and are outright proponents of using government power to suppress individual liberty in matters of “faith and morals” (suppression of gays and lesbians, setting up the government of arbitrer of reproductive decisions, and so on). The Tea Party is less interested, theoretically, in using the power of government to surpress individual liberty, and less dependent upon the government for continued financial existence.
But Christian conservatives and Tea Party adherents often overlap in practice. The PRRI “American Values Survey” has consistently reported that half of those who self-identify as “Tea Party” also self-identify as “religious right” or “conservative Christian”, and the AVS also reports strong support among Tea Party adherents with the “faith and morals” positions of the conservative Christian right, particularly when it comes to “equal means equal”: “While a majority (59%) of libertarians oppose same-sex marriage, they are significantly less opposed than Republicans overall (67%) and than other conservative-leaning groups such as Tea Party members (73%) and white evangelical Protestants (80%).
The right-libertarian movement is often touted as the Republican counterweight to social conservatives. To some extent, that may be true. We’ve also been treated to a lot of nonsense about how the Tea Party is more aligned with right-libertarian values than with social conservative values, but the numbers do not bear that out. It seems to be a case of “if wishes were horses”, at least when it comes to “faith and morals” issues. The Tea Party is, and is likely to remain, more closely allied with social conservatives than with “equal means equal” for the next few election cycles, in part because a majority of right-libertarians (59%) are themselves aligned with social conservative opposition to “equal means equal”.
In that respect, the Washington Post article
seems to have fallen into the trap of looking at the chimera rather than the reality.
I recommend that the Washington Post article be read carefully, looking at the substance of the conservative Christian complaint. The quote from Gary Bauer (supported by the rest of the article and by recent statements by Tony Perkins, Ralph Reed, Brian Brown and other war horses of the conservative Christian movement) is not that the party has changed position of “equal means equal” but that (in Bauer’s words as quoted) “the party has wanted to get on with so-called more electorally popular ideas“. In a nutshell, the complaint is that the Republican Party is no longer putting opposition to “equal means equal” front and center, as the party did during the period 2002-2012, but instead wanting to “focus” on other issues.
The fight within the Republican Party on “equal means equal” is, at present, more a question of priority and “tone” than it is a matter of substance. I hope that changes, but I’m not looking at the Tea Party to be the change agent.
As I’ve previously noted, it was reported that the Texas GOP’s rearguard anti-gay antics were a factor in costing Dallas the 2016 GOP convention, which is going instead to gay-welcoming Cleveland.
I haven’t seen much discussion on the regional dimension of the coming intra-party dispute over “equal means equal”, but it seems to be a significant factor. Republicans in the West Coast, Northeast and Great Lakes states seem to be moving toward accommodation, while Republicans in the Old South seem to be digging in their heels, doubling down.
I’ve seen some discussion of the regional aspect along the lines of “if the party doesn’t get with the program, it will become a regional party”, but I haven’t seen much discussion of the intra-party regional politics of moving the Republican Party off the dime.
My guess is that the regional division will become more stark as time moves on.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
“left out” seems a big inaccurate, outside of constituencies where things tend to lean blue or purple. Still nice to see Republicans welcome the gay games, although it’s silly that they STILL can’t be called the Olympics.
The gay “games” – like many well organized gay pride events are probably good for business. I am not sure how much of it is actually local, but visiting gays gotta place to stay as well as eat, drink, and maybe take in a show.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Cleveland got the nod because of the electoral votes… The GOP is betting that Texas is still safely locked for the Presidential ballot in 2016. (If it’s a Clinton/Castro ticket, all bets are off.) the supposed handwringing about the anti-gay stuff is window-dressing.
posted by Houndentenor on
There’s no reality-based electoral map that gets the GOP back into the White House without Ohio. That’s why the convention is there. What would be the point in having it in Dallas? I don’t think there’s much chance Democrats will take Texas in 2016. 2020 is another matter. I could be wrong and I hope I am but I don’t see that happening. Should Wendy Davis pull an upset in November, however, look for a complete gop freak-out.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… the libertarian-leaning Paul, the senator from Kentucky who only recently began reaching out to social conservatives …
As a side note, let me point out that this is an example of sloppy reporting on the part of the Washington Post.
