I wasn't able to attend the recent Log Cabin Convention in Washington, D.C. But from what I've heard and read, it seems many of the right notes were struck.
LCR President Patrick Guerriero stated:
On the days that I have disagreements with people like Jerry Falwell, I'm reminded that I disagree more with [House] Democratic leader] Nancy Pelosi on a hundred different issues.
Now, if the GOP were monolithically under the religious right's thumb (which some Democrats want to believe, but isn't true), I might take issue with Guerriero. But the job ahead is to build on party principles that support individual autonomy and thus restore the GOP to its roots as the party of liberty, born as the Democrats mobilized to defend the expansion of slavery and, later, Jim Crow segregation.
At the LCR confab, particularly inspiring were remarks by Britain's Alan Duncan, an openly gay Conservative member of parliament, who declared:
It's the duty of the state to intervene when two people hate each other, not when they love each other.
The British Conservatives (with some exceptions) have been far more willing than their U.S. counterparts to reach an accommodation with the fact that gay people exist. It shows that opposition to the concept of ever-bigger, more-intrusive government as the solution to all ills, and support for the legal equality of gay people, are not inherently exclusive. In fact, in a better world, Dick Cheney's stated belief that "freedom means freedom for everybody" (which daughter Mary Cheney again referenced during her chat with Diane Sawyer) would truly once again be the party's guiding principle.
47 Comments for “Restoring the GOP.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The GOP has about 50 years to go before it can compare itself to the British Tories. The Times of London recently ran an article on the Tories’ visit to the GOP in Washington and how one prominent Republican leader “recoiled in horror” when the Tory high-ranker recounted how the pilot of his chartered airplane came on the PA during Valentine’s Day to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the flight attendant’s relationship with his same-sex partner.
Pitching the GOP as some magical party of self-sufficient individualists isn’t going to cut it when the contemporary reality is that the Republicans are a big-spending, collectivist, big-government socialist party.
posted by Ed Brown on
The Republican Party was hardly “born out of liberty.” It was a third political party (that would not existed had it been created under todays rules).
You do not gain much credibility when you try and paint the Repubican Party as being better then then Democratic Party on human rights issues.
posted by Ed Brown on
Also the UK Conservatives HAVE TO compete for gay voters because they have a true two-party system.
posted by kittynboi on
It undermines the assertion that this site is a supposedly politically “independent” forum when we get starry eyed tributes to what the GOP is supposed to be and endless democrat bashing.
posted by Mark on
The GOP was born as the party of mercantilism, high taxes and expanded public works. True, Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery, but only because they didn’t want slaves competing against free white labor.
posted by Lori Heine on
The true test of whether Republicans mean what they say, when they claim they’re individualists, is whether they celebrate that in other people, too, or merely in themselves.
Most people believe that they, themselves are worthy of rights, respect and freedom. Where the rubber meets the road is how they regard the rights, respect and freedom due everybody else — especially those they do not like.
I am a Libertarian because it is the only party generous enough to follow the mantra Mary Cheney so adamantly ascribes to her dad: that “freedom is freedom for everybody.”
We may feel that way because we understand that freedom lost for one is freedom lost for all. There’s certainly a fair amount of self-interest in that, and none of us claim to be angels. But it’s still the best philosophy for those in a country that would stay free.
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
The Democrat-bashing is hardly “endless” here, kittynboi. Perhaps you’re confusing Indegayforum with GayPatriot, who seems to have compiled his list of enemies of the faith, and placed LCR very near the top. If Miller’s account is accurate, then GP has grossly misrepresented this year’s LCR convention on his blog. Not that this would come as any surprise.
