David Boaz takes note of:
Interesting evidence of movement among Republicans [on gay marriage]. A strong majority of voters in Virginia, a state that passed a gay marriage ban in 2006, and 40 percent of Republicans now say “it should be legal for gay couples to get married.” …
How has public opinion in Virginia changed since the 2006 amendment vote? Support for gay marriage (or opposition to a ban) has risen by 13 points. Independents are up only 3 points. Democrats are up by 7 points, perhaps because of the endorsement of President Obama. And Republican support is up 25 points.
And yet the party’s most likely future standard-bearers aren’t budging, perhaps because they are beholden to a dysfunctional primary and (especially) caucus system that gives disproportional voice and presidential-nominee veto power to an increasingly smaller and shiller faction of religious theocrats, those contemporary pharisees who thoroughly pervert the gospel message. It’s particularly disappointing to see Sen. Rand Paul moving to woo the them, as the Washington Post reports:
Earlier this spring, Sen. Rand Paul and his wife, Kelley, invited a crew from the Christian Broadcasting Network into their Kentucky home for what turned into two full days of reality TV. In a half-hour special, “At Home With Rand Paul,” the couple are seen bird-watching in the woods, going to McDonald’s and, especially, talking about religion—their belief in traditional marriage and the senator’s call for a “spiritual cleansing” in America. …
He said he’s not ready to “give up on” the traditional family unit. But he added that it is a mistake for conservatives to support a federal ban on same-sex marriage, saying, “We’re going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now.”
“If we’re to say each state can decide, I think a good 25 or 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people,” he said.
Paul has called on the GOP to “embrace liberty in both the economic and the personal sphere,” which seems inconsistent with his message to the Christian right, and counter-productive given where the electorate is going. As Nick Gillespie points out:
If Paul continues to send significantly different messages to different audiences, he will end up alienating all his possible supporters. … If he’s serious about scraping the moss off the Republican Party, he needs to boldly defend his most contrarian, libertarian positions rather than temper his comments based on his speaking venue.”
Practically speaking, N.J. Gov. Chris Christie would be the most (and maybe, really, the only) electable Republican in 2016, and he’d probably be more electable if he came out in favor of marriage equality for gay couples. But he’d have to survive the evangelical-dominated Iowa caucuses.
[Since comments on the Washington Post website (not here) regarding the Rand Paul article have veered into attacks on religion, I should note that I use “evangelical” above in the Christian-right political sense of advocating the use of the state to enforce an agenda of animus; not in the gospel sense of spreading the good news of God’s unbounded and transformative love.]
More. From David Boaz: Virginia Republican Candidates Not Joining 21st Century: “[T]here’s a reason that a report by the Republican National Committee found that voters see the GOP as “scary,” “narrow minded,” and “out of touch” — and the Virginia Republican ticket is part of that reason.”
More on Paul. Campaigning, er, “speaking” in New Hampshire, Sen. Paul has not made noticeable mention of gay marriage or related issues. He’s hitting hard on the more libertarian-conservative issues, as in his remarks via C-SPAN at a recent New Hampshire Liberty Dinner were he castigated the enormity of misdirected government spending at a time when Obama is crying poverty over his still bloated budget (millions were just spent making the embassy in Vienna, Austria, a “green” showcase while Obama blames Republicans for not giving him enough money to provide security for the consulate in Benghazie).
If you take another look at Paul’s remarks to evangelical leaders, while he told them much of what they wanted to hear (he personally opposes same-sex marriage; his reported “spiritual cleansing” remark), when it comes to politics he didn’t put much on the table (he opposes the anti-gay federal marriage amendment, for instance.) But whether he can mitigate evangelical opposition with rhetoric while not alienating independents and social libertarians remains an open question.
22 Comments for “GOP Voters Ready to Move Forward; Presidential Front-Runners, Not So Much”
posted by Houndentenor on
Why are you trying to make a 40% minority into a majority? Most Republicans are against gay rights. Republican candidates who come out for gay marriage are going to lose their primaries.
posted by Houndentenor on
My apologies. That should read: Why are you trying to make a 40% minority SOUND LIKE a majority?
posted by Jim Michaud on
Spiritual cleansing? Really? Is that like ethnic cleansing? Sorry, but that’s giving me the heebie jeebies.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And yet the party’s most likely future standard-bearers aren’t budging, perhaps because they are beholden to a dysfunctional primary and (especially) caucus system that gives disproportional voice and presidential-nominee veto power to an increasingly smaller and shiller faction of religious theocrats …
Stephen, the hard fact remains that (1) less than a third of self-identified Republicans support marriage equality nationally, and (2) support for marriage equality among self-identified Republicans seems to have stalled at that number, in contrast to support for marriage equality among self-identified Democrats and Independents, where support continues to grow.