Rand Paul has long been an opponent of marriage equality, and he has been “reaching out to social conservatives” for as long as he has been in politics. He made numerous statements in against marriage equality during his 2009-2010 campaign for the Senate, and (although he’s since backtracked, now claiming that the matter should be left up to the states) Paul favored a national amendment banning marriage equality during the campaign. He is on record supporting legislation to strip the tederal courts of jurisdiction over marriage equality cases. He’s made his share of really offensive anti-equality statements (e.g. “If we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans? I’m kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It’s having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we’re punting on it, marriage can be anything.“) in response to the Windsor decision.)
Paul has also been a pillar of the anti-abortion movement. Paul describes himself as “100% pro life“, and has said over and over again that legal “personhood” begins at fertilization. In 2009, running for the Senate, his position was to ban abortion under all circumstances. Since 2010 he has said he would allow for a doctor’s discretion in life-threatening cases such as ectopic pregnancies. As recently as last month, Paul said: “I think, and I often say in my speeches, that I don’t think a civilization can long endure that doesn’t respect the rights of the unborn.”
The idea that Paul is just now “reaching out to social conservatives” is preposterous. Paul is a social conservative. He might not (I have no idea) believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, as the fundies do, and he doesn’t thump the tub like Huckabee, but he’s been a strong proponent of social conservative “values”.
I note, though, that doesn’t mean that he’s not a right-libertarian as well. He fits right into the mainstream of right-libertarianism — opposing marriage equality and abortion — if the AVS is accurate.
posted by Houndentenor on
Paul is a stereotypical politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. In front of libertarians he talks like they do. In front of social conservatives he tells them what they want to hear. Never mind that those views are often contradictory. Before the internet the lazy media used to let people get away with that. Now everything you say winds up on youtube. Of course the biggest socon problem for Paul should be that he was a NoZe brother at Baylor. Their entire raison d’etre was to mock the religious nutbagger at the largest Baptist University. I don’t think Paul has any real shot at the nomination. I could be wrong. I think 2016 is going to be a race to out-crazy each other in the GOP primary debates. (Bachmann is enough crazy for both parties by herself, and then there are the rest.) The establishment will do its best to reign them in and I don’t think it’s going to work this time. I’m stocking up on popcorn because that’s going to be quite a show and make the 2012 debates seem sane and rational by comparison.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
The Tea Party activists that I know are very conservative on social issues, so I am not sure what Stephen is talking about on that point.I won’t get into their hypocrisy when it comes to Tea Party activists and their views on “big” and “overreaching” government.
I would welcome meaningful voter choice and competition, I just don’t see these changes happening with the Tea Party movement or the Republican Party
posted by Houndentenor on
Every Tea Partier I know is a big bag of contradictory nutbaggery. They are against illegal immigrants working in the US but regularly hire illegals. (They also complain that the undocumented workers want to get paid too much. Isn’t that how a free market works? No, they want the non-white people to work for less than minimum wage under conditions not allowed under OSHA. That’s what they really want. They love illegal workers. They just want to keep them illegal!) They are also against government health care but scream if there is even a suggestion about cuts to medicare. Oh and the kicker…almost every one of them I know works directly or indirectly for the state or federal government. Idiots every last one of them. There’s something to be said for wasteful spending but if you really want cuts then you have to be willing to cut something you like, not stand there with your hands out and gripe because other people have their hands out too. The whole lot of them make me sick.