Democrats have certainly earned their share of opprobrium, both for their silence on GLBT rights, and for their eagerness to Gay-bait Republican politicians whenever the opportunity arises. (BTW, Mark: Nice historical revisionism there. Now which political party was pro-slavery again? And which party supported Jim Crow when it was the law of the land?)
posted by Mark on
I never said that the Democrats were not, at one time, pro-slavery and in favor of Jim Crow. However, the fact is that the initial Republican opposition to expanding slavery was for political (not moral) reasons. Lincoln was delighted to have 3 slave states remain in the Union and exempted them from his Emancipation Proclamation. The continuation of slavery was no longer feasible after the Civil War, so the GOP passed the 13th Amendment and rigged elections in the South to help themselves stay in power.
posted by CPT_Doom on
I’d love to know exactly which of Pelosi’s policies Guerriero has problems with, or which of the current GOP policies he is in favor of – illegal spying, torture, tax cuts for the rich and endless spending to ensure the profits of the military/industrial complex? What part of the modern GOP leadership and current policies even has a hint of the policies of individual rights that the GOP supposedly supports?
That is not to say I would be anti-GOP if they actually were still, say, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, or even Eisenhower. But the current party? Please.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I agree that the ceaseless fawning over the GOP, while ignoring nonRepublican innovations like the surging pro-gay campaign of Libertarian Loretta Nall in Alabama, gives lie to the “independent” pretentions of this blog.
posted by Ed Brown on
the Libertarian Party is a knick-knack.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
For a knick-knack, you spend an awful lot of time trolling about it, Ed, on this board and others.
posted by Ed Brown on
I spend an awful lot of time supporting free and fair elections at home and abroad.
If you are serious about the Libertarian Party, then you should be serious about election law reform.
posted by Fitz on
Concerning Log cabin republicans; this much publicized group has no position on gay ?marriage? & gay ?rights? that are any different than the most far left organization. They may be all for low taxes and a strong defense, but that?s hardly the point. I view this group (properly I believe) as a obvious Trojan hoarse for the gay left. Its purpose is to make clear that on social issues all homosexuals think alike. There are authentic gay social conservatives out there (who are against gay ?marriage? and expansion of gay ?rights? as unnecessary and overwrought demands) but the LCR don?t represent them. They are also used by the main stream media in promoting a mythical divide within the Republican Party over gay rights.
Media coverage should seek fairness and strive toward objective truth. In this instance (and many others) media fails to capture the all important context. The LCR are not an influential group within the Republican caucus. Their agenda seeks to support their version of ?gay rights? while their other affinities are merely utilitarian toward this end. Rather than properly reporting toward this end, media organizations tout the LCR often and widely to reinforce their own leanings and agenda.
Groups like Homeschool Republican, Republican Liberty Caucus, Republican Jewish Coalition, Republican National Hispanic Assembly, Republican Youth Majority & even groups like Republicans for Choice (and many others) are all infinitely larger in numbers with infinitely greater influence than the LCR. Yet these groups don?t get nearly the press or national attention. I believe this further reinforces my thesis.
Now, you may disagree with this view. You may say (properly) that such stories make for good copy, end of story. Well, no doubt they do. I believe I can further reinforce my thesis by pointing out the dearth of other stories that would make good copy also.
The truth of the mater (objectively & within context) is that the Democratic Party is infinitely more fractured over ?gay rights? then are the Republicans. Yet this important divide is rarely reported upon. Nor are Democratic organizations that differ widely over the agenda of ?gay rights? given the prominence and exposure of the LCR.
I can bring a multitude of evidence to support this contention, but I?ll start with a few timely and important examples. The recent spate of marriage protection amendments throughout the United States drew wide spread support across party lines. Yet this was never used to illustrate the divide among Democrats on ?gay rights? issues.
Furthermore if anyone can find me a single issue relating to gay right were the LCR differ in opinion from the ACLU, Lamda Legal, or the Human Rights Campaign, I would be extremely interested to know the distinction.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Groups like Homeschool Republican, Republican Liberty Caucus, Republican Jewish Coalition, Republican National Hispanic Assembly, Republican Youth Majority & even groups like Republicans for Choice (and many others) are all infinitely larger in numbers with infinitely greater influence than the LCR.”
That’s right.
