IGF contributing author Deroy Murdock has a fine column in the conservative flagship, National Review, making the case for ending the U.S. military's gay ban. Writes Murdock in Don't Make Sense: A Policy that Deserves a Dishonorable Discharge:
Last year, the Army gave moral waivers to 106 applicants convicted of burglary, 15 of felonious break-ins, 11 of grand-theft-auto, and 8 of arson. It also admitted five rape/sexual-assault convicts, two felony child molesters, two manslaughter convicts, and two felons condemned for "terrorist threats including bomb threats."
"The Army seems to be lowering standards in training to accommodate lower-quality recruits," RAND Corporation researcher Beth Asch observed at a May 12 Heritage Foundation defense-policy seminar in Colorado Springs.
Conversely, expelled military personnel include Arabic linguists and intelligence specialists who help crush America's foes in the War on Terror. "Don't Ask" has ousted at least 58 soldiers who speak Arabic, 50 Korean, 42 Russian, 20 Chinese, nine Farsi, and eight Serbo-Croatian-all trained at the prestigious Defense Language Institute. Al-Qaeda intercepts need translation, and Uncle Sam may need people who can walk around Tehran with open ears. Yet these dedicated gay citizens now are ex-GIs.
Murdock doesn't make any arguments that haven't already been made; it's the venue that matters. He's using his cred as a conservative to speak to other conservatives who would simply dismiss what's said in the lefty "progressive" media. Murdock's referencing of the conservative Heritage Foundation, for this audience, adds still more weight to his case.
Since, apart from the partisan Log Cabin Republicans, the leading national LGBT lobbies have been turned into Democratic party fundraising vehicles, they can hardly be expected to try to sway conservatives. In fact, they're not even interested in trying.
15 Comments for “Speaking Out, Where It Matters”
posted by Richard on
Clearly, since we live in a two-party system (if not cartel) it is generally a good think when gay rights can be marketed to people in both parties and across the political spectrum.
Although, if gay conservatives are upset that most gay people and dollars go to support Democrats, they might want to consider what little the Republican Party tends to offer gay voters.
posted by avee on
Alternatively, as long as gay fundraising lobbies make it clear that their goal is electing a Democratic supermajority even if that means defeating pro-gay Republicans, why in the world would any Republicans shift their votes to support gay rights?
posted by Jim on
Your conclusion is, uh, questionable. Somehow, in the fifteen years since DADT became the law of the land, popular support for allowing gays to serve openly has grown from 44% to 75%, as you noted just a couple of posts ago. It’s hard to say how much of this evolution is due to the efforts of “leading national LGBT lobbies,” but it’s easy to guage how much is due to the National Review, which, to my knowledge, first published an author espousing Mr. Murdock’s view today.
I’m glad the National Review is on board, and I’m all for conservatives coming over to the side of the angels on this one. But a lot of progress has been made toward changing hearts and minds in the last fifteen years, and the efforts of groups like the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network should not be counted for nothing.
posted by Jim on
I also hope that you will quickly take note of the July 18 field poll on the California ballot iniative, which shows likely California voters opposed to the anti-gay marraige measure by 51% to 42%. More notable, given your series of posts on Barack Obama’s possible effect on the ballot iniative, is the finding that “White non-Hispanics, African-Americans and Asians are lining up on the No side by five to four margins.”
posted by Jorge on
There’s no need to call the National Review a leader in the struggle for a more progressive view of gays, even as its authors become more progressive on gay rights. It only reflects the opinion of individual authors, not all of whom are leaders, and its readership. Still, I do not think you go from 44% to 75% of people supporting a “liberal” position without the newcomers having been convinced by people who are conservative.
I credit the Republican leadership (Bush/Cheney in particular) and conservative thinkers in general with having a moderating influence on the hostility and hatred this country has felt toward gays for so long. However it has been terrible at embracing this very simple reform of permitting gays to serve in the military. They are stuck at a ridiculous “moderate” position of not changing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.
posted by Robert Funk on
“Why in the world would any Republicans shift their votes to support gay rights?” Uh, because it’s the right, decent, just, fair, American thing to do.
posted by Jorge on
What? Politicians who do the right thing winning re-election? Is this a dream?
posted by Richard on
The Human Rights Campaign has endorsed Republicans in the past. None of the GOP presidential candidates have sough their endorsement.
Many LGBT groups may have a progressive bent to them, because of the personal beliefs of its founders and the fact that most gay people — accordingly to exit polls — do have center-left or progressive political values.
posted by agmielke on
what a piece
posted by Jorge on
Many LGBT groups may have a progressive bent to them, because of the personal beliefs of its founders and the fact that most gay people — accordingly to exit polls — do have center-left or progressive political values.
That’s a new one to me. I thought the only questions they crossed referenced in exit polls about gays are “Are you GLBT?” and “Who did you vote for?”
posted by avee on
About a quarter of self-identifying gay voters consistently tell exit polls they vote Republican. The national LGBT groups ignore them; they don’t exist, because anyone who deviates from the correct party line is a nonperson.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Avee, gays that vote republican are obviously too far gone to be reached with rational arguments, there is little point in attempting to reason with them.
posted by jecika gonzalvis on
It is so free to say that what we can say here. it is very nice article.
________________
jecika
[url=http://www.treatmentcenters.org/alabama]Alabama Treatment Centers[/url]
posted by jecika gonzalvis on
It is so free to say that what we can say here. it is very nice article.
________________
jecika
Alabama Treatment Centers
posted by Richard on
Exit polls data suggests that roughly 4-5% of the American voting population is gay and willing to come out on a survey.
Of this original number, roughly 70% vote for Gore, about 20% for Bush and 5% for Nader. This was in 2000, I suspect that the 1996 and 1992 numbers are roughly the same.
So most gay voters polled support the Democratic Party. This means progressive and center-left candidates.
A significant minority votes for the Republican Party. This means conservative and center-right candidates.
A small minority votes for Independent/third party candidates. i.e. Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, etc.
That’s a new one to me. I thought the only questions they crossed referenced in exit polls about gays are “Are you GLBT?” and “Who did you vote for?”
Of the ‘national’ LGBT groups around, many do not endorse candidates but instead focus on policy and there are groups for gay Democrats, Republicans and Independents.