posted by MR Bill on
This is pretty much my experience also..Here in North GA/Western NC, the Tea Party are social conservatives, older scared white folks who believe they are bein’ robbed by the blacks and the poors, that America (meaning their vision of it) is being destroyed by Hispanics (instead of 40 years of conservative domination and Globalism)…They are eagerly awaiting the Apocalypse, when the cleansing (and gays are among the ‘filth’ they hate) that will ensue…They also expect their Social Security and Medicaid to show up on time. They hate government (except of the bits they approve of) and don’t think the Other’s are human, so why should They have human rights. The libertarians are similarly dishonest…and all don’t want to admit that Money=Power.
posted by Jorge on
Every Tea Partier I know is a big bag of contradictory nutbaggery. . . . There’s something to be said for wasteful spending but if you really want cuts then you have to be willing to cut something you like, not stand there with your hands out and gripe because other people have their hands out too. The whole lot of them make me sick.
Haven’t you and I been through this one already this month? You’re not any less addicted to your own sacred cows.
posted by Lori Heine on
I think everyone here would be better to “get out more.”
As a libertarian, I actively tried to reach out to the Tea Party. I even registered on their website so I could get emails telling me what was going on with the movement locally. I actually know a lot of these people, and have some real insight into what they’re about.
There is a rift, within the Tea Party itself, between libertarians and social conservatives–the latter of whom do make up a sizeable portion in many chapters, including here in Arizona. The Tea Party, like every other collection of human individuals, is subject to vigorous disagreements within its ranks.
I’m glad to see that beginning to be acknowledged here. For quite a while, commenters seemed to think of it is a monolith. And of course the GOP still speaks of it that way. It only wishes the TP were a monolith–so it would be easier it handle.
Right-leaning libertarians are not all, by any means or in significant numbers, opposed to abortion or marriage equality. That is simply an untruth. The difference between right- and left-leaning libertarians is not the destination we seek, so much as our preferred means of getting there. Harsh abortion restrictions and marriage apartheid are not generally advocated by right-leaning libertarians–though a fair number of social conservatives call themselves libertarians. I suppose that is the origin of the lie that they are.
If I ran around calling myself Wonder Woman, however sincerely I believed it, nobody but a moron would take me at my word. But the libertarian claim is, evidently, not only gospel…it’s MAGIC!
posted by Mike in Houston on
Here in Texas, Tea Party & SoCon is indistinguishable… and nationally, as long as the visuals include the fawning over Ted Cruz, I have a hard time believing that there is any difference in either philosophy or policy.
posted by Houndentenor on
In some liberal enclaves there are libertarian-type conservatives. That’s not what’s running the Tea Party everywhere else. Stephen and his ilk are intentionally ignorant of what conservatives are doing in the red states. As for Ted Cruz, am I the only one who finds it bizarre when birther relatives are touting Ted Cruz for president. Cruz REALLY wasn’t born in the US and if it’s okay for him to be president, then Obama would have been eligible even if he had been born in Kenya instead of Hawaii!
posted by Don on
Actually, Cruz is sailing in under the same legal theory that John McCain would have. Born to US citizens abroad. McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone.
I think the birther thing has always been a response to “invaders” of every stripe. If Obama had been born in Kansas, he still would have been an invader/usurper of white America.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s an odd clause in the Constitution as it’s not really clear. McCain was born to American parents in an American military hospital, but it was not in the US. He never had to apply for US citizenship. Was he “natural born”? Is there some document from around the time of the Constitution where that term is explained in greater detail? My point is that if Cruz is a citizen from having an American mother then Obama would be too no matter where he was born. It was just an attempt to delegitimize a democratically elected president. I never heard the end of how Clinton never to to 50% of voters in either election but those folks didn’t seem to mind that Bush didn’t either in 2000. There no consistency in politics anyway, but this particular one is just nuts and only used by people of questionable sanity.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Right-leaning libertarians are not all, by any means or in significant numbers, opposed to abortion or marriage equality. That is simply an untruth.
The AVS did not differentiate between “right-leaning libertarians’ and “left-leaning libertarians”.