As Fitz’s rhetoric demonstrates (i.e. putting marriage in quotes when it refers to gays), and his notes about “home schoolers” having more influence in the GOP (despite their much smaller numbers), the Republicans are no place for gays, don’t welcome gays, don’t care about gay issues, have no interests in how their policies impact gays, and view gays as a monolithic entity.
After all, what gay-politics-literate individual who is serious would claim that LCR’s agenda is identical to the ACLU or HRC? Nobody who has a bona-fide interest in gay rights.
posted by Lori Heine on
Anyone who is at all familiar with gay politics realizes (as Fitz obviously does not) that the issue of gay marriage is as hotly contested in “the gay community” as it is anywhere else.
It is gay conservatives who, by and large, favor granting at least some marital rights to gays. Gay liberals seem to think marriage is archaic, oppressive and generally unnecessary for anybody.
Whenever I hear the old, familiar “Here comes the spaceship with the gays on board” (we of the supposedly monolithic agenda) sort of warning, I know I am dealing with a crank or an ignoramus.
Hell, I wish we really DID have a monolithic “gay” agenda. Then we might actually accomplish something!
As it is, continually sounding alarms about “the gay agenda” — while at the same time very cheerfully and opportunistically exploiting the fact that there isn’t one — is the very height, depth and breadth of hypocrisy.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“It is gay conservatives who, by and large, favor granting at least some marital rights to gays”
Hehehe! It’s funny — it was the original gay conservative position. Many gay “progressives” believed that gay marriage, monogamous relationships, etc. were a “conservative conspiracy” to “destroy what’s unique about gay culture.”
Ironically, those far-right sorts would probably agree with their far-left “rivals.”
posted by Fitz on
N.L. & L.H.
Well, you did not really confront my point. All you seem to be saying is that on gay rights issues homosexuals go from far left to center left(max).
Were are the authentic gay social conservatives?
posted by Ed Brown on
“marriage is as hotly contested in “the gay community” as it is anywhere else.”
No, not really no. Their is certainly some debate (among LGBT of various political views) as to if (given the option) same-sex couples should marry.
However, their is no serious debate in the LGBT community about equal rights.
posted by Fitz on
Mark, am I correct in saying that your opinion is that: The LGBT community is uniform in its insistence on legal gay marriage as contemporaneous with ?equal rights?? (now I don?t mean every last gay person, of coarse) I?m wondering how many (in your experience) self identified LGBT people believe that not having gay marriage is neither a violation of fundamental rights or humanity towards homosexuals?
posted by Fitz on
Sorry….Ed Brown
Ed am I correct in saying that your opinion is that: The LGBT community is uniform in its insistence on legal gay marriage as contemporaneous with ?equal rights?? (now I don?t mean every last gay person, of coarse) I?m wondering how many (in your experience) self identified LGBT people believe that not having gay marriage is neither a violation of fundamental rights or humanity towards homosexuals?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“All you seem to be saying is that on gay rights issues homosexuals go from far left to center left”
I don’t view non-authoritarianism as a “left” position. In fact, I find that many authoritarians of the ilk you apparently treasure can be found on the left side of the spectrum in the USA and elsewhere. . . therefore I’m going to have to ask you to clarify your reasoning a tad.
For instance, I don’t see much difference between your position and the Vatican — not exactly a right-wing organization. And your position exactly mirrors the positions of Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union — are they not acolytes of leftism?
posted by Kittynboi on
As to the gay left opposing gay marraige, there are cases of it, but I don’t know how many. I think its something more confined to the “anti assimilationist” gay studies departments, many of which may not be staffed and taught by people who are even gay anyway.
As for gay social conservatives……what would an “authentic gay social conservative” be? I would have thought of Andrew Sullivan or some of the people on this site as such, but they don’t seem to be what you’re looking for. Could you tell me what positions such a person would hold?
posted by Ed Brown on
Most LGBT people support equal rights in marriage, regardless if they want to be married or not.
