A revealing page-one piece in the Washington Times, Political Stars Woo Waning Christian Conservatives:
Ralph Reed’s now annual Faith & Freedom Coalition conference in Washington last week drew a surprisingly small audience of mostly Protestant evangelical political activists—but still attracted a bevy of Republican political stars.
The audience of fewer than 400 was a fraction of the thousands who once thronged Pat Robertson’s annual Christian Coalition “Road to the White House” when it reigned as the premier event for rallying religious conservatives in the late 1980s and 1990s.
And then this:
The difference in audience drawing power between Mr. Reed’s organization and Mr. Robertson’s—over which Mr. Reed had presided as executive director—bears little correlation, however, with the current coalition’s attraction for politicians on the right.
What the CC and its successor, the FFC, still share is a gravitational pull on many of the best-known and most ambitious Republican politicians from across the country.Still, smaller isn’t necessarily better when it comes to inclusiveness, former Christian Coalition leaders noted privately Saturday at the close of the three-day conference billed as “The Road to a Majority.”
At what point will the party’s political “stars” realize that alienating the socially moderate center to placate a dwindling old-guard of reactionary theocrats is a perpetually losing strategy?
More. On Ken Mehlman, the once-closeted former chairman of the Republican National Committee, now working to win GOP support for marriage equality, via the New York Times. Progressives who won’t forgive Mehlman his past transgressions aren’t serious about creating bi-partisan support for gay equality. They prefer Republicans to stay anti-gay, because that’s better for the Democratic party.
29 Comments for “GOP Woos Shrinking Base”
posted by Doug on
“At what point will the party’s political “stars” realize that alienating the socially moderate center to placate a dwindling old-guard of reactionary theocrats is a perpetually losing strategy?’
In a word. . . Never. At least until the death of the last angry old white guy.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
At what point will the party’s political “stars” realize that alienating the socially moderate center to placate a dwindling old-guard of reactionary theocrats is a perpetually losing strategy?
Perhaps when the parties political “stars” are men and women who don’t agree with the party’s “reactionary theocrats” …
Have you read the positions of these “stars” recently?
posted by Houndentenor on
“At what point will the party’s political “stars” realize that alienating the socially moderate center to placate a dwindling old-guard of reactionary theocrats is a perpetually losing strategy?”
My guess is they won’t, but they will at some point be replaced by new “stars”. When that will happen I can only guess.
posted by Lori Heine on
The new “stars” — at least those who have emerged thus far — seem to kowtow to the reactionary theocrats. They hedge their bets, talking libertarian out of one side of their mouths and trying to placate the angry old codgers out of the other.
Which is why those with any sense, and a memory bank greater than a mosquito’s, will never trust them.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“ … trying to placate the angry old codgers … ”
Well, maybe. But I am beginning to wonder whether the new “stars” are not so much craven panderers as they are true believers.
At some point, when a politician makes consistent statements over a period of years, statements that are not parsed, nuanced or conditional, and contain no weasel words, but instead are straight-up expressions of a hard-core social conservatism, and has no record of expressing any other point of view, I think we have to accept that the politician is not pandering, but is instead telling us what he/she believes.
Contrast two “old stars”, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Over the course of a decade, with respect to LGBT issues anyway, Romney never held a view he didn’t change, and Santorum never changed a view he ever held. Romney pandered; Santorum believed.
Then look at the “new stars”, taking Rand Paul as an example.
If Rand ever made a statement with respect to “equal means equal” that didn’t come right out of the Tony Perksin playbook, I haven’t found it. He self-describes as a committed religious conservative, he says that he favors “states rights” with respect to marriage equality because it is a means to an end (changing the hearts and minds of Americans against equality), and talks freely about the left/liberal “war on Christianity”. He doesn’t use “weasel words” on our issues.
So is Rand a panderer or a believer? Unlike George Bush, I don’t have an extra sense that allows me to look into his soul, but his statements are clear and consistent over a long period of time. Based on that, and that alone, I’ve come to the conclusion Rand is more Santorum than Romney on our issues.
Picking up on Houndentenor’s observation (“My guess is they won’t, but they will at some point be replaced by new “stars”. When that will happen I can only guess.“), I wonder if we are not making a mistake when we assume that the current crop of “current stars” is pandering.
I think that there was a time when Republican politicians pandered, selling out principle for power (in the 1990’s, when the party struck the Faustian bargain with social conservatives that bought and paid for the anti-marriage amendments), but I am beginning to think that many of the Republican politicians elected since then, including most of the “current stars”, are social conservatives when it comes to our issues.
If I’m right about that, then Houdentenor is right. The only solution is to replace the “current stars” with “new stars”, and that is going to take a few election cycles.
posted by Houndentenor on
Honestly I don’t know whether any particular politician is pandering and when he or she is not. When Giuliani back-pedals on gay rights after being mayor but before running for president, was he pandering before or after his change. The same for Romney between Massachusetts and running for president. I don’t know. I can’t know. And moreover, I suspect the politicians themselves don’t know. And truth be told I don’t give a crap. I’d rather have someone pandering to me who votes for my rights than someone who is a true believer but whose vote can’t be counted on. In short, I want their votes, not their platitudes. I don’t care about empty platitudes or meaningless floor votes. I’m not impressed in cheap political stunts. Talk is cheap. I want to see action or I’m not the least bit impressed.
posted by Jorge on
At what point will the party’s political “stars” realize that alienating the socially moderate center to placate a dwindling old-guard of reactionary theocrats is a perpetually losing strategy?