I made the assumption (which I should not have) that the 59% of self-identified “libertarians” surveyed in 2013 who opposed marriage equality were probably “right-leaning libertarians” because “right-leaning libertarians” tend to ally with the Republican Party, which opposes marriage equality in its platform and public pronouncements.
However, my assumption was not based on verifiable facts, and it might well have been in error. The 59% could easily have come from any segment of the “libertarian” spectrum, from right-leaning to left-leaning.
Harsh abortion restrictions and marriage apartheid are not generally advocated by right-leaning libertarians – though a fair number of social conservatives call themselves libertarians. I suppose that is the origin of the lie that they are.
I find this statement problematic. It seems to me to “define away” the problem (“… though a fair number of social conservatives call themselves libertarians…“), and that strikes me as simplistic. According to the AVS, about 7% of the surveyed population held “libertarian” political views. Of those, only 22% identified with the Christian right (78% did not) , but 59% opposed marriage equality. If you define away that 59% as being “social conservatives [who] call themselves libertarians”, what’s left of the “libertarians”? About 40% of the 7%, or about 2.8%.
The internal squabbling over who is “libertarian” (and, believe me, I get this kind of “that’s not libertarian” stuff all the time libertarians about positions that other libertarians take on this or that issue) reminds me of the squabbling among Christians. I can’t go three days without hearing some Christian tell me that another Christian isn’t really Christian because he/she believes this or that … It seems that the same is true of libertarians.
I think that I am going to make a simple cut on “libertarians”. Going forward, I am not going to count anyone as “libertarian” unless he or she votes for Libertarian Party candidates with relative frequency. Otherwise, it is just hot air.
posted by Houndentenor on
The problem, Lori, is that the definition of Libertarian seems to be different for every person that uses that label. There are indeed plenty who are liberal or moderate or (most often in my experience) indifferent on social issues. The problem is that people call themselves Libertarian who are actually big government NeoCons or other kinds of conservatives. They don’t want the government telling them what to do but what to use that same government to tell everyone else to act like them.
posted by Lori Heine on
Houndentenor, you are making a mistake with the term “libertarian” that I do not see commenters here making with other philosophies–say, progressivism.
Libertarianism as a philosophy has a long intellectual history, and its development as a term has left a long trail. It’s not some strange, new-fangled term that just popped up a couple of years ago, and that everybody has to scratch their heads wondering what it really means. It may be looked up, read about and studied. The controversy over what it means can be easily settled.
Those who misuse the word, like social conservatives, are banking on what dishonest people usually do: that the public is too ignorant, or too intellectually lazy, to find out what “libertarian” actually means. Yes, there are oodles of people out there now using that label–because it polls well, and because they think everybody’s an idiot.
For the record, here’s a Cliffs Note: People who want freedom for themselves, but not for others, are not and cannot possibly be considered libertarians. Everybody wants freedom for himself. Hitler wanted freedom for himself. Genghis Khan wanted freedom for himself. Once it can be clearly seen that a particular person or group desires liberty only for him- or herself or for his or her particular faction/group, it then becomes very obvious that they are not libertarians.
Again, I think I’ll be WonderWoman. I’ll get the costume at Charlie’s House of Fun and run around my neighborhood fighting crime. How COULD they lock me up in a padded cell? After all–haven’t I CLAIMED I’m WonderWoman?!
posted by Houndentenor on
That all sounds perfectly logical, Lori, but once we get down to details I find a wide range of answers (or usually none at all) when I ask about details of what a Libertarian US government would look like. It’s the details that concern me, not the overriding principles involved. I realize this is frustrating for you. I get frustrated myself when people say, “oh, you’re a liberal so you must believe x” when I don’t know a single liberal who believes anything vaguely resembling x but some nutjob wrote something somewhere that Fox News or Rush Limbaugh is quoting. It’s strawmanning and it’s done all the time in our politics and media including by people who ought to know better (and often by those who do know they are being dishonest and just big fat do it anyway). All that to say, these terms may have a specific meaning but that doesn’t mean that in practice that means much if anything. The Tea Party was originally going to be about financial matters and stay clear of the social issues but in practice that lasted about a week (maybe less). The purists are the majority in any movement. They never were. Libertarians are no exception in that regard.
