Rusted Steele

Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, was supposed to be a breath of fresh air for the moribund Grand Old Party. Not only has the first African-American leader of the GOP put a more diverse face on an organization that consists largely of older white men, but more substantively, his moderate conservatism was promised to be the saving grace of a party in desperate need of reform. Steele had been a member of the Republican Liberty Council, a group of socially moderate Republicans founded by former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman that tried to make pro-choice and pro-gay politicos feel more comfortable in the party. Steele was also unafraid to criticize the excesses of the GOP; when he ran for Maryland senator in 2006 he joked that the "R" in Republican was akin to a "scarlet letter."

In his campaign to become party chair, Steele ran as a moderate. Not long after he won a contentious leadership election that necessitated six ballots, Steele acknowledged that his ascension presented an "important opportunity" to reach out to pro-choice and pro-gay voters. But since taking the helm of the RNC in January, Steele has proven himself thus far to be a disappointment to those hoping that he would move the party towards the center, especially on issues of concern to gay voters.

First, there was Steele's well-publicized row with conservative talk radio king Rush Limbaugh. Attempting to neutralize a coordinated Democratic strategy of painting Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party, Steele referred to Limbaugh as occasionally "incendiary" and "ugly" in an interview with CNN's D.L. Hughley. It didn't matter that this remark was made in passing, or, for that matter, that it was true (even Limbaugh's army of unreflective "dittoheads" cannot deny it). The increasingly shrinking conservative movement will brook no criticism of its loudmouth standard-bearer, and essentially proved the Democratic analysis correct by rushing to Limbaugh's defense and pressuring Steele to prostrate himself at the host's feet, which he did posthaste.

But a more dispiriting example of Steele's captivity to outdated social conservative ideology was a little-noticed remark he made in an exchange with another right-wing talk radio host, Mike Gallagher, about a week before his spat with Limbaugh. Asked by Gallagher if he favored civil unions for gay couples, Steele responded:

"No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country. I mean, this isn't something that you just kind of like, 'Oh, well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.' I mean, this is a foundational principle of this country. It is a foundational principle of organized society. It isn't something that, you know, in America we decided, 'Let's make it between a man and a woman; oh, well, now let's change our mind and make it between anyone and anyone.' "

No.

Never mind the callous way in which he treated the issue - certainly, the mere question of whether or not committed gay couples should continue to be legally discriminated against deserves a more measured response than an inquiry into whether the person posing it should have his head examined - Steele's reply was firmly out of step with the American electorate. A succession of recently conducted polls have found that over 60% of Americans support either civil unions or full marriage rights for gay couples. (Even George W. Bush, who led the effort to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, came out in support of civil unions in 2004 and expressed disagreement with the GOP platform.) Most analysts of social trends agree that this figure will increase significantly over time as older Americans with more conservative views on homosexuality die, while younger and more tolerant Americans begin voting in higher proportions, and general attitudes on homosexuality liberalize across the board.

So it is not the conservatives urging their movement to moderate itself on the defining civil rights issue of the day who are "crazy." Put aside the debate about the desirability of gay marriage; antigay politics will soon become anachronistic and a surefire electoral loser. Some, like the reform-minded former Bush speechwriter David Frum, have realized this fact and called for a softer approach to social issues, particularly gay marriage (full disclosure: I'm a contributor to Frum's website, NewMajority.com). But those conservatives willing to question their party's position on gay rights have been viciously attacked, and there's little indication that their views are influencing a critical mass of the Republican Party leadership.

Last November, according to exit polling, 27% of self-identified gay voters chose McCain over Obama (the actual number of gays who voted GOP was probably far higher, given that many presumably did not out themselves to pollsters). In a dismal year for Republicans, gays were the only group whose support for the Republican nominee rose from its 2004 level. There was good reason for this increase considering the fact that McCain courageously opposed the FMA, was the first Republican presidential nominee to grant an interview with a gay news outlet, and seemed more amenable than his predecessors on other gay issues. Yet in exchange for this support, gays now see a Republican Party chairman who, while promising a bigger tent, has just shrunk it. The decline of the GOP as a national party continues apace.

11 Comments for “Rusted Steele”

  1. posted by BobN on

    Why does anyone take Dubya’s “support for civil unions” seriously?

  2. posted by John Howard on

    There has been tons of support, for years now, for civil unions from people like Bush and other people who are against SSM. As is noted, 60% support CU’s or SSM. The problem is that those same people who want to help couples with CU’s also want to preserve marriage, and as long as CU’s are just a step on the way to marriage, treated with a “thanks, but we still are gonna push just as hard for marriage, or, if they “go too far”, as Guilliani said about NH CU’s that are “marriage in all but name” because they give all the rights of marriage, then accepting CU’s is going to threaten marriage more than not accepting CU’s, so there’s still 40% opposed. But wait, how can 40% be enough to stop CU’s? Because there are too many people on the other side who reject CU’s that would satisfy the majority because they don’t want to risk the CU’s settling the issue short of marriage. So even though CU’s are needed by thousands of people, really needed, they are to be sacrificed for – for what? Well, it’s been determined, those couples are suffering because some people really want same-sex couples to have conception rights more than anything else.

