Rep. Paul Ryan, Romney’s veep pick, while not a social conservative fire-breather, supported the anti-gay (and anti-federalist) federal marriage amendment and opposed repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But he is one of the few politicos to have shown any sanity and courage about the entitlement and deficit crises, which liberal Democrats continue to shamefully demagogue for political advantage.
The political challenge of our time is to push the Democratic party back toward relative Clintonian fiscal moderation (imposed on Bill Clinton by a Republican congress), while continuing the struggle within the GOP to counter the pernicious control of hidebound social conservatives who will otherwise doom the party’s prospects among the next generation of voters.
More. From the Log Cabin Republicans, “Congressman Ryan’s 2007 vote in favor of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act and his consistent willingness to engage with Log Cabin on a range of issues speaks to his record as a fair-minded policymaker.” From GOProud, “Paul Ryan is one of the few political leaders anywhere in the country willing to tell the American people the truth about the unprecedented budget crisis we are facing, and – more importantly – willing to put forward bold plans to put this country back on the road to fiscal solvency.”
Social conservatives have pushed both Romney and Ryan to the right on gay issues. Should the ticket win, we’d have to see where they situate themselves.
However, if the issue of gay equality dominates all others, you won’t be voting for the GOP ticket. But those who believe the economic well-being of future generations of Americans is at severe risk given another four years of the present administration, support for the GOP is not an indication of self-loathing, as LGBT Democratic operatives would have it.
Another option: lodging a protest against both parties by voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who strongly favors both marriage equality and deficit reduction with real entitlement reform. Third-party candidates don’t get elected nationally, but their forward-looking agendas can, in time, change the terms of the debate.
Furthermore. Reader JamesR comments:
“Both Ryan and Romney once supported ENDA. They were, of course, pushed to the right — politicians respond to the prevailing political winds. Neither is hardcore anti-gay — it’s not what they want to talk about, and never has been. They are not Santorum or Huckabee.
So, if the winds can be changed — yes, probably in the GOP they can’t be, but IF they could — I don’t doubt that Romney and Ryan would again be supportive on gay issues.
And that remains the challenge.
18 Comments for “The Two-Party Challenge”
posted by Houndentenor on
Do a head-count. There are far more deficit-hawk Democrats than there are pro-gay Republicans.
Also, Ryans budget cuts only serve to pay for further tax cuts for the rich. They aren’t going to balance the budget. I’m surrounded by Tea Party types down here in Texas and they think we can have tax cuts, only cut from a few social programs (at most 1-2% of the budget) and balance the budget all at the same time. There’s no fiscal reality in that crowd. Balancing the budget would hurt, bigtime. It would mean paying quite a bit more and getting considerably less. I don’t see that as a political reality in either party right now.
posted by Curt on
Republican congresses have been anything but fiscally conservative since the time of Reagan. The Bush congress was basically the same as the Clinton congress and we had surpluses under Clinton and the massive deficits under Bush. Yet you give credit to the Republicans. I don’t buy this fantasy at all.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Social conservatives have pushed both Romney and Ryan to the right on gay issues. Should the ticket win, we’d have to see where they situate themselves.
So the theory is that Romney-Ryan were “pushed to the right on gay issues” in order to win, but once elected, Romney-Ryan will return to their “authentic” selves and embrace equality? Well, good luck with that, Stephen.
I don’t think that there is an “authentic” Romney, but we know Ryan in Wisconsin. He’s a social conservative. Not rabid, but committed.
posted by jamesR on
Steve didn’t say they would return to their authentic selves — he said we’d have to see what happens. And we will.
The fact is, both Ryan and Romney once supported ENDA. They were, of course, pushed to the right — politicians respond to the prevailing political winds. Neither are hardcore anti-gay — it’s not what they want to talk about, and never has been. They are not Santorum or Huckabee.