posted by Jorge on
Many social conservatives say they feel politically isolated as the country seems to be hurtling to the left, with marijuana now legal in Colorado and gay marriage gaining ground across the nation. They feel out of place in a GOP increasingly dominated by tea party activists and libertarians who prefer to focus on taxes and the role of government and often disagree with social conservatives on drugs or gay rights. …
Get over it. The neocons–oh, excuse me, the “establishment Republicans”–feel the same way. Some adapt to change, others stand their ground in hopes of getting some good done in the future.
But the days of using only the texts of religion and law and order to govern are over, and they weren’t with us for very long in the first place. Social conservatism is not right (as in correct) just because someone said so. It is right because the many, having considered the issues fairly in a free debate with respect for all stakeholders, have said so.
Ignore the party and focus on the country. And by the country I mean people outside the soc-con bubble, not outside the Republican establishment bubble but still in your soc-con bubble.
posted by Houndentenor on
I will have to assume that Stephen has no religious right friends or relatives. If anyone is allowed to do anything they don’t like, the consider it an “assault” on their “freedoms”. David Koh wrote a book about how he was treated in the Bush White House. It’s not that this is old news necessarily, but this is an ongoing story. I doubt the powers that be in charge of the GOP give a rat’s ass about any of these issues, but they are happy to play the religious right. Maryland might not be an example, but in most states when the Tea Party took over the first thing they did was pass anti-gay and anti-abortion bills. I know there are elements of the Tea Party that is not socially conservative and in some areas (especially in blue states) that’s what it still is, but down here they have merged into the Teavangelicals with all the crazy of both movements merged into one big clusterf*ck of nutbaggery. Cherry-picking a few exceptions does not change the reality for those of us living in Teabagistan. (I am in a liberal oasis, but they still make the laws the rest of us have to live under and have Gerrymandered us so that we have no representation in the state capital.)
Stephen needs to get out more, perhaps to an actual part of the country run by the people he wishes ran the whole country. I suggest Mississippi. Please tell everyone you are gay there. They love the gays because Republicans being anti-gay is just a big leftie lie! Please, do this and report back and tell us how it went.
posted by Jorge on
I doubt the powers that be in charge of the GOP give a rat’s ass about any of these issues, but they are happy to play the religious right.
I think it’s more likely they’re true believers, but moderate in application. Or believers but doubters. Or believers who think country first. Or anything else sufficiently multidimensional to be credible.
posted by Kosh III on
“you would necessarily think “tea party” and “social conservatives” are one and the same.”
As others have said quite well, they are one in the same in many places such as the GOP strongholds in the South. Teanuts control the GOP and goosestep right along with the Southern Bigot Convention and other alleged “Christians.”
I’d suggest Stephen and the others who live in comfy blue enclaves and toss these shixbombs get out and see what their conservative paradise really looks like: visit Pulaski TN(birthplace of the KKK) Stonewall MS or spend a few weeks in exile in Elba AL.
posted by Don on
The religious conservatives regularly truck in downtrodden language. They are the meek ones who wield no power. I think much of it has to do with the imagery of Christ. Outsiders telling the truth to power. But they have a hard time with the majority/minority viewpoints they hold. While loving being a majority, they frequently identify themselves as a persecuted minority because that was what Jesus was. By seeing themselves that way, they identify their “Christ-likeness.”
And so it goes with cake baking and the like. Victimhood against an oppressive majority that doesn’t see The Truth as we do. It’s pretty much how they understand Christianity. But it’s not actually what the guy was about. He railed against piety and self-righteousness more than just about anything else. Certainly more than gays, which rated zero mention.