The most recent Gallup poll on marriage equality shows: Among Democrats, support for marriage equality moved from 33% in 1996 to 56% in 2010, and now stands at 69%. Among Independents, a similar pattern is evident — 32%, 49% and 59% respectively. In contrast, earlier gains in support among Republicans has flattened out — support jumped from 16% in 1996 to 28% in 2010, but now stands at 26%.
Given those numbers, and given the fact that it is self-identified Republicans who vote in Republican primaries/caucuses, it is no mystery why all serious Republican presidential candidates continue to stand in the schoolhouse door on marriage equality.
It’s particularly disappointing to see Sen. Rand Paul moving to woo the them …
You make it sound like Rand Paul is “just saying”. I don’t think so. Rand Paul has never uttered a word of support for marriage equality, he has self-described as a social conservative and supporter of “traditional marriage”, and if his consistent statements over the course of his political career are any indication of what he believes, he is what he says he is.
I suppose that it is possible that Rand Paul is pandering, misrepresenting his views on marriage equality for political gain. He wouldn’t be the first to do so, and he won’t be the last. But, unlike Mitt Romney, Rand Paul has been consistent over the years, and it seems to me more likely that he believes what he says he believes than not.
My guess is that Rand Paul is, on marriage equality, somewhat like you are on the question of abortion — a strong libertarian on economic issues, but taking the opposite tack on marriage equality, just as you are a strong libertarian on economic issue but take the opposite tack when it comes to abortion. Few people are purests, and politicians are not exceptions.
Practically speaking, N.J. Gov. Chris Christie would be the most (and maybe, really, the only) electable Republican in 2016, and he’d probably be more electable if he came out in favor of marriage equality for gay couples. But he’d have to survive the evangelical-dominated Iowa caucuses.
Its not just the Iowa caucuses, of course. With self-identified Republicans so standing so strongly in opposition to marriage equality and apparently not “evolving” in the last couple of years, a pro-equality candidate would have trouble surviving the Republican primaries in most states.
As an aside, Governor Christie is the roadblock to equality in New Jersey. Marriage equality passed in the legislature, and pro-equality supporters are just shy of having enough votes to overcome Governor Christie’s veto. The folks who are tracking the prospects for a legislative override are saying that enough Republican votes are out there to win the override if but only if Governor Christie releases Republican legislators to vote their consciences. So far, he has refused to do so. If he continues to insist on holding Republican legislators “in line”, we won’t see marriage equality in New Jersey this year.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s also nonsensical to act as if Republicans overall are supportive of gay marriage when Illinois Republicans just pushed out their party leader after he came out for marriage equality. The Republicans in favor of gay rights are still the minority. Yes, it’s moving in the right direction, but it’s still dangerous for a Republican to be pro-gay.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Republicans in favor of gay rights are still the minority. Yes, it’s moving in the right direction, but it’s still dangerous for a Republican to be pro-gay.
The Gallup Poll suggests that among Republicans things may not be moving in the right direction, but instead be stalled.
If the Gallup poll is correct, it looks like Republican opposition to marriage equality might be holding at 70-75%, and that the Republican base is not moving toward acceptance along with the rest of the country. We do know that self-identified Republicans were at 72% opposition in 2010 and are at 74% opposition in 2013. Taking the margin of error into account, that suggests that support for marriage equality is not taking hold among the Republican base.
I don’t know — the flat line could be an anomaly, or temporary backlash to the President’s “evolution” — so I’d like to see where the numbers are in another couple of years before giving the Gallup tracking poll too much significance.
Ron Preibus clearly reads the polling the way I do, though. His “glastnost” plan for the Republican Party (which does not call for any change in the party’s anti-equality positions, but instead calls for a softer, kinder form of messaging, citing Mike Huckabee as a model of how to address equality) is a tacit acknowledgement that the party’s base has not “evolved”. He’s just trying to keep the lunatics from telling it like they think it is.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s also nonsensical to act as if Republicans overall are supportive of gay marriage when Illinois Republicans just pushed out their party leader after he came out for marriage equality.
… or when the Republicans in Virginia are running Ken Cuccinelli for Governor. And that in a state where Republicans are supposedly signalling the future of the gay-friendly Republican Party? God spare us, if that’s the future.
posted by Houndentenor on
About Christie: if he wants to come out for gay marriage he could just sign the gay marriage bill for New Jersey. You know, the one he VETOED as one of his first acts as governor.
