The battle for the soul of the Republican party being waged between social vs. libertarian conservatives will likely be the central gay rights battleground for the next few years, as this Washington Post story makes clear. A pity so many partisan progressives seem to want to declare that battle lost from the get go.
More. The Advocate asks: “Two competing fund-raisers were held Wednesday night in Manhattan, one chock-full of conservatives and another laden with liberals. But which one did more to advance LGBT equality?”
Furthermore. Hard to disagree with this viewpoint, also from the Washington Post:
In the ’90s, the gay rights movement got in bed with the Democrats financially, according to [Paul] Yandura, who worked on LGBT issues for the Clinton White House, and the results have been scant ever since.
“You end up worrying more about what stature you have in the administration and in Democratic leadership and within the social world of Washington than you do about wanting to get equal under the law,” says Yandura, who often hosts out-of-town GetEQUAL organizers at his home in Columbia Heights. “Once you’re at a high-level meeting, it’s them telling you what’ll happen, and if you fight that, you’ll never come to another one.”
27 Comments for “Battling for the GOP’s Soul”
posted by BobN on
A more fair comparison, of course, would be between either 1) two fund-raisers for gay issues or, better yet, two general party fund-raisers.
Heck, the author could have compared Mehlman’s two events. One to raise money for marriage equality and the other one he’s throwing to raise money for an actual politician who will vote AGAINST marriage equality.
And I don’t declare the battle lost. I declare it yet to be joined.
posted by Jorge on
Life isn’t fair. This is reality.
And I don’t declare the battle lost. I declare it yet to be joined.
That I do agree with. The Republican Party has always prided itself on being a big tent. It’ll take quite a bit to convince me that is no longer the case.
posted by Doug on
Exactly how is the Republican Party a big tent? Anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, the list goes on.
posted by Tim on
Just because the Tea Party and many other Republicans (and I do believe the TP is almost entirely Republican) wants to focus more on economic than social issues, that is no cause for hope. They have elections to win. Do you think for one minute that a TP candidate, once in office, will become an LGBT advocate? The GOP is just figuring out how to win. There is no battle being waged for the party’s soul. The party has no soul.
posted by Jorge on
The Republican party is neither anti-gay or anti-immigrant, and for you to call it anti-Muslim makes a mockery of all the work this country has done on behalf of Muslims around the world during the Bush administration. If that’s what you want to believe, I seriously cannot continue this conversation with you.
However if you want to educate yourself, you can start by watching Fox News or subscribing to a political magazine, and slowly but surely you will see the finer edges of this country’s politics.
posted by BobN on
That I do agree with.
Jorge, you only agree with me when you don’t understand me. Sigh.
The GOP isn’t fighting about gay rights. There are a tiny handful of actual GOP politicians willing to vote for us and, then, only under perfect conditions (see the recent DADT obstruction). There are no policy debates between politicians or arguments at platform-drafting conventions.
The only GOPers who openly and “passionately” support us are children and spouses of rabidly anti-gay pols or retired officials whose own records are chock full of betrayal.
The only, I repeat, only GOP figure with any power who really and truly appears to “get it” is Ted Olson, and he’s getting paid to “get it” (not that I doubt the sincerity of his beliefs).
The battle will be joined when the GOP is actually ARGUING about gay rights, not launching propaganda campaigns to attract gay $$$ and gay votes for the mid-terms.
posted by Bobby on
“Exactly how is the Republican Party a big tent? Anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, the list goes on.”
—Even if that was true, the DNC is anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-individual, anti-freedom, anti-military, etc, etc, etc.
By the way, what do you think of this woman who thinks that if she helps Obama she’s not gonna have to worry about her mortgage and the president himself will pay for her gas?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqUvCc
posted by Jimmy on
“Even if that was true, the DNC is anti-business, anti-capitalism..”
Uh-huh.
“The superior performance of Democratic presidents covers virtually the entire spectrum of economic indicators. As Elliott Parker of the University of Nevada, Reno detailed in a 2006 paper, since 1949 Democratic administrations have done better than Republican ones when it comes to unemployment (5.2% to 6.0%), job creation (-.0.4% decrease in unemployment, compared to 0.3% increase), GDP growth rate (4.2% to 2.9%), and even corporate profits as a share of GDP. And to be sure, he found the Dow benefits from Democrats in the White House.
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001448.htm
posted by BobN on
the results have been scant ever since
Uh, full marriage rights in five states. Domestic partnerships and civil unions in others. Virtually unanimous Democratic support for the repeal of DADT.