    I wonder what the polling data would reveal if they asked about same-sex couples wanting to try to conceive children together, without a man’s sperm (all the kids would be girls) or with a surrogate mom or artificial womb. Thanks to people on this site, we now know that the right to try to conceive together is the primary demand that is holding back progress on CU’s. Giving up that demand would allow CU’s to be passed, the majority is already there at the table.

  3. posted by esurience on

    From a GQ interview:

    Let?s talk about gay marriage. What?s your position?

    Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to?particularly in times of crisis?to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others?you know, as family members or others?would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that?s not antigay, no. Heck no! It?s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage?that institution, the sanctity of it?is reserved for a man and a woman. That?s just my view. And I?m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they?re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That?s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.

    So you think it?s a state issue?

    Absolutely. Just as a general principle, I don?t like mucking around with the Constitution. I?m sorry, I just don?t. I think, you know, in a pluralistic, dynamic society as the one that we have, every five years you can have a constitutional convention about something, you know? I don?t think we should be, you know, dancing around and trying to amend it every time I?ve got a social issue or a political issue or a business issue that I want to get addressed. Having said that, I think that the states are the best laboratory, the best place for those decisions to be made, because they will then reflect the majority of the community in which the issue is raised. And that?s exactly what a republic is all about.

    Do you think homosexuality is a choice?

    Oh, no. I don?t think I?ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there?s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can?t simply say, oh, like, ?Tomorrow morning I?m gonna stop being gay.? It?s like saying, ?Tomorrow morning I?m gonna stop being black.?

    So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.

    I mean, I think that?s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there?s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don?t know, I can?t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.

    More of a nuanced view expressed in that interview, although he didn’t specifically bring up civil unions.

  4. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    John Howard wrote, “Well, it’s been determined, those couples are suffering because some people really want same-sex couples to have conception rights more than anything else…. Thanks to people on this site, we now know that the right to try to conceive together is the primary demand that is holding back progress on CU’s. Giving up that demand would allow CU’s to be passed, the majority is already there at the table.”

    John, it is not “people on this site,” it is YOU who insist that the whole marriage fight boils down to “conception rights.” But as I have pointed out to you, lots and lots of same-sex partners are in fact raising children without have any marriage rights. Some of them do so by adoption, some by artificial insemination, etc. I don’t know why you persist in falsely claiming that only married persons are permitted to reproduce.

    Also, several statese’ civil union laws expressly state that persons in civil unions enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Indeed, if civil unions only granted a subset of the rights of marriage, I don’t know why you would expect gay couples to be satisfied with them in the first place. What we want is equality. We have differences among ourselves as to how to achieve that equality. My colleagues and I in GLAA in Washington, D.C. have for the past several years pursued an incremental strategy of adding more and more rights and responsibilities to domestic partnerships, so that now they enjoy almost all of those in marriage–at least the ones that D.C. law grants (D.C. cannot grant the over 1100 legal rights of marriage under federal law, but neither can Massachusetts). We have taken this approach to avoid incurring the wrath of the U.S. Congress, which has legislative power over the District. But we have never pretended that full marriage equality was not our ultimate goal. In the meantime, though, D.C. domestic partners enjoy virtually all the locally-granted legal rights and protections that married couples enjoy.

  5. posted by Bobby on

    It sounds to me like Kirchick is against Rush Limbaugh, I don’t know why, he’s one of the few republicans with balls left. He speaks his mind, he doesn’t bow to political correctness and if you listen to him you’ll notice that 99% of his show has to do with government abuse, political correctness, free speech, capitalism, government waste and many other issues that even independents can agree upon.

    Just because we lost the election doesn’t mean we have to become a bunch of sensitive ninnies. Someone has to fight the good fight against Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and all the other elected liberals that want to turn this country into a socialist state.

    Specially Queen Pelosi, who has no trouble abusing of her taxpayer funded private jet privilege by canceling flights at the last minute, telling the pilot which airport to land, and treating the military like maids and butlers.

    Obama is a hypocrite, “oh, I had to sign an imperfect bill.” Oh yeah? Well, if hte bill is so imperfect, you don’t sign it, you veto it, you keep your promises and tell the house and the senate not to add earmarks. If you can’t do that, then you’re not really for change.

  6. posted by Rob on

    Bobby, despite Limbaugh being correct on many points about the Democrats, that doesn’t excuse him from being a bigoted asshole. The man can go fuck himself. If he’s the ideal image of Conservatism, then to paraphrase the immortal words of Frederic Nietzschze: Conservatism is dead.

