Social Conservative Delirium

Long-time religious right activist Ralph Reed, who used to represent Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and now heads the Faith and Freedom Coalition, is urging Mitt Romney to adopt Rick Santorum’s scathing brand of social conservatism in order to win the White House. It’s not enough, apparently, that Romney is pro-life and supports the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Writes Reed in a Washington Post op-ed titled “To Beat Obama, Mitt Romney Must Channel Rick Santorum“:

[Romney’s] immediate task is to consolidate conservative support and unify the party. The best way to do that is to appropriate the best parts of Santorum’s message. Santorum follows the trailblazing evangelical candidates Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee, who personified the rise and the maturation of social conservatives as a critical component of the Republican coalition. …

It’s a strategy that could only be cheered in the fever swamps of the religious right and among the Democratic left, who understand what a godsend it would be for Obama.

I’m reminded of Santorum’s remarks on losing a Midwestern primary to Romney that he (Santorum) still felt he was victorious because he had won the most conservative districts—as if failing to carry anything but the most conservative districts boded well as a strategy for winning a general election. But like the socialist left, the social conservative right lives in a fantasyland where the most ideologically pure are certain to be rewarded for their lack of messy ambiguity.

More. Romney’s promise to “champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman” doesn’t sit well with some of his largest donors.

21 Comments for “Social Conservative Delirium”

  1. posted by Social Conservative Delirium | QClick Radar on

    […] Conservative Delirium Independent Gay Forum Wed, April 18, 2012 1:30 AM UTC Independent Gay Forum Rate  Loading … Share (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); […]

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    … It’s not enough, apparently, that Romney is pro-life and supports the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment.

    That’s not the half of it.

    Romney signed the NOM Marriage Pledge, committing himself to (1) support the FMA, (2) vigorously defend DOMA, (3) appoint “original intent” judges and justices that “reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution”, clearing the way for a reversal of Lawrence and re-criminalization of sodomy, (4) repeal marriage equality in the District of Columbia.

    In addition to the NOM Marriage Pledge, Romney has taken positions (a) opposing marriage-equivalent civil unions, (b) supporting 2012 anti-marriage amendments in the states, (c) opposing adoption by gay and lesbian couples, (d) opposing citizenship for foreign spouses of gays and lesbians, (e) anti-discrimination protection for gay and lesbian government employees, (f) equal pay and benefits for married gay and lesbian service personnel. Romney waffled on whether or not he’d repeal DADT.

    The folks who ignore all this and continue to insist that Romney is a “social moderate” and that his election wouldn’t undo the most of the gains we’ve made in recent years lives in their own version of fantasyland, in my opinion.

    Romney’s promise to “champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman” doesn’t sit well with some of his largest donors.

    I should hope so. The positions Romney has taken should give pause to any sensible person.

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    For clarification, (e) and (f) of the foregoing should read “(e) opposing anti-discrimination protection for gay and lesbian government employees, (f) opposing equal pay and benefits for married gay and lesbian service personnel. Romney waffled on whether or not he’d repeal DADT. “

  4. posted by Houndentenor on

    Why can’t homocons wrap their heads around the fact that the GOP is officially anti-gay? It’s in the platform and in the talking points.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I suppose because they don’t want to. I wouldn’t, either if I were in their shoes. The Republican positions and actions on equality issues are grim, nationwide and in the red states.

      So most look for a ray of hope, something that will allow them to ignore the positions and actions and vote Republican. Currently, the ray of hope seems to be that Romney is a “social moderate”, not as bad as Santorum.

      I don’t see it.

      As far as I can see, the difference between Santorum and Romney is in tone. Santorum pushes the anti-equality agenda in a “scathing tone” (as Stephen puts it above) and Romney pushes the anti-equality agenda with careful code words. But on the issues I identified above, the two differ only on reinstatement of DADT. Santorum wants it reinstated, and Romney waffles.

      And, in addition to the ray of hope thinking, most also are quick to console themselves by proclaiming that the Democrats have dropped the ball on a number of issues like ENDA, and are not lions in the equality fight.

      That is certainly true, but using that fact to console themselves is just ridiculous, because the issues on which the Democrats have dropped the ball are issues which conservatives oppose on general principles, not just when it comes to gays and lesbians.

      Stephen, for example, who touts libertarian positions, frequently criticizes Democrats for not passing ENDA and, more recently, not mandating anti-discrimination against gays and lesbians by federal contractors.

      From a libertarian point of view, that is absurd. Libertarian conservatives oppose government regulation of private businesses, including anti-discrimination regulation, more or less across the board. I’d be curious to see any other instance where libertarian conservatives support government imposition of anti-discrimination laws and regulations applying to private businesses.

      So Stephen finds himself in the position of criticizing Democrats for not imposing laws and regulations which, as a libertarian, he opposes, at least in all instances other than when it applies to gays and lesbians? Its that what it has come to now?

      I think so.

      I’ve been on this list a long time, going back eight years now. It gets curiouser and curiouser.

  5. posted by Mark F. on

    I don’t think Mr. Miller supports ENDA (maybe he can enlighten us), he’s just calling out Democratic hypocrisy and lack of action on the anti-discrimination issue.