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t know why gay Republicans keep hanging on, like Little Mary Sunshine, to every ray of hope that the GOP will make some huge sea-change on social issues.
These are the same knuckle-dragging fascists who uttered not a peep while Dubya was expanding the powers of government to spy on the populace and bully us around “to keep us safe from terr’ism.” When called to account for this, they whimper, “But-but-but…Obama is worse!”
To get to the Orwellian nightmare now developing, Bush paved the way. There is nothing the teabag set won’t okay for the sake of Republican power — as long as they believe they get to wield it.
posted by jared on
I agree with your assessment of the GOP. But we have a two-party system, and the GOP is the other party, and from time to time will come to power. We are not going to have a one-party system, and the Libertarians are not going to become the second party. So, either we commit to working to transform the GOP over time, for as long as it takes, or we alternate a pro-gay and an anti-gay party.
It is not impossible that the GOP could evolve along the lines of the British conservatives. That would mean a two-party system in which both sides can produce heads of government that support marriage equality. That’s why we keep hanging on.
posted by Houndentenor on
I guess it depends what “working with the GOP” means. If you mean talking to Republicans about why gay rights are important, then yes. We should keep doing that. If you mean giving money, support and votes to candidates who are openly hostile to gay rights, then HELLS TO THE NO. There are pro-gay Republican politicians. Support them. Talk to people who seem wishy-washy. (Most of the ones who seem tepid are probably really for gay rights or at least neutral on them and might be swayed with a swell-reasoned argument from a constituent.) But the sort of sycophantic sucking up to anti-gay politicians (see: GOProud) is revolting. (But then, I’m not sure there are still any gay members left in GOProud so does that even still count as a gay group?)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But we have a two-party system, and the GOP is the other party, and from time to time will come to power. We are not going to have a one-party system, and the Libertarians are not going to become the second party.
I think that’s right. I wonder when I see comments like this one, made in the Nick Gillespie article Stephen cited: “However technically accurate or defensible, such distinctions are far too Jesuitical to hang a presidential run on — or to revive a party that’s near-death.”
Near death? Not hardly. Even with a weak- sister candidate like Mitt Romney, the Republicans won 24 states in 2012, 21 of them by a margin of 10% or higher. In eight of the red states, Romney got over 60% of the vote. That’s hardly a description of “near death”, and there is no way that any of the hard-core red states are going blue any time soon.
The Republican Party is in no danger of dying. It is, perhaps, in danger of becoming marginalized and regional, but that’s not dead. It isn’t going away, and the Libertarian Party, which gets votes in the low single-digits, isn’t going to replace it.
So, either we commit to working to transform the GOP over time, for as long as it takes, or we alternate a pro-gay and an anti-gay party.
Yup. “[W]orking to transform the GOP over time …” is exactly what has to happen.
I’m a Democrat, but I’ve seen this reality for years, and have been pushing a simple idea in IGF: Pro-equality conservatives have to do what religious conservatives did in the Republican Party (and pro-equality “left/liberals” did in the Democratic Party) over the last 30-odd years — get involved in the Republican Party at county, state and federal levels, and work relentlessly to transform the party.
Pro-equality conservatives, and in particular Republican gays and lesbians, have to get down and do the work. Period. There is no other way to do it.
posted by Lori Heine on
The frustrating thing, for libertarians, is that we actually are a third option. Our principles are about as far from those of the GOP as they are from the Democrats. I suppose another way of putting it might be that we are closer, on many issues, to the Dems than we are to the Republicans.
I find the GOP’s positions on many issues so reprehensible that I have given up thinking I even want to work from within that party. I have also come to find, more and more, that Democrats are more receptive to many libertarian ideas than are the Repubs.
I was surprised to see that. It’s not what my gay conservative friends told me was the case. Even during the Obama years — with several more of those to go — that IS the case.
I will never support an obscene “war on terror” that’s bankrupting the country and slaughtering innocent civilians. That is but one example of another departure, on principle, of mine from the GOP. I could easily list a dozen of them.
Libertarians must influence both major parties, I suppose. I wish they’d both die. Though the Greens have some kooky notions, if this is to remain a two-party system I’d rather those two — for the sake of principle — be the Libertarians and the Greens.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
In this case the sins of the father may in fact be attached to the sins of the son. Ron Paul and his son have built up this quite lucrative career as ‘principled’ libertarian politicians, but they are not really libertarian and their principles do not extend far beyond what will get them more attention, money and power.
