The Advocate excerpts remarks supporting repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen.
In the responses to the Adovcate piece, a commenter proclaims that Republicans oppose repeal because they intend to “say no on everything that Obama tries to pass, tries to do to get the country going in the right direction.” But that’s exactly the kind of progressive response that’s so entirely counterproductive. Instead of engaging Republicans and making pro-liberty arguments, too many Democrats go out of their way to present DADT repeal as part of Obama’s progressive, big government, intrusive state agenda. Gee, that will get small government GOP moderates onboard.
More. On another culture war front, leftists at The Nation attack libertarians for criticizing TSA scan and grope policies. When the state is run by “progressives” led by a dear leader, no government violation of human dignity may be opposed. From David Boaz: “it’s striking to see how many conservatives think the TSA has gone too far, and how dismissive—even contemptuous—liberals are of rising concerns about liberty and privacy.” From Glenn Greenwald: “The most odious premise in [The Nation] piece: anyone who doesn’t quietly, meekly and immediately submit to Government orders and invasions—or anyone who stands up to government power and challenges it—is inherently suspect.”
From Cory Doctorow: “I remember when being anti-authoritarian, pro-dignity and pro-freedom were values of the progressive left.”
14 Comments for “Making the Case”
posted by Jorge on
The opposition to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not being led by the small government GOP moderates. It’s being led by the big government GOP moderates.
posted by Jorge on
Excuse me, I mean the opposition to the repeal.
posted by james on
the problem with this is republicans will not and are not interested in working with the president. no amount of logic will persuade them. its not just a few its not just the hotheads etc its all of them. they would rather see the country taken down another notch or two rather than sign on to anything this president or the democrats try to do to solve any problem we have. these people are even reversing there stance on the start treaty. they are obstructionist plain and simple. there is nothing conservative about that.
posted by BobN on
the problem with this is republicans will not and are not interested in working with
the presidentGOProud and Log Cabin RepublicansReally, at some point, their absolute failure to deliver even one measly vote…
posted by Carl on
Does a comment at the Advocate website really make any difference in DADT repeal? Is Sen. McCain going to suddenly stop throwing all these roadblocks against repeal if everyone who comments at the Advocate parrots what he says?
“Instead of engaging Republicans and making pro-liberty arguments, too many Democrats go out of their way to present DADT repeal as part of Obama’s progressive, big government, intrusive state agenda. Gee, that will get small government GOP moderates onboard.”
Who are the small government GOP moderates who are blocking passage of this repeal? And who are the Republicans who would be swayed by pro-liberty arguments? If some of the highest ranking military officials can do nothing to cause McCain or Lindsey Graham or other Republicans from working hard against a repeal, then why would some sort of appeal to a small government moderate make a difference?
Sometimes it doesn’t matter what the argument is or how nicely it is said. There are politicians who have strong reasons to never, ever support gay rights.
posted by avee on
Does a comment at the Advocate website really make any difference in DADT repeal?
It does if it’s representative of the mindset of LGBT progressive activists, such as those at the Human Rights Campaign who support a broad leftwing agenda and see LGBT rights as one aspect of that, and speak of LGBT rights that way.
Who are the small government GOP moderates who are blocking passage of this repeal?
Who might have voted against the filibuster but didn’t, you mean? How about Snowe, Collins, and Lugar, for starters.
Sometimes it doesn’t matter what the argument is or how nicely it is said. There are politicians who have strong reasons to never, ever support gay rights.
Yes, we’ll never get Jim DeMint. But come on, Lugar, Snowe and Collins just needed a little wooing. But they were dismissed. Bad strategy, bad politics.
posted by Jorge on
If some of the highest ranking military officials can do nothing to cause McCain or Lindsey Graham or other Republicans from working hard against a repeal, then why would some sort of appeal to a small government moderate make a difference?
Speaking of McCain and Graham, look, I love them, but between them they’re capable of winning a policy debate they’re on the right side of (and some they’re on the wrong side of) in a single blow of overwhelming force.
The report has been leaked and released and reported ad nauseum. It’s now December 1st. Such a powerful objection does not appear forthcoming. Instead, we have a letter signed by all 42 Republican Senators refusing to prioritize any bill ahead of funding the government and preserving the Bush tax cuts. I have absolutely no problem with that letter. But there’s going to come a reckoning, and it’s going to hit very hard.
posted by Carl on
“It does if it’s representative of the mindset of LGBT progressive activists, such as those at the Human Rights Campaign who support a broad leftwing agenda and see LGBT rights as one aspect of that, and speak of LGBT rights that way.”
Yes, but it isn’t representative, is it? I mean, I see some very odd comments at Politico, but that doesn’t mean I think those commenters represent conservative activists.
“Who might have voted against the filibuster but didn’t, you mean? How about Snowe, Collins, and Lugar, for starters.”
Are any of them small government? They are all strong candidates for primaries by Tea Partiers, and Snowe is so disliked by fiscal conservatives that the Club for Growth ran ads against her.
Besides, I thought that Stephen Miller had said Harry Reid was the reason they were opposing the repeal. Now it’s also gay activists who blindly support Obama? Ultimately the responsibility rests with them, and I doubt that gay activists, who have, as far as I remember, never seriously worked against Snowe, Collins, or Lugar, have a lot of sway.
“Yes, we’ll never get Jim DeMint. But come on, Lugar, Snowe and Collins just needed a little wooing. But they were dismissed. Bad strategy, bad politics.”
They put party first. That’s one of the reasons Republicans have so much success. And Republican leadership has no desire to repeal DADT. Their base does not support it, and McCain and Graham are making sure any senators who do support it will be taking a position which is out of step with the party line.
posted by Carl on
“But there’s going to come a reckoning, and it’s going to hit very hard.”
Do you mean voters will object? Sadly, I don’t think voters care if DADT is ever repealed.
posted by Jorge on
My thinking is more along the lines of there is a cost to taking a stand that is not a very good one.
posted by Carl on
Thanks for clarifying.
At one time I might have believed that but these days someone who is so vocal against gay rights is likely to be lauded for it.
posted by Jorge on
Yes, but McCain is not that person. He is not standing behind religion or tradition or conservatism. His position stays the same while his rationale changes.
posted by Carl on
You’re right, but I think that McCain, and Lindsey Graham, are both likely to get a lot more support from the right (and cautious support or muted commentary from most of the Beltway media, who, if the Washington Post are any indication, don’t mind pushing the idea that DADT repeal may be a bad idea) than they would if they said otherwise.
What fascinates me with McCain’s comments is his view of military leaders if he does not agree with them. He is very openly dismissive of them. Will that be the real legacy — are we moving into an era where Republicans now feel free to openly dismiss the views of those in major military positions (after spending the last decade being likely to roast Democrats if they did the same)?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-30/john-mccain-blames-new-york-times-for-wikileaks-document-dump/full/
“As for their superiors, McCain casually mentions the commander in chief and defense secretary, “neither of which I view as a military leader.””
posted by TommyJ on
Some conservatives and liberals are equally capable of being H.C. I can recall many a right-wing Republican [darn t hose blind dates] who defended the treatment of suspected ‘enemy combatants’ in far away prisons, but got all hot and heavy over the prospect of these new security transportation measures.