What I think we have here is not so much a political agenda that contradicts itself so much as a persecuted worldview cultivated by a religious story they idolize. That is why they seem to freak out and take offense at anything and everything. All the while making no connection that they are the majority in every meaningful respect. Strike that. They do when they think they can get the votes to ban something.
Frankly, I think they like being on the losing side of marriage equality. It feeds the persecution complex they are cultivating for desire for martyrdom.
*please note I see no correlation between this worldview and what Christ actually taught. It only appears to be how they perceive what he was teaching. They just don’t have the critical thinking skills to tease out the actual message.
posted by Jorge on
While loving being a majority, they frequently identify themselves as a persecuted minority because that was what Jesus was. By seeing themselves that way, they identify their “Christ-likeness.” . . . But it’s not actually what the guy was about. He railed against piety and self-righteousness more than just about anything else.
…
*please note I see no correlation between this worldview and what Christ actually taught. It only appears to be how they perceive what he was teaching. They just don’t have the critical thinking skills to tease out the actual message.
Your point about religious conservatives wanting to see themselves as a persecuted minority despite their considerable political power is well taken. However I do not agree with you that this has no correlation to Christ’s teachings. I think they touch on something that is central to them.
Jesus had much to say about how to live life with personal righteousness, and one of the things he praised was victimhood. Jesus taught, “turn the other cheek.” He also gave the Beatitudes, such as “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Pope Benedict devoted an entire chapter in his book, Jesus of Nazareth to the meaning of the Beatitudes–which is to say, there are many different interpretations of them. The Pope makes or cites an argument that “those who mourn” include those who are silently suffering in an oppressive or unjust society. Even if they themselves are doing well, their silent suffering is an act of resistance and righteousness.
The difficult question is what is the duty of the leadership of a community when one’s faith is concerned primarily with personal righteousness. For thousands of years, Christianity’s answer to that question has been evangelism–“I am the way”, and indifferent (as in not very good) government. Christianity has much less experience dealing with a situation in which it is losing political power.
posted by Doug on
IMHO, ‘turn the other cheek’ has nothing to do with ‘victimhood’.
posted by Houndentenor on
On that topic, does anyone ever actually do that? I am surrounded by people who talk endlessly about being Christian but I’ll bet there’s not a one of them that wouldn’t beat the crap out of me if I walked up to them and slapped them. (Don’t worry. I will not conduct this experiment. It’s too dangerous.)
posted by Jorge on
On that topic, does anyone ever actually do that?
It happens sometimes, not often. Most of the examples I can think of are religious figures. Some protest movements drill their members in how to safely do non-violent protests, too.
I’m reminded of a story I learned of when someone stole a homophobic church sign and did graffiti on the signpost. The preacher gave this totally sleazy fake “We’ll forgive you and not press any charges if and only if you do exactly what we say” speech. So don’t go around slapping priests, either.
posted by Don on
That’s why the evangelists just don’t get it and likely never will. Legal requirements to force people to obey a religious belief is the opposite of the point. Turn the other cheek and other teachings require people to simply do it themselves and then, if proven “the right way” by way of example, other people will follow willingly. It’s the entire point of religion.
The answer to your question is government can be anything it wants to be, it really doesn’t matter to a Christian. If I am doing the right thing, the law and the governmental system do not matter. And if I’m so right, then other people will follow my example. Only thing they ever need government to do is allow them to follow their religious tenets unfettered.
This leads us back to baking cakes. But I would say Jesus would set up a gay marriage wedding shop himself and give away the cakes. He wasn’t about scolding anyone into anything. In fact, the only people he scolded were the scolds.
Although for very different reasons than fundamentalist Islamic cultures, it is just another example of how religion and government cannot work when fused. Government sets legal limits on people. Religions attract people to a way of life that asks you to set personal limits voluntarily. They are opposites by their very function. And trying to enforce religious adherence through legal force guarantees there will be no religious experience.