  7. posted by Jorge on

    George W. Bush’s support of civil unions should be taken seriously because the man and former president is extremelly principled and does not take political positions lightly.

    I am too disappointed in Steele to defend him or his remarks.

    You don’t have to be against Rush Limbaugh to think the overhyped spat between Steele and Limbaugh, which ended in Steele apologizing, is disturbing. Steele’s remarks were played up by the liberal media, probably out of context, and built up as an attack against Limbaugh, and even Limbaugh nibbled at the bait. It’s ridiculous. Rush should be an unimportant person whose power derives solely from his accuracy and persuasiveness (which are quite high). Not anymore. Now he’s the Holy B**** of the Republican party. It’s become a crime to even muddy his sacred emperor clothes with anything less than full praise for him.

    It’s very distressing. The Republican party will never believe their right wing is a problem.

  8. posted by Bobby on

    “that doesn’t excuse him from being a bigoted asshole.”

    —Why bigoted? Because he doesn’t worship Obama like all the other media pansies? Because he doesn’t get a “tingly feel in his leg” (real quote) when he sees Obama speaking?

    Where was the outrage when the left was comparing Bush to a monkey? I get it, it’s not ok to call Obama a “halfrican-American” (as Rush did when joking about Obama being mixed-race) but it is ok to call Bush a retard, an idiot and Hitler.

    The republican party doesn’t have a right-wing problem, it has a rino, neo-con problem. When republicans allow the moderates to put the rightwingers in the back of the bus, they hurt the party. It is the fascist moderates that don’t believe in ideological diversity and that want us to be sensitive republicans who criticize Coulter and Rush everytime they open their mouths. The right can win again because only 30% of Americans are progressives, that means a rightwing republican with a charming personality can win the next election.

  9. posted by Jorge on

    So how come neither of the rightwing Republicans with the charming personalities won the primary in 2008?

    Romney and Huckabee have an ooziness about them. If you’re not one of their favored classes (like gays), they ignore you and pretend you don’t exist, at best.

    Fascist moderates? It’s the conservative wing that demands ideological purity, that refuses to accept any leadership that is even remotely tolerant of pro-choicers. They still take too many orders from brainwash-influlenced interpretations of the Bible. Right now under the left-wing Obama administration we are experiencing exactly the schizophrenic chaos we would get if we were to elect a right wing conservative Republican.

  10. posted by Bobby on

    “So how come neither of the rightwing Republicans with the charming personalities won the primary in 2008?”

    —Because they didn’t have the budget nor the free publicity popular candidates like McCain can get.

    “Romney and Huckabee have an ooziness about them. If you’re not one of their favored classes (like gays), they ignore you and pretend you don’t exist, at best.”

    —No, they simply say “some of my best friends are gay” and leave it at that. Just like Obama did, look buddy, us gays are low priority, you better get used to that.

    “It’s the conservative wing that demands ideological purity, that refuses to accept any leadership that is even remotely tolerant of pro-choicers.”

    —-The GOP has pro-choice republicans, some elected. Conservatives don’t ask that you agree with 100% of the platform, they just want to make sure that you agree with 90%. Otherwise, we end up with fake republicans who bring shame and embarrassment to the party like Mayor Bloomberg has done in New York.

    What riles me up is when moderate republicans like Meghan McCain go on TV, speak against conservative republicans and score points with the liberal media. It is fascism for the moderate to impose our views on the rest of us, this is exactly why I quit HRC years ago, after I saw that previously decent organization be overtaken by radical gays, I said no more!

  11. posted by John Howard on

    Thanks for your response Richard. So many diaries to keep track of here, I missed it til now.

    Some of them do so by adoption, some by artificial insemination, etc. I don’t know why you persist in falsely claiming that only married persons are permitted to reproduce.

    That’s not my claim, I am obviously aware of all that. My claim is that people should only have the right to conceive by combining their genes with someone of the other sex, and that all marriages should have the right to reproduce by combining the spouse’s own genes.

    I oppose equal rights for same-sex couples, I think they should not have an equal right to attempt to conceive children together that a man and a woman should have. My right to have a child with a woman should not be equated with my right to have a child with a man.

    Civil Unions that grant “all the rights of marriage” are therefore unacceptable (and as the California court pointed out, unconstitutional as well). CU’s should indeed be a subset of marriage, they should be defined as “marriage minus conception rights” so that they give all the other rights of marriage but do not strip conception rights from marriage or give conception rights to same-sex couples.

    And yes, people on this blog (Bobby and Rob) have revealed that their ultimate fight is for equal conception rights, that they care more about retaining the right to do GE to create children than they care about equal protections for same-sex couples.

Comments are closed.