At the Daily Caller, Jamie Weinstein has now suggested a couple of times that Republicans speak out against the horrendous gay-suppression bill in the legislature of Uganda:
Why doesn’t a conservative GOP senator — or senators — pick up the cause and speak out strongly against this human rights travesty, demanding that the Uganda parliament reject the bill lest there be penalties?
Maybe this would help the GOP with the gay community by showing that just because conservatives generally oppose gay marriages, they are not indifferent to violence against gays around the world. Maybe it wouldn’t help. But at the very least, it would be the right thing to do.
Aside from the intrinsic merit of this idea, I agree with Weinstein that it would be good politics — many moderate voters are currently put off by the Republican Party’s image of disrespect for gay people, and speaking out against persecution is one way to signal respect. But are senators ready to court the wrath of the likes of the AFA’s Bryan Fischer, who has applauded the Uganda legislation?
37 Comments for “Time for a GOP gesture on Uganda?”
posted by Clayton on
I have no use for politicians–of any party–who are afraid to speak out against Uganda for fear of being criticized by Bryan Fischer. Edmund Burke wrote, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” People in a position to influence Ugandan policy–and who don’t do it–have blood on their hands.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
As a practical matter, I am not sure how many Republican legislators care much beyond securing fundraising, secure their re-election or comfortable post-government career.
I am not going to say that this is the reality of all Republicans. I have worked with some Republicans on certain projects where we had some common ground. I have even date a few. But, you do get a fair number of people within the GOP who really only care about “whats in it for me, myself and I.”
posted by Clayton on
Walter, in order to answer the question raised by your title: yes, it is way past time for the GOP to make a gesture on Uganda.
posted by Hunter on
The problem is, whatever Weinstein may think, they are indifferent to violence against gays — when they’re not actively encouraging it. This is what happens when you sell your soul to the “Christian” right for votes.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s not just Brian Fischer and the anti-gay activiests. Rick Warren and many other Evangelicals who like to present themselves as mainstream were involved in the “kill the gays” agenda in Uganda. they lie about it to the press and the idiots in tv news believe them (or rather are charmed by them and are then too lazy to do any fact checking). No, most Republicans are not going up against the Teavangelicals any time soon. Not until they leave office. A sure sign that John Huntsman has no further political ambitions was his recent announcement in support of gay marriage.
But, I applaud you for calling out Republicans on this. They don’t care that liberals like me criticize them, but criticism from fellow conservatives might carry some weight. Hardly anyone in politics ever does the right thing until they are pressured into doing it by a noisy and relentless constituency. Keep the pressure up.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm…
The other idea that article suggested Republicans could “get out front” of the Democrats on is reforming the nation’s drug laws. But that is something that has been supported by at least some conservative Republicans. I remember during the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor that the then-ranking Republican member of Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions, made a side comment endorsing reform of crack cocaine laws to reduce the burden of unreasonable penalties. It made its way to YouTube.
And I seem to recall at least one of the Republicans running for president condemned without promting state executions of gays in a certain radical country. It was the far-right guy, too.
But you are very unlikely to see any conservative get “out in front” of any liberal on either issue. That’s like expecting George W. Bush, or even Dick Cheney, to endorse gay marriage. Bush did many things to moderate the conservative right’s hostility toward gays, but the net result was to catch up the right to the rest of the country and move the middle. And he did it largely on his own terms.
There’s a certain internal inconsistency in expecting conservatives to lead on gay rights, and then telling them exactly what issue you want them to lead on. By defintion, that is following, not leading. Nothing wrong with following, but there are too many conservatives who either do not trust liberals or whose political survival depends on pretending to never trust liberals. So it’s not going to be Uganda’s law or any congressional threats against it. It is going to have to be something else that can be framed in such a way that they can claim credit for it from the beginning.
Because contrary to the way we would like to think of ourselves, the middle of the country is not paying much attention to Uganda at all.
posted by Clayton on
“Bush did many things to moderate the conservative right’s hostility toward gays, but the net result was to catch up the right to the rest of the country and move the middle.”
Really? Like what? Like running in 2004 on a platform that included a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman? Like standing silently by as the Republican Party introduced such amendments in 30 states in 2004 to encourage voter participation in the Christian right? The fact that Bush never pursued the federal constitutional amendment does not, in my view, cut him any slack. Instead, it reveals what that platform plank clearly was: a cynical move to use the GLBT population as a bogeyman in order to increase his chances of winning an election. If Bush ever lifted a finger “to moderate the conservative right’s hostility,” I must have missed it. Every time I was paying attention, he was manipulating that hostility for his political advantage.
posted by Jorge on
During the primary, he was repeatedly asked about gays or gay rights, and he expressed that he does not believe in judging people.