So, if the winds can be changed — yes, probably in the GOP they can’t be, but IF they could — I don’t doubt that Romney and Ryan would again be supportive on gay issues.
posted by Doug on
OMG if you really believe that Romney and Ryan will be supportive of gay right I’ve got a bridge I’d be happy to sell you.
posted by Carl on
I remember people saying Romney would move to the middle once the primaries were over.
A Romney presidency will likely involve at least 4 years of pandering to the far right in order to help shore up his reelection chances.
So we’re in the same place as always – 1) hey, they could be worse, and of course, 2) if those gays weren’t so demanding, everything would be fine.
posted by Houndentenor on
Exactly. The social conservatives don’t trust Romney and his presidency would be non-stop pandering to them. They’re never going to love him, of course. (Shhhh…he’s a MORMON!)
Bush could hold them at bay at least some of the time. They actually bought his born-again act. But Romney is not one of them and nothing he will say or do will convince them of that. It’s going to be non-stop pandering if he’s elected.
(Note: I’m not strawmanning the religious right here. This is based on actual conversations with religious conservatives on an almost daily basis. FML)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The fact is, both Ryan and Romney once supported ENDA. They were, of course, pushed to the right — politicians respond to the prevailing political winds. Neither are hardcore anti-gay — it’s not what they want to talk about, and never has been.
It fascinates me that ENDA, of all things, has become the symbol of the Great Gay Republican Hope. I thought that right-thinking Republicans were against “intrusive and redistributionist government”, and in particular, “burdensome over-regulation” of business.
So, if the winds can be changed — yes, probably in the GOP they can’t be, but IF they could — I don’t doubt that Romney and Ryan would again be supportive on gay issues.
I’ll grant you that Romney is a political whore who forms his opinions based on whatever political winds happen to be blowing from time to time, as his political record attests in spades. But Ryan isn’t, at least based on our experience with him in Wisconsin. Ryan is a committed, if quiet, social conservative. He may not want to talk about it right now, but his record speaks for itself.
posted by Houndentenor on
ENDA should be easy. Most Americans think it’s already the law. Look at how often reporters assume it is in articles concerning gay issues. Most Americans support adding gay people to ENDA. So why can’t we get it through Congress? 1) A religious right who don’t want any rights for gay people. 2) the libertarian types who claim it’s unconstitutional to place any limits on company’s hiring practices. Note the people making this argument never call for repealing ENDA altogether. At least not to the voters. and finally 3) pressure from the left to include transgendered and gender non-conforming people to the law.
And there you have it. Over 3/4 of the country support a bill that we can’t get passed thanks to our dysfunctional and deservedly unpopular Congress.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen: “Social conservatives have pushed both Romney and Ryan to the right on gay issues.
JamesR: “They were, of course, pushed to the right …
The idea that Romney-Ryan were “pushed to the right” on culture war issues by political realities within the Republican Party seems to be the current gay Republican talking point.
Romney, maybe. He has a long record, untarnished and unbroken, of taking whatever side of an issue is expedient at the moment. But I don’t think it makes sense to assume that he got “pushed to the right” after 2000 by the realities of Republican politics; it is just as likely that he was “pushed to the left” by the reality of Massachusetts politics in the 1990’s.
Ryan, no way. Ryan is a believing, committed, social conservative. If you doubt that, consider three votes, all three outside even the social conservative mainstream: (1) his vote to ban gay/lesbian adoption in the District of Columbia, (2) his sponsorship of a federal “personhood” law, and (3) his vote in favor of removing federal court jurisdiction from constitutional issues surrounding marriage.
In any event, whether or not Ryan is a social conservative is a non-question. As Houndentenor noted, the social conservative wing of the Republican Party is going to hold Romney’s feet to the fire, and if elected, Romney isn’t going to risk a primary challenge from the social conservative wing of the party in 2016, any more than he was willing to write them off in 2012. He’ll remain a “severe” social conservative whatever his private beliefs may be, if any, on LGBT issues. As David Lampo pointed out in an opinion piece this morning, Romney could, if he chooses, support five “equal means equal” measures right now. It would give homocons a more plausible reason to vote for Romney-Ryan without a red face than the “pushed to the right” theory. Grasping at non-existent straws can’t be pleasant for any of you. But, despite Lampo’s logic, we won’t see it happen.