Without getting into the pros/cons of running a government under actual libertarian principles….equal government treatment is something widely shared by the libertarian right and left factions.
Their is simply no actual libertarian argument to oppose legal recognition of gay marriage, as long as the government is involved in the marriage business. Once you start suggesting that the government should discriminate against a citizen for their race, color, creed, opinion, sexuality or gender, then you are not making a valid libertarian argument. Period.
Now, these two men probably know this, but while they don’t mind getting called ‘libertarians’ or having the likes of Ayn Rand tied to their names, they are really best described as; Southern-State’s rights-Paleo-conservatives.
posted by David in the O.C. on
Quote: He said he’s not ready to “give up on” the traditional family unit.
Who the hell said that people were giving up on opposite-sex couples having children? Allowing gay couples to ALSO get married does NOT impact the “traditional” family unit. I’m really sick of these platitudes that are based on lies. As if treating gay people as equal members of society will somehow denigrate straight people’s lives. It is a flat-out lie.
I also want bigots like him to actually have to acknowledge that NON-RELIGIOUS straight couples are legally permitted to marry in our country. So you CANNOT use ANY religious argument to deny gay couples the right to marry. To be honest, I’m not sure if Mr. Paul is even aware of that fact. His entire worldview is based solely on his chosen religious beliefs, and his desire to force the rest of society to follow those beliefs. To put it succinctly, we can never allow people like him to fulfill their theocratic agenda.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The article that Stephen cited holds the key to Rand Paul’s thinking:
The appeal to states rights is nothing more than a holding delaying action to give Rand Paul and other religious conservatives time to “win back the hearts and minds of people”.
We’ll make hash of that strategy, over time. But it is important to remember the every day’s delay until equality is won comes at a price.
Paul is real con artist, flying the libertarian flag to suck in the uninformed and gullible.
posted by Houndentenor on
That’s just the new version of “I’m for equal rights but not special rights.” Not one person who ever said that was actually for equal rights for gay people. I don’t even know what special rights would be. (I once heard someone complain of “catering to homosexuals” which really meant treating gays as equal citizens but made it sound like they came around with trays for mini-quiches from for the gays.) So the new tactic is that it’s all about the children, ignoring that children are already being raised by gay couples, legally married or not, and of course these words are often touted by people I know to have had extra marital affairs and/or multiple marriages, but hypocrisy is so rampant in our culture that no one blinks an eye at such cognitive dissonance. it’s just a fancy way of saying “gay people are icky”. I think this kind of bigotry is transparent to the younger set which is why they are running away from the social conservatives in droves.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Virginia’s Republican convention seems to have doubled down on preserving marriage inequality in a state that is more pro-equality (56% of all voters, 75% Democrats, 56% of Independents, and 40% of Republicans) favor marriage equality.
The Republican convention’s unanimous selection of Kem Cuccinelli might not be indicate the disconnect that Stephen posits because Cuccinelli drove out the competition early on and was unopposed by the time he got to the convention, but convention delegates selected Reverend Jackson from a field of six candidates, almost all of whom where better known and better funded, according to the Washington Post article.
As an aside, I don’t agree with Reverend Jackson’s observation that “I might even be more extreme than Ken.” Cuccinelli has repeatedly supported Virginia’s constitutionally defunct sodomy law on the grounds that homosexual acts violate natural law. It is tough to get “more extreme” than supporting sodomy laws.
I don’t doubt that the Republican Party will eventually come around on equality, but I don’t think we’ll see it for a few election cycles, at best.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More. From David Boaz: Virginia Republican Candidates Not Joining 21st Century: “[T]here’s a reason that a report by the Republican National Committee found that voters see the GOP as “scary,” “narrow minded,” and “out of touch” — and the Virginia Republican ticket is part of that reason.”
ThinkProgress describes the Cuccinelli-Jackson ticket in Virginia as “rabidity anti-LGBT” and characterizes the two nominees as among “the most vocally anti-LGBT figures in the history Virginia politics”, documenting the long history of anti-equality statements, legislative votes and administrative actions of the two candidates. I encourage you to read the ThinkProgress article. It will be an education for those who haven’t been following the positions of the candidates.
In his original post, Stephen noted that Virginia Republicans are significantly less anti-equality than Republicans nationally (60% oppose marriage equality in Virginia, as opposed to 74% nationally), and observed (concerning the national party):
Although I have doubts about whether hard-core social conservatives are “an increasingly smaller … faction” within the Republican Party (Gallup polliing suggests that Republican opposition to marriage equality has leveled off at around 75% and is not moving along with the rest of the country, as noted in my earlier comments), Stephen’s observation that the Republican’s “dysfunctional primary and (especially) caucus system … gives [social conservatives a] disproportional voice and presidential-nominee veto-power” is explains, in large part, the Republican debacle in Virginia.