During his first term (but apparently not his second), he appointed multiple gays to various positions in his administration.
Also during his first term, when Rick Santorum went apoleptic over Lawrence v. Texas, Bush said… nothing.
The religious right lost ground under Bush, and they knew it.
With the dividing line between left and right being marriage (and even that’s not lasting very long), we have evidence that gay rights has made many advances. The muffling of the opposition on all other matters is something for which responsibility must be passed to Bush on.
posted by Clayton on
“The religious right lost ground under Bush, and they knew it.”
I concede that point, Jorge. The net result, however was not “to catch up the right to the rest of the country and move the middle,” as you so charmingly (and wishfully) put it. The result was to make the right double down and look for a leader who would do their bidding.
As evidence, I offer you the Republican primaries. Every single candidate spoke in support of DOMA. Every single candidate pledged to introduce and advance a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman. Every single candidate (except Romney, who equivocated on this point) pledged to reinstitute DADT. During the live debates, a question was asked by an openly gay service man. The audience booed, and every single candidate stood silently on the stage and let it happen, giving the boos their tacit approval.
So excuse me if I don’t buy your argument that Bush’s actions moderated conservative hostility. As I said before, many of his actions exploited that hostility for his own political gain, and if he did not follow through on some promises (such as the promised constitutional amendment), all his inaction accomplished was to breed more hostility on the far right.
To the extent that there has been a movement in the middle toward support for equality, I give more credit to the Supreme Court for Lawrence v. Texas, to the demographic trends that result in older, more conservative voters dying and being replaced by younger, more socially liberal ones, and to the courage of all gay people who have come out to their families and coworkers, giving a face to the GLBT population and letting people know that by voting against equality they are voting against their relatives and friends. To George Bush I give credit for—-precisely nothing.
Hell, Bush wasn’t even one of the prominent Republicans to sign the amicus in favor of overturning DOMA. Surely, if deep down he truly believed in equality, he could do so now. Even Clinton has admitted the wrongheadedness of signing DOMA. Bush could partially atone for his role in getting 30+ “marriage protection” amendments passed at the state level if he spoke out now. He’ll never run for office again, so there is no risk in giving GLBT people his support.
Unless, of course, he was never a believer in equality to begin with. And that’s fine. That’s his prerogative. But it hardly makes him the champion of the gay rights cause you would have him be.
posted by Jorge on
I concede that point, Jorge. The net result, however was not “to catch up the right to the rest of the country and move the middle,” as you so charmingly (and wishfully) put it. The result was to make the right double down and look for a leader who would do their bidding.
Oh, really? And what is their bidding? All I seem to be hearing about is marriage and things to the left of it. I didn’t realize repealing hate crime laws and trying to overturn the ban on anti-sodomy laws were on the agenda. Instead what I’ve been hearing people complaining or being paranoid about is anti-transgender discrimination policies, which like it or not is new and to the left of marriage.
Okay, you also mentioned the DADT repeal. That is also new. So basically, all you’re talking about is people who want to roll back the progress of the past four years. The progress that Bush made stands. And that progress is a solid ground of acceptance of the fact that gays are here to stay.
During the live debates, a question was asked by an openly gay service man. The audience booed, and every single candidate stood silently on the stage and let it happen, giving the boos their tacit approval.
And Rick Santorum condemned the booing the next day. So I would like to know why I should consider this conservative hostility toward gays to still have a meaningful existence if even the most “anti-gay” candidate, who once condemned Lawrence v. Texas (and I know he still disagrees with it), renounces it, and if all the political energy it musters is aimed squarely at only the past four years?
posted by DAOX on
Uganda is a sovereign country. What laws it passes in regards to sexual behavior is an affair for the government and the people of Uganda. Politicians from other countries have no business commenting on the issue. I wonder how foreign politicians who condemn Uganda would feel if matters were reversed, and Ugandan politicians were condemning them for their failure to take a stand against homosexuality?
posted by Jorge on
That would depend on whether or not such laws violate human rights and civil rights, especially as recognized by the United Nations.
…oh, dear, that’s still an open issue. US conservatives are opposed to the United Nations giving specific recognition to the human rights of gays. Quite strongly, too.
Isn’t Uganda’s law wrong on its own merits? But if there is any already existing principle that says it is a violation of human or civil rights to execute people for being gay (which this law will allow), I am not going to help conservatives find it.
