The Republican National Committee released a sweeping report aimed at revitalizing the party following its losses last November, noting that:
For the GOP to appeal to younger voters, we do not have to agree on every issue, but we do need to make sure young people do not see the Party as totally intolerant of alternative points of view. Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays—and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the Party is a place they want to be.
If our Party is not welcoming and inclusive, young people and increasingly other voters will continue to tune us out.
This has not gone down well with many. Conservative columnist Byron York comments:
That is not a flat-out declaration that the RNC supports gay marriage— but it’s pretty close. In addition, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, in introducing the report Monday, said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, had “made some pretty big inroads” into broadening the party’s appeal by declaring support for gay marriage last week. Again, the report’s position puts the RNC in danger of a breach with key grass-roots supporters.
That’s mild compared to what Rush Limbaugh had to say:
If the party makes [gay marriage] something official that they support, they’re not going to pull the homosexual activist voters away from the Democrat Party, but they are going to cause their base to stay home and throw their hands up in utter frustration.
Thus the battle lines are drawn, with action and reaction from the party. But who would have thought that the RNC itself would ever have taken such a bold step—not the LGBT progressives, who have written off the party as hopeless.
10 Comments for “GOP Division Is an Opportunity”
posted by David Lampo on
Republicans need not declare their support for SSM hook, line, and sinker to bring many back into the fold, at least not yet. Simply dropping support for DOMA and FMA and stating support for civil unions would be a huge step forward, assuring it will play out in the states and allowing the party to concentrate primarily on economic issues. A SCOTUS decision booting DOMA would actually be a godsend to the party by taking it off the table.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But who would have thought that the RNC itself would ever have taken such a bold step—not the LGBT progressives, who have written off the party as hopeless.
I read the RNC report with interest, and in detail. The report demonstrates a clear understand of the party’s image, but I wonder what the “bold step” is, exactly, other than to break the 13th Commandment, at least implicitly.
The report calls for no change in position or platform with respect to social issues. Instead, it calls for a change in tone: “On messaging, we must change our tone — especially on certain social issues that are turning off young voters. In every session with young voters, social issues were at the forefront of the discussion; many see them as the civil rights issues of our time. We must be a party that is welcoming and inclusive for all voters.”
Maybe I’m not tuned into Republi-Speak, so I might have missed some code words, but it seems to me that the party’s anti-equality positions and platform are not challenged, just the over-the-top rhetoric of recent years.
And the report lists, with great detail, the demographic groups that the party should approach: Hispanics, Asian and Pacific Islander Americans, African Americans, Women, and Youth (meaning straight youth who are turned off by the party’s anti-equality platform, positions and rhetoric).
Who’s missing? You got it.
Don’t get me wrong. I welcome the report and I think that it is important, because it lays out the party’s need to change in stark terms, and is the first official crack I’ve seen in the Republican wall in a long time.
But I would hardly call it a “bold step” toward changing the party’s positions on equality issues.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A note:
Reince Priebus, RNC chair, confirmed to Larry Russert this morning that the Republican Party continues to stand for traditional marriage despite the fact that the party was now inclusive: “I know our party believes marriage is between one man and one woman.”
Fear not, though. The Republican Party welcomes Asian-Pacific Islander youth who differ about marriage equality.
In Wisconsin, we’ve seen this act before, because Priebus was the Wisconsin Republican Party chair before moving up the national level. We’ll see a lot of happy talk, but no change in position.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“GOP Division Is an Opportunity”
Stephen, let me ask you a blunt question, since I too see the party’s division over political positions and tactics as an opportunity, and you are much closer to the inner workings of the Republican Party than I am or ever will be:
Do you think that pro-equality conservatives will do anything within the party structure to try to exploit the opportunity? Or will it be more inaction, going along to keep a “seat at the table”, while bitterly complaining about those of us on the progressive side of the political fence?
God, if there ever was a time for pro-equality conservatives to get out the knives and start fighting the social conservatives, this is it.
posted by Jorge on
What is the use of fighting internal battles when one’s opponents will more surely be defeated by external foes, and more utterly? There will remain an opposition to the left which will stand strong on every issue that it needs to, though it may complain about its irrecoverable losses.