The Virginia Republican convention that nominated the Cuccinelli-Jackson ticket consisted of 8,000 county and state party activists, men and women who control the party’s nomination process. Because social conservatives in Virginia, like social conservatives in other parts of the nation, have worked hard for many years to take over the party apparatus at county and state levels, hard-core social conservatives have a “disproportional voice” in selecting the Republican ticket, and have for years. Because of the “disproportional voice” in years past, Virginia’s stable of politicians with sufficient stature to secure the nomination for statewide office are, for the most part, hard-core social conservatives like Cucinnelli and Jackson.
I think that it is important to keep in mind that even if the state’s nomination process was less “dysfunctional”, the pool of available nominees was dominated by social conservatives. It would be hard for the Virginia party to find, right now, a pro-equality candidate of sufficient stature to win statewide.
All of this (which is reflected, as Stephen noted in his post) is reflective of the dilemma facing pro-equality Republicans in other states and nationally, and does not lend itself to short-term solutions. Taking back the Republican Party from the hard-core social conservatives is going to take time and a lot of hard work at county, state and federal levels of the party.
Whatever the future may bring, the Cuccinelli-Jackson ticket is a reality. The disconnect between the nominee’s values and the values of pro-equality Republicans could hardly be more stark.
The real question is what the 40% of Virginia Republicans who support marriage equality (and in particular, Virginia’s Republican gays and lesbians) will do now, in the face of the disconnect. Will they do what pro-equality Republicans have consistently done in the past — swallow hard and support the ticket with volunteer time, campaign contributions and votes — or will there finally be a backlash? And in the aftermath of the debacle, will pro-equality conservatives finally get to work within the party, doing the hard and unappreciated work of influencing/controlling the party’s internal politics and nomination process?
The path taken by Virginia’s pro-equality Republicans may well be a harbinger of the future of the Republican Party.
posted by Houndentenor on
“The real question is what the 40% of Virginia Republicans who support marriage equality (and in particular, Virginia’s Republican gays and lesbians) will do now, in the face of the disconnect. Will they do what pro-equality Republicans have consistently done in the past — swallow hard and support the ticket with volunteer time, campaign contributions and votes — or will there finally be a backlash?”
Based on my own personal experience what they will do is vote for the anti-gay ticket anyway while meekly apologizing to their gay “friends” but saying not one word to the GOP. This is based on many election cycles with many Republicans.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I won’t make a prediction, although my experience in Wisconsin echoes yours in Texas. Our Lieutenant Governor, Rebecca Kleefisch, is “rabidly anti-gay”, and Governor Scott Walker and Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen are no prizes, either. I listened to all the excuses in 2008 and, in particular, in 2010. Pro-equality conservatives are like “gay friendly” Christians — all you hear from them are mumbled “not all of us are like that” apologies, and they don’t fight back.
Be that as it may be, the “40%” hold the future of Virginia’s Republican Party in their hands. If they don’t fight back, and the Cuccinelli-Jackson ticket is elected, the state’s Republican Party will continue to be “rabidly anti-gay” for many years. We reap what you sow, after all.
What makes this interesting (and gives it importance beyond the backwater of Virginia politics) is that the “40%” are likely from the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington — the Republican prognosticators and think-tankers who are predicting doom if the Republican Party doesn’t change its positions. We will shortly find out if they are all toot and no salute.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More on Paul. Campaigning, er, “speaking” in New Hampshire, Sen. Paul has not made noticeable mention of gay marriage or related issues. … If you take another look at Paul’s remarks to evangelical leaders, while he told them much of what they wanted to hear (he personally opposes same-sex marriage; his reported “spiritual cleansing” remark), when it comes to politics he didn’t put much on the table (he opposes whether he can mitigate evangelical opposition with rhetoric while not alienating independents and social libertarians the anti-gay federal marriage amendment, for instance.) But whether he can mitigate evangelical opposition with rhetoric while not alienating independents and social libertarians remains an open question.
So what’s your take on Rand Paul, Stephen? Does he believe his “rhetoric” or does he not? Will he use the Presidency after he is elected as a bully pulpit to rally the nation to traditional marriage, or will he not? Will he use the Presidency to implement his apparent strategy to win the nation back to traditional marriage? Will he help or hinder our struggle for equal treatment under the law?