Scant?
posted by Carl on
Are there any major Republican politicians who actually have power who do not tend to go along with their party on issues regarding gay rights? For all the talk of a changing GOP, most of the “Tea Party” candidates seem to take the party line (I think even Rand Paul, who is probably the most genuine libertarian of any “Tea Party” Republican who has a chance of getting elected this year). And many of the “moderates” are also likely to go along with the party line.
The GOP knows that they can get a lot of supposedly moderate people to vote for them even if they are anti-gay. And they know that they need to be anti-gay in order to keep those socially conservative votes.
Going against things like marriage, civil unions, DADT repeal, et al is a win-win for the GOP and has been for some time, and I don’t know if a fundraiser would really make a difference.
posted by Doug on
Jorge, if you think the Republican Party is not anti-gay try reading the Republican Party Platform.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, you only agree with me when you don’t understand me. Sigh.
Not true. (I never understand you? I always understand you? There’s an occasional exception?) Anyway, I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that you don’t believe the GOP is a big tent.
You’re suggesting the Republican party needs the equivalent of a major upheaval to become pro-gay. I suggest a gradual reform is underway and very far ahead, so that it is likely but not certain the GOP will be firmly pro-gay with barely any conflict. I do believe the tension between the factions is increasing.
Jorge, if you think the Republican Party is not anti-gay try reading the Republican Party Platform.
Well make up your mind. Are you a simplistic far-left loon who thinks the Republican party is anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, the root of all evil, and thus really not worth my time to engage in a serious conversation, or are you simply someone who has serious problems with the Republican party? You’ve de facto conceded that the Republican party is not anti-Muslim. That’s a nice start.
Let me ask you a two questions. One, what would need to happen for you to no longer believe that the Republican party is not anti-gay?
Two, is the man on the street there yet?
posted by Jorge on
Urgh. Ignore the double negative on that last.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Uh-huh.
Of course, that’s because the “analysis” that Jimmy quotes follows the typical rule of the Obama Party; nothing bad is ever their fault.
For example, according to this “analysis”, the recession that started two months after Bush took office was entirely his fault and had absolutely nothing to do with Bill Clinton; however, Bush is still in this “analysis” responsible for the economic situation over a year after he left office.
It is hilarious to watch Jimmy and those like him who shrieked about unemployment being at 5% during the Bush administration as us being in a “recession” suddenly babbling about how much better Obama Party policies are when it’s nearly twice that amount now.
I wonder how this “analysis” would fare if, like the Obama Party, Republicans were allowed to blame their predecessor for anything bad that ever happened? Similarly, how would Obama fare if he actually had to take responsibility for what happened during his administration?
posted by Doug on
Bush blames Clinton administration for economic slowdown.(The Dallas Morning News) March 2001.
n a September 2006 interview with the New York Post editorial board, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice received considerable attention for placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of President Clinton
posted by BobN on
I do believe the tension between the factions is increasing.
That I would give you, but so far it’s barely a simmer. The “battle for the GOP’s soul” has barely begun vis-a-vis this issue.
posted by Amicus on
The party should split. It’s be good for the country and for ending the grip of K street, maybe:
The Dems could make compromises with the social GOP radicals on economics and compromises with the economic GOP radicals on social issues.
😉
posted by Michael Airhart on
“Partisan progressives” have learned from decades of experience that their supposed representatives (Democrats) won’t act favorably unless progressives WITHHOLD donations and votes until a favorable vote is assured.
For whatever reason, gay conservatives have learned a different message: If they applaud venom-mouths like Ann Coulter and vote for bigots like John McCain enthusiastically and blindly enough, their adversaries will have a change of heart.
That latter philosophy sounds a lot like the strategy of the current White House: Suck up to your enemies, and hope that they’ll stop stabbing you. Demand that voters obey their elected leaders — don’t let voters think that politicians should be held accountable.
Yet the former strategy, the progressive one, isn’t much better — it just increases the chance of being ignored by the interests that control Washington.
posted by Jorge on
For whatever reason, gay conservatives have learned a different message: If they applaud venom-mouths like Ann Coulter and vote for bigots like John McCain enthusiastically and blindly enough, their adversaries will have a change of heart.
You seem to have a strange assumption that gay conservatives aren’t venom-mouths and bigots. What possible distinction can be made between gay conservatives and straight conservatives, besides the fact that there are very few of the former?
Putting aside your snide remarks, there are only two possible explanations for Ann Coulter accepting GOProud’s invitation: she had a change of heart, or there was no need to change her heart in the first place because she was already sympathetic.