No, I’m afraid this is going to have to be an issue on which we win by fighting.
posted by Clayton on
“Uganda is a sovereign country. What laws it passes in regards to sexual behavior is an affair for the government and the people of Uganda. Politicians from other countries have no business commenting on the issue. ”
I will concede that Uganda is a sovereign nation, but politicians comment on laws passed in other countries all the time. Particularly when those laws involve human rights violations.
posted by Hunter on
It’s been a while since any country existed in a vacuum. Do you feel the same way about the U.S. and China imposing sanctions on North Korea, or about trade sanctions on Iran? Ugandan politicians haven’t been too reticent about criticizing Western countries for “immoral” policies, either.
This is about transgressing internationally recognized standards of conduct toward minorities. And it happens all the time. Why so quick to defend Uganda?
posted by DAOX on
The behavior of the North Korean and Iranian governments poses a serious threat to Western nations. It is therefore entirely proper for the leaders of those nations to take measures against them. Laws about sexual behavior passed by the Ugandan government do not fall into the same category.
By the way, can you find even a single example of a Ugandan politician condemning Western leaders for failing to take a stand against homosexuality?
posted by Clayton on
“By the way, can you find even a single example of a Ugandan politician condemning Western leaders for failing to take a stand against homosexuality?”
Here you go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/world/africa/ugandan-lawmakers-push-anti-homosexuality-bill-again.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
This article contains nearly every point of view possible, including that of a Ugandan official complaining that former friends from the west don’t want to be associated with Uganda any more, just because Uganda wanted to impose the death penalty on homosexuals.
posted by Clayton on
“By the way, can you find even a single example of a Ugandan politician condemning Western leaders for failing to take a stand against homosexuality?”
Here’s a link to an article in which the Ugandan President describes the gay-friendly attitudes of European governments as “decadent” and going on to say that if Uganda follows Europe, it will wind up in Sodom and Gomorrah: http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/ugandan-president-denounces-pro-gay-lobbying-by-europe-in-africa-the-church-of-england-newspaper-june-11-2010-p-6/
posted by Jorge on
…the Ugandan President describes the gay-friendly attitudes of European governments as “decadent” and going on to say that if Uganda follows Europe, it will wind up in Sodom and Gomorrah…
If it weren’t so unchivalrous, I’d be laughing all the way to the bank.
posted by Houndentenor on
I would think they’d laugh off such criticism. It’s ridiculous. Foreign politicians criticize US policy all the time. If you only get your news from US-based sources you probably miss most of it but check out any foreign newspaper and you’ll find that politicians in other countries have no problem at all criticizing our government. They have every right to do so and we have a right to criticize what they do.
But this goes further than criticism of a policy. This is a outright human rights abuse and people should speak out. Sometimes it even works eventually (as in South Africa finally ending Apartheid).
posted by DAOX on
There is no human right to sodomy.
posted by Gus on
Where is that written?
posted by Clayton on
“There is no human right to sodomy.”
Generally speaking, human rights are encompassed by life, liberty and the purusit of happiness. At least that’s what our Founding Fathers thought, and who am I to say they’re wrong?
In Thomas Jefferson’s case, the pursuit of happiness led him to a relationship with Sally Hemminges, an African-American slave. In my case, the pursuit of happiness led me to my same-sex spouse. In both cases, there is a sexual component to the relationship.
Private sexual activity between consenting adults is a human right–or at least it should be–because it falls under the realms of both liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I’m sure the president of Uganda would disagree. And apparently, DAOX, you disagree as well.
posted by Jimmy on
way to go, Debbie Downer
posted by Hunter on
Actually, there is — at least, there’s a right to intimate behavior between consenting adults without government interference. Ssee Lawrence v. Texas.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, there is. I wouldn’t say it that way. To quote our most recent Secretary of State: “Gay rights are human rights.”
posted by Gus on
Daily Caller?
posted by Doug on
If you really have to ask this question, it’s time to get out of your bubble and enter reality.
posted by Don on
I thought it was a platform of the current Republican party to support marginalizing, demonizing, and executing those they disagree with. Brown people? Arrest and deport them. Muslims? Blow them all up. Gays? Send them to holy re-education camps to make them get straight-married and make more white kids.
Okay, it’s a snark. Still, it’s not that far off. And a big reason why I just can’t be a republican today, gay rights aside. Vilification is a core principle. Although I think it’s just a holdover of looking for a bad guy ever since communism faded (but hasn’t vanished).