I have no party loyalty to speak of. And it seems to me that moderates have always been a political sleeper force, and I’ve made my peace with that. Why focus on one party when you can set the course of the entire country?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think that the point, Jorge, is that we will need Republican votes to achieve “equal means equal” in a number of states, and nationally, as well. It doesn’t have to be a majority of legislators, but it does need to be more than a handful.
And so, it is important, even to folks to the left of center, to get the Republican Party off its unrelenting anti-equality kick.
The problem in the Republican Party is that the social conservatives worked hard internally and took over the party primary system. Because it is almost impossible for a pro-equality Republican to get to the general election, there is a disconnect between the party’s voters (about 34% pro-equality, according to the most recent polls) and the party’s elected officials (90%+/- anti-equality).
If pro-equality conservatives can’t break the social conservatives’ stranglehold over the primaries, pro-equality Republicans won’t get elected, because they won’t make it to the general election. And if they aren’t elected, they won’t be there for the vote.
That’s why the fight within the Republican Party is important for all of us.
posted by JohnInCA on
It may be important to folks left-of-center that the Republican party get off it’s anti-equality kick, but what, precisely, can we actually do? If you’re not part of the party you can’t fix the party. That’s still, squarely, on the shoulders of gay republicans.
Or, to put it another way…
It may be important for those left-of-center, but it’s just a spectator sport.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think that we can do three things: (1) continue working to keep the left/center pro-equality; (2) encourage pro-equality conservatives to (a) end the Faustian bargain between pro-equality conservatives and social conservatives, and (b) get into the fight for equality; and (3) share our experience and tactics with any pro-equality conservatives who do get active within the Republican Party at county, state and federal levels. Ultimately, though, as we both know, that’s about all we can do. Pro-equality conservatives have to do the work on the Republican side, as we did on ours, or the work won’t get done. We can’t do it for them.
posted by Don on
Although it sounds ludicrous from the outside looking in, there is history regarding the “keep the position, tone down the rhetoric” plan. Although it seems nuts on its face, extreme racists have found a home in either of the two parties (depending on the century) without openly supporting lynching. I’m thinking more recently of the John Birch Society’s participation in conservative politics but from the back bench. Careful use of dog whistles to keep them engaged, but not to go full-birther crazy in public. You could be mad as hell your guy didn’t win, but nobody used phrases like “Second Amendment remedies.”
The problem I see with this approach is that the extreme rhetoric has been open for a long time now. The policies match that rhetoric almost to an absurd degree. i.e. Legitimate rape. Many Right to Lifers have long believed the idea of rape pregnancies being a gift from God if only a woman could put aside her pain and open her eyes to the miracle of life. I can understand the line of thinking (God directs everything that happens in the world) but know that 90%+ think that’s nuts – even among those that see God’s hand everywhere.
This goes to a core philosophy of governing that scares the hell out of most people. You can’t keep the “strong borders” and “no more government programs” rhetoric going for very long when you’ve spent two decades calling Mexicans drug-dealing anchor babies who want to steal our welfare money and oppose VAWA because sluts don’t need government hands outs but rather a handgun of their own.
Cat’s out of the bag. or in this case, the Bengal tiger is out of the bag. gonna take a while for people to forget the crazy hate and fear.
But this whole thing is so interesting to watch. Mostly because no one has predicted the course of things thus far and most seem flummoxed as to what is next and where we all go from here.
posted by Houndentenor on
It may well be true that Republicans are not going to win back gay voters any time soon even if they stop the anti-gay attacks, but they could well win back the families and friends of gay people who are increasingly being turned off by the anti-gay attacks on their friends and relatives. Leave it to Limbaugh to see the world so simplistically. It seems that he’s not even remotely capable of understanding that millions of Americans don’t like seeing other people being denied rights, even if they don’t belong to the group whose rights are being denied. I don’t know why anyone listens to such obvious sociopaths but for some reason they do.