It’s the latter.
posted by Michael Airhart on
This was sympathetic?
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/3426/coulter_feasts_on_gay_republicans_at_homocon/
posted by Jorge on
You don’t need to link me to the coverage of Homocon; I was there. But since you insist:
“After a series of jokes about conservative that sounded — and were received — more like a stand-up act then a political speech, Coulter told the assembled (and predominantly wealthy) conservative gay crowd why they should oppose same sex marriage, adding, “I should warn you: I’ve never failed to talk gays out of gay marriage.”’
An obvious pun and hat tip to the utter impossibility of such an effort. During almost the same sentence, Ann Coulter gave a shout out to attendee Tammy Bruce and acknowledged her family.
She told the crowd she opposed same sex marriage because she believes marriage should only be for procreation.
It would be more accurate to say that she made a social stability argument, the major point of which was that the lynchpin of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman; she stated that the fundamental reason for the existence of marriage is to regulate procration.
What the article does not tell you is that she empathized with and identified that gays see all these other people and freedoms being accepted in the sexual revolution and say now it’s my turn.
She sunk her teeth into the crowd though by telling them, “Marriage is not a civil right. You’re not black.”
She really did say that. I’m not happy that the article you linked to didn’t try to rebut her premise that the 14th Amendment only applies to black people.
Coulter also perpetuated the myth that gay people are wealthier than the general population when she said, “Blacks must be looking at the gays saying, ‘Why can’t we be oppressed like that?’”
She backed it up, stating that gays have the highest per-capita income of any demographic. This line was well-received.
Some other articles note that Ann Coulter began her speech by acknowledging the extreme courage it took the attendees to come out… as conservative.
posted by AC on
All this back and forth reminds me of why I am disillusioned with the two-party monopoly in American politics. The gay Republicans insist they’re not self-hating or accepting of an inferior role in their own party because Ann Coulter appears at a fundraiser, while the gay Democrats refuse to see that their side rarely fulfills the endless promises made by the likes of Clinton and now Obama. I’d love to have another choice on the ballot come 2012. If it’s Palin or Romney or Gingrich or Barbour or Huckabee against Obama, I’ll be shopping for someone else.
posted by Jorge on
The gay Republicans insist they’re not self-hating or accepting of an inferior role in their own party because Ann Coulter appears at a fundraiser
You should hear what I have to say about the Pope.
posted by BobN on
their side rarely fulfills the endless promises
God, the endless bullshit. What state do you live in? If you live in one of the “conservative” states, then I can see your point. You’ve got nothing. But if you’re like all the guys* on here who dump on Dems and dump on liberalism and live in a blue state, who do you think gave you the rights you have?
* Minus Bobby. He chooses to live in a red-state paradise for some reason.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Carl asks: “Are there any major Republican politicians who actually have power who do not tend to go along with their party on issues regarding gay rights?”
Sure, Vice President Cheney for 8 yrs was a vocal supporter of all gays rights –“because I thought freedom for all means freedom for all”. Some say the most powerful man in DC for 7 of those 8 yrs. In fact, the only public issue he disagreed with our President on was gay marriage, gay equality, gay rights. The O-N-L-Y one.
And that despite the anger, daily whippings and insipid scourge of the gayLeft leadership of him and our President.
Gotta love those gayLeft leaders reaching out to gay rights supporters in the mainstream and in power! With gay leaders like that, who can question why we’ve failed on nearly every single public policy contest in the last 40 yrs.
posted by BobN on
Cheney offered meaningless pablum and hoped people would be stupid enough to interpret as they wished. He was obviously successful in that regard.
Here are his almost invariable words on the subject. It’s almost as if he has a carefully crafted response…
http://www.queerty.com/how-dick-cheney-is-a-better-marriage-equality-advocate-than-barack-obama-20090601/
And his “freedom for everyone” line is in regard to people choosing to form relationships. It was as much about gay couples as it was about polygamists. I.e. you can live with whomever you want, just don’t expect recognition from the government.
The only “pro-gay” position Cheney took was opposition to a federal constitutional amendment against gay couples (civil unions and marriage). He had previously supported a FMA and he voted for DOMA.
Note how he ends his little memorized speech. They’ve got that now. In other words, the status quo is what he supports. Some states have ’em, some don’t. No federal recognition. No repeal of DOMA. And how would he vote in his state? Open question. I suspect he’d vote no.
posted by BobN on
we’ve failed on nearly every single public policy contest in the last 40 yrs.
Yeah, it’s just like 1970.