As a pratical political matter, civil unions or domestic partnership benifits will likely come before marriage.
posted by Fitz on
Well, there a gays who dont support gay marriage. Its easy to do. All you must do is care more for the society at large then for yourselves.
http://www.policyreview.org/jun05/harris.html
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“All you must do is care more for the society at large then for yourselves”
Because a giant government scheme to control who may file joint taxes, make medical decisions for each other, and transfer assets sans taxation is CRUCIAL to the underpinnings of “society at large.” In fact, the 110 years or so of American history when there was no government-licensed marriage (licenses were instituted primarily to prevent blacks from marrying whites) really didn’t exist I guess.
Gosh, socialist social conservatives are hilarious.
posted by kittynboi on
I thought all conservatives scorned the idea of any kind of “common good”?
Is the only thing you mean by an “authentic gay social conservative” is just a gay person who doesn’t support gay marraige? I was hoping for a list of positions, or just something more comprehensive than
“there a gays that dont support gay marriage”.
Is there anything more to it than that, or do you just have an issue with gays who support marraige rights?
posted by Fitz on
An “authentic gay social conservative” is someone who cares more for the society at large then for himself or gays as a subgroup.
Like Mr. Harris
posted by Kittynboi on
Would a gay who supports left wing social causes out of the belief that those are better for society at large and does not focus on gay issues as they think that is less important an "authentic gay social conservative"?
Surely there is more to it than just some vague idea of methodology. After all, caring more for society at large than yourself is hardly something the right wing can claim as it’s exclusive provence, as the left has much of the same idea.
And there’s also the issue that many "conservatives", and probably almost ALL libertarians, would argue that caring more for the "society at large" than the individual is not only a non-conservative, non-libertarian, non-classical liberal value, but is the antithesis of those things.
Others would go farther and say it is more a quality of big government socialism or soviety style communism, maoism, or some other form of totalitarianism. After all, the good of the "society at large" is not an easy thing to pin down, and whats good for a society is hardly carved in stone, and history shows us what happens when a select few, or an unruly public, think they have all the answers about whats best for everyone. THinking that is fine, but when the elite or the masses try to FORCE everyone else to go along with the vaunted social good, as theoconservatives want to do now, THEN we have a problem.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I wonder if Fitz realizes that his “sacrifice yourself for some intangible public good which has no rational basis” rhetoric sounds almost identical to the whole base for expansionist big government programs not only in marriage (as we have today) but also HillaryCare, welfare, and tax increases?
Considering that, it’s small wonder why the GOP has become such an advocate of big government, overregulation, and big spending.
Smart people who like small government which keeps its nose out of their personal lives should come right this way: http://www.lp.org
posted by kittynboi on
In many ways, yes, liberals embrace “big government”, even though many individual liberals do not really have a defined position as to whether big or small government is good.
However, I think part of this can be attributable to the GOP providing such a terrible example as to what “small government” is supposed to be. Many whom are socially liberal but more moderate on fiscal and economic matters may be, at least, easier on the GOP if they would would extend the “small government” philosophy to social and private matters.
There really are many liberals who oppose the right wing almost, if not solely, because of their relentless pandering to the fundamentalist xians and the resulting embrace of totalitarian ideas and policies.
posted by Fitz on
I dont know why you guys are coming at it sideways. I’m talking about gay social conservatives like I said. Like I pointed to. Those gays who believe that our humanity and civilrrights are not violated just because marriage remains the institution its always been. Who believe that children do best raised by their own mother & father and dont want to upset that inportant standard just to feel more included. You know…non-radicals.People who act with discretion and dont demand everyone bend over backwards just because we are gay?
posted by Ed Brown on
Fitz
I doubt very much that their are many gay couples that want to be denied the legal rights, responsiblities of a marriage, although their is some debate over cu or ssm.
Marriage has never “always been.” The modern marriage has littles in common with marriage thirty or a hundred years ago.
posted by kittynboi on
Fitz, no one is coming at it sideways. There are not a lot of gays who oppose gay marraige.