    Perhaps Tom can take comfort in the fact, that while a President Romney would not be good for gays, he couldn’t singlehandedly overturn all progress of the last 30 years. For example, I doubt any state would reinstate sodomy laws even if the Lawrence decision was overturned. Not when a 2/3 Republican State Legislature in New Hampshire couldn’t stomach overturning same sex marriage rights

    • posted by Clayton on

      “For example, I doubt any state would reinstate sodomy laws even if the Lawrence decision was overturned. ”

      Mark, I don’t share your confidence. My home state of Louisiana has never removed its sodomy laws from the books; the Lawrence decision rendered them unconstitutional, but they are still there, even if they’re not being enforced. I think there are plenty of social conservatives who would gladly enforce them (think Rick Santorum) if given half a chance.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        Many states still have the sodomy laws on the books. Attempts to repeal the laws, even though they have been found unconstitutional, have been thwarted multiple times. The laws would not have to be reinstated. They are still “instated”, just not enforceable.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I don’t think Mr. Miller supports ENDA (maybe he can enlighten us), he’s just calling out Democratic hypocrisy and lack of action on the anti-discrimination issue.

      I don’t believe Stephen supports ENDA, either.

      And there’s nothing wrong with Stephen calling out Democratic inaction on the issue, although anyone who followed the issue knew that ENDA got tangled up in the transgender issue, and the votes weren’t there to pass it. Lots of Democrats are mighty unhappy about it, too, and far from silent.

      But the hypocrisy, I think, is Stephen’s. It is a bit rich to use the failure to pass ENDA as a reason why gays and lesbians should abandon the Democratic Party, while, at the same time, opposing passage of the law.

      Enough about that. So here’s a quiz: ENDA has been introduced in every session of Congress since 1994, one session excepted. Can anyone tell me how many Republicans co-sponsored the bill during its entire history?

  6. posted by Mark F. on

    “The Republican positions and actions on equality issues are grim, nationwide and in the red states.”

    But getting less grim, I think. It’s not like there is not some slow change taking place in the party, despite Romney. And please don’t paint ALL Republicans with the same brush–it’s not fair, considering that Obama’s one major pro-gay achievement, repeal of DADT–only happened because of Republican Olympia Snowe.

    • posted by Clayton on

      I will agree that there are individual points of light within the Repubilcan party. I will also agree that the Democratic party has been largely gutless, in that they still, for example, have not committed to a marriage equality plank in the platform.

      But this election cycle, at least, I prefer their silence over the explicit pledge of Romney, the Republican also-rans and the RNC itself, all of whom are vocally in favor of a repeal of DADT and a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman. I’m grateful for Olympia Snowe and the courageous Republicans in New York and New Hampshire, but they are not the official voice of the party.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        No one ever accused the Democrats of having much backbone.

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          It is no secret that many Democratic politicians have to be pushed and pushed hard on LGBT issues. I know that from personal experience over 30+ years.

          Nonetheless, the differences between the parties on LGBT is vast, and, in my opinion, the chasm has grown wider, rather than narrower, since the 1990’s.

          Little by slowly, those of us on the progressive/liberal side of politics have been moving the Democratic Party in the right direction. I do not see the same thing happening on the other side, and the fact remains that, in genera but with exceptions, Democratic politicians will vote for equality and Republican politicians will vote against equality when push comes to shove.

          I would like to see the latter part of that equation change, which is why I constantly push on pro-equality conservatives to become active in intra-party Republican politics at county, state and national levels.

          It is not enough for those of you who are conservative to complain that Democrats and those of us on the progressive/liberal side aren’t doing enough for you, fast enough to suit you. That won’t change the Republican Party.

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            Especially since the reason it’s so hard to get the Democrats to move on gay issues is that they are terrified of that vote being used against them by a GOP challenger in the next election. (Republicans have the same fear of a primary challenger.) It’s always funny to hear people who vote for anti-gay Republicans over pro-gay Democrats then complain that Democrats didn’t do enough in the last Congressional/Legislative session.

      • posted by Doug on

        If the Democrats are ‘gutless’ what does that make the Republican Party? A name I cannot say in polite company. As I have said before one can be gay and conservative but I don’t see how any self respecting gay person can call themselves a Republican.

  7. posted by Mark F. on

    Tom:

    I consider the fact that ALMOST HALF of the New Hampshire GOP delegation refused to vote to overturn marriage rights a good sign that there is a real and significant change going on in the GOP. Also, under 30 voters went heavily for Ron Paul in the GOP primaries. Mr. Paul favored repeal of DADT.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I think that it was a good sign. I also think that the New Hampshire political situation was unique for several reasons, and the success in New Hampshire is not likely to be replicated in other states. It certainly has not been replicated in other states in 2012. Republicans in almost all red states remained firmly anti-equality, and the legislation enacted this year reflects that fact.

      Nonetheless, I believe that the Republican Party will come around, eventually. The question is when and how quickly. I do not see the ground up hard work going on in the Republican Party that I see in the Democratic Party.

  8. posted by Mark F. on

    Overwhelming majorities of Americans oppose discrimination against gays and we are close to having 50% support for same sex marriage. Only a minority of people think same sex couples should have no rights. We’re winning, folks. Rick Santorum is like George Wallace vowing to keep racial segregation forever in the 1960’s.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Then why can’t we get even a majority vote to get ENDA through Congress? We’re winning the popular vote, but for a number of reasons (politics, gerrymandering, the hijacking of a party by a radical extreme Christianist minority, etc.) we can’t get much done.

  9. posted by Mark F. on

    “I do not see the ground up hard work going on in the Republican Party that I see in the Democratic Party.”

    Really? The Log Cabin Republicans were very active in getting DADT repealed.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      But they didn’t do that through the GOP. They did it by filing a suit and getting “activist judges” to rule the law unconstitutional.

Comments are closed.