But I think much of evangelism has missed this point. They seem to think “if I follow the rules, I go to heaven” so if I make everyone follow the rules, everyone goes to heaven. The entire point of the exercise is missed.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
In Massachusetts, the Republican Party has revised its platform after an influx of ‘Tea Party activists’.
Now the Republican Party platform talks of supporting “traditional marriage” and bemoans the “tragedy of abortion”. The tea party candidate in the Republican Party primary is the one opposing marriage equality and abortion. While the moderate Republican Party candidate (the non-tea party guy) is pro-equality and pro-choice.
In fact, some pundits are wondering what effect this ‘take-over’ of the Republican Party platform by tea party activists will have on the candidacy of Richard Tisei – the openly gay candidate for US House.
Tisei recently married his partner. Now, since the Tea Party activists took over the platform in the Party Committee, the official state Republican Party platform wants to encourage the state to vote on banning marriage equality.
I looked at some older articles from Stephen – dating to those years when the Tea Party came into creation. Stephen has long maintained there’s a distinction between the Tea Party and social conservatives in the Republican Party. Maybe he should contact some of the state parties (such as Massachusetts) and find out how little of a difference there really is…
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In short, all but the true believers realize the war has been lost. Unfortunately, those true believers are still the loudest voices in the Republican Party, the ones who write its platform and set its agenda. With them as the face of the party, 2016 presidential candidates who want to grow the party and expand its reach (think Rand Paul or Paul Ryan) will have a very difficult time doing so.
Yes, they will. And the joke is that both Ryan and Paul are strong social conservatives, opposing marriage equality and abortion. Their idea of “growing the party and expanding its reach” is to allow Republicans who don’t agree with them to stay in the party. The hard-core social conservatives can’t even abide that small step forward.
I’m watching social conservative backlash unfold in my Assembly District, the 81st District of Wisconsin.
A young lawyer named Aston Kirsch won the Republican primary last week. He is apparently pro-equality enough (I can’t find any direct public statements from him on the issue) that Wisconsin Log Cabin Republicans endorsed him in the primary on July 25, saying: “Kirsch holds that the LGBT community be protected with the same rights, dignity and respect that all Wisconsinites should enjoy.”
In response, Wisconsin Family Action issued a retraction of their prior endorsement of Kirsch yesterday, saying: “Unfortunately, it has become apparent to us in recent weeks that Mr. Kirsch’s position on our most important issue, marriage, is different from what we understood it to be as we went through the endorsement process. We have worked directly with Mr. Kirsch in attempting to clarify his values and beliefs related to the foundational institution of marriage. At the end of the discussions, we realized his position was enough different from ours that we could not endorse him. If we have an endorsement litmus test for candidates, it’s marriage. You have to get marriage right to get WFA PAC’s endorsement.”
Log Cabin Republicans responded to WFA saying: ““WFA was aware of Kirsch’s position on the freedom to marry prior to their endorsement, but chose to endorse him anyway. Their attempt to strong-arm Kirsch into their corner by the end of the primary has backfired. Kirsch stands with freedom and families; Log Cabin Republicans of Wisconsin will continue to support him on to victory in the general election.”
I know WFA and you can bet that the word is going out, hard and fast, to the the hard-core conservative Christian haters “bible church” constituency in the District. Julaine Appling will not be mocked, particularly by an uppity 25-year-old who strays from orthodoxy after Julaine thought she had him in the bag. She will try to destroy him, and she’ll probably succeed in provoking a drop off of 1-3%, which will be enough to ensure that Dave Considine, the Democratic candidate, wins handily.
Dave would probably win anyway (the 81st is a purple, but Democrat-leaning district, and Considine is a solid, moderate Democrat), but WFA’s opposition seals the keg, so to speak.
Assuming that Kirsch is really pro-equality — and I suppose that will become clarified over the next few days, because the story is hitting the news and Kirsch will have to respond — more power to him in my book. But the WFA/LCR fracus is an example of the misguided and malevolent power of the conservative Christian base in Wisconsin Republican politics.
posted by Lori Heine on
Tom, you’ve been holding out on us. I don’t believe you’ve ever mentioned here how very, very, very, VERY interesting a character Julaine Appling really is.