The real challenge, as Stephen correctly hints, is to break the stranglehold of social conservatives on the primary process within the Republican Party. As Stephen pointed out, “And that remains the challenge.“
posted by tristram on
“The political challenge of our time is to push the Democratic party back toward relative Clintonian fiscal moderation (imposed on Bill Clinton by a Republican congress) . . . .”
Nobody has to push. Obama would leap at the chance to replicate Clinton’s fiscal policy (and would bring a huge majority of the congressional Democrats with him) if the Republicans would allow even modest movement toward Clinton-era tax rates.
“Another option: lodging a protest against both parties by voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who strongly favors both marriage equality and deficit reduction with real entitlement reform. Third-party candidates don’t get elected nationally, but their forward-looking agendas can, in time, change the terms of the debate.”
This is not an option for any advocate of gay equality under the law. It is highly likely that the next POTUS will set the direction of the Federal Courts, including the SCOTUS, for several decades to come. Romney has given his proxy for judicial appointments to the likes of NOM, FRC and AFA. They are not going to let him make a “Roberts mistake.” None of the cases moving toward the SC at this point will be decided before the election, and the momentum towards equality will be reversed if Romney/Ryan win
posted by JohnInCA on
Mostly right on the “another option”, but not quite completely.
I’m in CA. I can vote third party without putting the future in danger at all.
posted by Mark F. on
“This is not an option for any advocate of gay equality under the law.
Of course it is. For example, Obama is going to win California, so there is no need to worry about a 3rd party vote for Gary Johnson, who is a good guy, throwing the election.
posted by JohnInCA on
… probably should have read past tristram’s post to see my point was already made.
posted by Mark F. on
The Vice President does not set administration policy, by the way.
posted by tristram on
@Mark F. – You make two valid points. I try to keep my comments reasonably brief, which sometimes results in ‘broad-brushing.’ And often enough, there’s something I just plain miss. My responses (not necessarily rebuttals) to your points would be –
“Obama is going to win California, so there is no need to worry about a 3rd party vote for Gary Johnson, who is a good guy, throwing the election.” One of the on-going issues in the first term of the Obama presidency has been the campaign on the right to de-legitimize him. If he were to win the electoral college, but lose the popular vote (or win it by a very narrow margin) the problem would be exacerbated in his second term. With questions about the validity of his election, it’s conceivable that the Senate Republicans might prevent any of his SC nominees from ever getting a vote.
“The Vice President does not set administration policy, by the way.” I agree with those who think Ryan would serve as a sort of Tea Party watchdog within a Romney administration – he might not set the policy, but he will certainly influence it (and appears to have his own power base from which to exert that influence). And I have seen no evidence that he would push it anywhere but in a socially conservative direction.
posted by Jorge on
The political challenge of our time is to push the Democratic party back toward relative Clintonian fiscal moderation (imposed on Bill Clinton by a Republican congress)
I don’t care about the Democratic party anymore, and the money issue means little to me.
I read a few lines in a Romney book I have but don’t read, and it’s foreign policy interventionism. This talk of Romney always changing his spots might well be true.
posted by Mark F. on
@tristram “One of the on-going issues in the first term of the Obama presidency has been the campaign on the right to de-legitimize him. If he were to win the electoral college, but lose the popular vote (or win it by a very narrow margin) the problem would be exacerbated in his second term.”
I have heard no serious conservatives say that situation would make Obama’s election not legitimate. I suppose some nutty birthers might say that. Liberals are the ones generally pushing for the abolition of the electoral college, in any event.
However, I never vote for the lesser of the two major party evils. Obama’s due process free drone assassination program is illegal as well as morally wrong and his support of a trillion dollar military, endless foreign intervention and the war on drugs is not accceptable to me. I am delighted that he is pro-gay , of course.
You are correct that a Vice President Ryan might have some influence on Romney’s policies.