What I keep asking is whether or not there is more to being an “authentic gay social conservative” than opposing gay marraige and now gay adoption.
Is there anything else to it, or is it just opposing those two that are important?
posted by Fitz on
kittynboi
No, its not that alone, of coarse not. It?s promoting everything from abstinence for the youth, to a healthy marriage culture in the underclass. Its being against illegitimacy, divorce, fatherlessness, and the sexualization of youth.
Its about promoting healthy stable marriages among heterosexuals because that?s were new gay babies come from, and were they are raised best.
I?m not against gay adoption in a lot of cases, but more than that I?m for a stable healthy marriage culture among the underclass. Gay marriage cant get us there.
posted by Fitz on
HA! I am not really gay, but a right-wing, sad little man that is part of a network of men posing as gay online to undermine marriage. You all feel for it!
posted by Ed Brown on
Fitz:
You are a really, really weird.
posted by Fitz on
No, the proper response is that I am gay & hate myself.
Or maybe I’m Bi-sexual and hate half myself?
posted by kittynboi on
Or maybe he’s just a troll.
Well, Fitz, I don’t think there are a lot of gay social “conservatives” on this site, at least not by your definition. You define conservative in a more theocratic and totalitarian sense, while most self identified gay conservatives, especially on this site, (as well as high profile gay writers such as Andrew Sullivan) define “conservative” in a libertarian, classical liberal sense, which they think, which much justification, is the real meaning of conservative.
To them, conservative means personal freedom and limited government power, and using government power to promote some specific (im)moral agenda like the one you describe is the antithesis of conservativism.
posted by Anthony on
Look at who leads the Republican field of presidential candidates for 2008 – John McCain, Rudy Guiliani. These are examples of people whose conservatism is not rooted in the theocratic point of view. We should take note of that. As for Fitz, well, he’s a puzzling individual.
posted by kittynboi on
Theres more to it than that, though.
McCain has, it seems, been courting the theocratic vote and trying to “mend fences” with them.
And one of the main theocrat leaders said they outright would not support Guiliana at all.
posted by Anthony on
I swear – there is more whining and bellyaching going in here than on most left-of-center blogs. Folks, let’s be realistic about politics – gays aren’t the top priority for virtually any elected official. If McCain is now trying to make overtures to the religious right, so be it. He needs them to win the nomination, just like the glorious Mrs. Rodham-Clinton needs the hard left to win her nomination.
posted by kittynboi on
If he NEEDS people like THAT to win his nomination, then it should be questionable for gays to support him anyway.
At least gays who are concerned with their own self interest.
posted by Anthony on
And isn’t that the great divide in the gay community – voting for OUR interests alone and not for greater concerns like national security, the economy, so on and so forth? I submit to you that my vote is based on many, many considerations and not just on whether a candidate smooches my hind parts to win an election. Find me a candidate that is exactly right on all the issues and I will recant everything I’ve said before. The fact is, no such person EXISTS. Either label yourself an oppressed victim in need of big government or be an individual who believes in personal responsbility, self determination and self initiative.
posted by kittynboi on
And isn’t that the great divide in the gay community – voting for OUR interests alone and not for greater concerns like national security, the economy, so on and so forth?
I’ll cast my own vote however I see fit. I ceased to concern myself with economics and national security altogether this year. I hate both sides of the spectrums positions on it and if no one represents any of my own positions or what I think would at least be good ones, then I’m not going to vote for them based on something else, if I do so at all.
Either label yourself an oppressed victim in need of big government or be an individual who believes in personal responsbility, self determination and self initiative.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, unless you are implying that people who vote for self interest are in need of “big government”, which would just be a stupid thing to say, especially if someone votes for a candidate because they think that candidates interest in REDUCING government size and power is in their interests.
posted by Anthony on
Yeah, yeah. This is a pointless discussion. Bye.
posted by kittynboi on
So, are you going to explain your position or not?