She looks like a younger Wilford Brimley in a curly, I’m-A-Girl wig. She lives with her “roommate,” Diane. She is probably my age, yet never married.
I haven’t been married yet, either. But of course the reason why is exactly what everyone thinks it is. What do you want to bet Julaine Appling’s is the same?
As my relatives next door to you in Minnesota would say, “You betcha.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Let me simply say that Julaine is a study in cognitive dissonance in many respects.
posted by Jorge on
Log Cabin Republicans responded to WFA saying: ““WFA was aware of Kirsch’s position on the freedom to marry prior to their endorsement, but chose to endorse him anyway…
Truly bizarre story, Tom. What do you think really happened?
I don’t follow the LCR so I don’t know how generous their endorsement criteria are, but even if they’d take anyone who could walk and chew gum…. I do know that I get perturbed by how political messaging by gay marriage opponents is almost always in code, and sometimes it’s phrased in such an imprecise way that I even agree with their statements. “Marriage,” they say. I believe in marriage.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Truly bizarre story, Tom. What do you think really happened?
I don’t know, Jorge. It seems to me that either (1) Kirsch talked out of both sides of his mouth, shading his position depending on who he was talking to in order to get endorsements from both, or (2) LCR’s statement has the facts right and Appling pulled a power play on Kirsch, which failed, or (3) Appling was sloppy in issuing the Kirsch endorsement. I have no idea.
Wisconsin Family Action is almost entirely funded in recent years by the Wisconsin Club for Growth, which is a Koch-funded outfit according to reporters who have looked into the interlocking right-wing funded organizations in Wisconsin, so I suppose that the Koch “libertarian” agenda and the social conservative agenda interacted/conflicted somehow to build a “perfect storm” scenario in which WCG leaned on WFA to endorse Kirsch, and then, after LCR endorsed him, WFA balked. Appling is a political whore (in the sense that she has allowed her organization to be used by Koch-funded groups for dirty political purposes in the past), but she has her pride. I just don’t know.
I suppose that we’ll learn more, sooner or later, because Capitol Newspapers — which owns the Wisconsin State Journal. the Capitol Times, and three daily local newspapers in the 81st District — has picked up the story and will, no doubt, be asking about it, and might push it enough to get at the facts. The Cap Times has a young political reporter, Jack Craver, who loves to report on the social conservative murk, and he seems to me to be the most likely to dig around.
posted by Jorge on
A search engine search reveals the WFA issued its “final round of endosements” on 7/31 (vs LCR’s 7/25 announcement); perhaps WFA endorsed him first and didn’t have the agility or knowledge to rescind?
Actually the LCR press release is a little vague. Perhaps Kirsh refused to get back to the WFA while the primary was imminent. That’s probably why some other organizations have candidates and politicians sign pledges.
Wow! He’s a cutie.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Let’s see how Kirsch handles it if he is asked what his position on marriage equality (LCR=”freedom to marry”) is, in plain English. Right now, all we have to go on is conflicting infighting between LCR and WFA.
If Kirsch comes out in favor of marriage equality, I’ll personally thank him when I see him next. If he waffles or comes up with some mealy-mouthed crap about “focus on the real issues” to evade the question, I’ll be disappointed.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Let’s see how Kirsch handles it if he is asked what his position on marriage equality (LCR=”freedom to marry”) is, in plain English.
Kirsch pulled his punches at a public meet-and-greet Wednesday night, neither coming out in favor of marriage equality nor denying that he supports marriage equality. Instead, he stated a standard Republican approach — marriage is a state matter and should not be decided by the courts.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a side note, the Wisconsin Bar Association newsletter has a short but well-framed article about the legal merits of the Wisconsin and Indiana cases that will be heard by the 7th Circuit on August 26. It might be a good backgrounder for anyone interested.