If it really were about less taxes and less regulation, I’d be a republican. But it’s really all just freedom for me, not for thee.
posted by Jorge on
And a big reason why I just can’t be a republican today, gay rights aside. Vilification is a core principle.
And a big reason why I can’t be a Democrat today is because its politics are all too often about hating whites, Christians, border states, men, patriots, capitalists, gun owners, anyone upper middle class or above, as well as blacks, hispanics, and women who are “too dumb” to vote Democrat.
posted by Doug on
Given your list of Democrat ‘hates’, how in the hell do you explain Obama winning the election by almost 6,000,000 votes? And being supported by the likes of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.
posted by Jorge on
Given your list of Democrat ‘hates’, how in the hell do you explain Obama winning the election by almost 6,000,000 votes?
Because of its politics of hating whites, Christians, border states, men, patriots, capitalists, [gun owners didn’t enter the picture], anyone upper middle class or above, as well as blacks, hispanics, and women who are “too dumb” to vote Democrat.
Have you ever heard of the concept of white privilege? One of the intellectual movements in this country is an attempt to persuade white people, men, and straight people that there is ongoing racism, sexism, and homophobia, and that as a result they have “privilege” that makes their eyes easier. There are attempts to get them to recognize the “privilege” that they have and use it toward progressive ends, ends that move toward equality among race, gender, and sexual orientation.
We have seen something similar among some of the rich, like Warren Buffet, who say they have plenty of money and they do deserve to be taxed more than other Americans.
This opposes and is opposed by the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” ideology.
Nothing that I have said so far is about hatred. However, you did not ask me to prove that there is hatred. You asked me to explain how hatred can be a winning strategy. Hatred is the enforcer of the ideology I have just mentioned. In the same way that a very small number rapes and hate crimes against people in less powerful groups who “break the rules” can enforce regimes of inequality that benefit a mostly non-violent class of priviledged groups, those who do not believe or follow the ideology I have just mentioned are likely to become demonized, condemned, and verbally attacked.
posted by Jorge on
“and homophobia, and that as a result they have “privilege” that makes their eyes easier”
“eyes” should read “lives”
posted by Houndentenor on
Let’s see: A lot of white people voted for Obama, Christians too (just not the fundamentalists but even some of those), Obama carried California and New Mexico (half the states that border Mexico), a lot of men voted for Obama too. Oh and “patriots”…I think by that you mean the chicken hawks who think they are patriotic by sending other people and other people’s children off to die in foreign wars? Do I need to go on?
That’s quite some strawman you constructed. It just doesn’t have any basis in reality. But whatever you need to do to keep convincing yourself it’s okay to vote for a party that hates you for being gay….
posted by Jorge on
Well, I would like to say, thank you very much for proving my point for me.
posted by Houndentenor on
No. As usual, you missed the point. There was nothing anti-white or anti-Christian in the Democratic Party platform. There was, however, anti-gay language int he Republican Party platform. That is a significant difference and the only reason you can’t see that is that you don’t want to.
posted by Don on
This is why the dialogues so often break down. White people who vote for Democrats are ashamed of being white. Black people would vote for Republicans, but they can’t because they need to vote themselves some more free money.
These beliefs are no more true than the assertion that Republicans are pro-military because they like to kill non-white, non-Christian people for fun and profit. Or that they are for gun rights and against government programs to fund the Violence Against Women Act because they like to beat and kill their women.
When did it all get so childish and absurd?
As for my original vilification argument, that was based on the threat of communism. Any political operative from 1945 on can tell you that was the ultimate vote driver. And it was a simple vilification scheme.
posted by Thomas Jefferson III on
I cannot imagine that the government of Uganda would care too terribly much about what the United States governments says about gay rights.
Uganda politicians — with the help of westernized, well-funded churches — are mining a certain level of homophobia that is (thankfully) becoming harder and harder to mine in the U.S. without being dismissed as an utter loon. Why are they mining the hatred and intolerance? Well, some may actually believe it, but others are probably expecting attention, money and or power.
Something similar (in terms of vicious anti-gay laws and violence for political gain) has been going on in other countries (Jamaica and Iraq came to mind)
I am also not sure how much the ‘average’ gay or straight American John Q sick pack really cares about Uganda (or Africa), but that is a topic for another time.
Having said all of that that, If I were a member of Congress or the U.S. Senate, I would have no problem expressing public opposition to anti-gay criminal laws. Yes, I would understand that it probably would not help (but it also would not hurt).