The placating of the religious/conservative right means nothing to me.
However, if they’re going to do it, I expect my share, too. I am tired of not getting it because the party has become so obsessed with base politics that it appoints leaders who think the base is the only part of the party that isn’t beneath their notice.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
However, if they’re going to do it, I expect my share, too.
Have you worked to get a share? Are you active in your county Republican Party? Do you advocate for your positions with your local, state and federal representatives? Do you identify and organize other voters with your views and get them to do the same?
Politicians are influenced by those who influence election outcomes. That’s what the social conservatives learned 30 years ago, and they did the work.
I don’t mean to pick on you personally, Jorge, but pro-equality conservatives slept through the last 30 years while social conservatives were hard at work, which is why the Republican Party is in the sorry shape it is in.
posted by Don on
I take umbrage with the idea that they were asleep. It definitely was the Faustian bargain. Cut my taxes and you can stomp all over whomever you like. Cut my taxes even more, and I’ll let you bomb a country off the map.
posted by Lori Heine on
The view Houndentenor expressed, that he cares about how an elected official does his/her job, rather than whether he/she panders, is my view as well.
Who cares how they “feel” about us? I want results. I’m encouraged to hear someone from at least the political center-left who thinks clearly about this.
I really don’t know who means what they say, and who doesn’t, in politician-land. Someone who’s consistently against equal treatment under the law for every citizen gets no points from me for being consistent in contempt for other human beings.
posted by Houndentenor on
I think there are a lot more people who feel the way we do about this. They just aren’t likely to be the activist type. I don’t really care if everyone likes me. I only have time for a small number of best friends. I do care that people respect me enough not to pass laws restricting my rights. I sometimes hear Ron Paul say things that are along those lines. Less so his son (which makes me laugh because he was a NoZe Brother at Baylor). Santorum is a hard social conservative who seems to want to inflict his Roman Catholic morality on the rest of us. I’m not Catholic and I resent being told what to do by people of a religion that I do not accept. My problem is not that he is Catholic. That’s none of my business. It’s that he wants to impose that moral system on people who are not of his religion. That is a problem and to me makes him ineligible to be dog catcher much less president.
posted by Lori Heine on
I will add that because I believe in non-aggression in politics, I do prefer how Rand Paul reasons with the butt-uglies to how, for example, Rick Santorum has done it.
Does Sen. Paul know that these people will never succeed in convincing their kids and grandkids to hate and fear gays the way they do? Who cares? He’s urging them to put down the weapons and trust in the will of a free people.
That the butt-ugly crowd can’t be persuaded to lay down its arms unless it’s told it can make others as hateful as they are is, of course, disgusting. These people are contemptible; they are pustules on the posterior of humanity. But if they need to nurture themselves with sick fantasies about converting their children to hate — and this makes them give up on using the guns of government against us — then a good purpose has been achieved.
We need to stop wasting our time worrying about who loves us and who doesn’t. What matters is what they DO, not what they think or how they feel.
posted by Houndentenor on
My apologies to those who have heard me give this sermon. I hate political correctness, but not for the reasons usually given. I’m glad that we made certain horrible derogatory terms social unacceptable. And I’m glad that we adopted language that is not demeaning to people with certain medical conditions, etc. Those are good things. Along the way, however, saying the right thing replaced doing the right thing and certain rather unsavory elements in our political culture mastered the art of saying mean and even hateful things without using mean and hateful language. Instead of denouncing gay rights, people starting saying “I’m for equal rights but not special rights” when they weren’t for equal rights for gay people at all. it was a lie but a well constructed one and it worked with people who wanted to be bigots without sounding like bigots. The same thing happened on race and other issues. Well-crafted talking points were circulated (mostly via talk radio) to allow people to be racist without using the old non-PC racist language. Because they don’t use the N-word, they think they aren’t racist. They still are. (Of course even that doesn’t seem to be the issue any more because so many of the sane people have left the GOP that I hear the N word here in Texas more than at any time since I was a toddler in the late 1960s.) Honestly I’d rather be a faggot with full equality under the law than a gay man who can’t marry and can be fired for being homosexual. That’s just me. I realize other people are more touchy about language but I’m sick of people who are bigots acting like they aren’t and using coded language that doesn’t fool anyone but other bigots (and throwing hissy fits when they are called out on it).
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
It is hard to tell if Ron Paul/Rand Paul are ‘true believers’ or just pandering. This is because they play a game of musical chairs in order to raise money (i.e. ‘look I am a libertarian’, ‘look I am a socially conservative’ , ‘look pot prohibition is bad, but anti-gay criminal laws are good’ etc)
Once in awhile the father and son will say something that is not — entirely — ‘bat sh$’ insane. The father did introduce a decent bill on ballot access for third party candidates in House elections. But, most of the time I think they are just fundraising to libertarians and to paleo-conservatives and flat out racists.
Note that Ron Paul basically endorsed — at one point — the Constitution Party candidate for president. I suspect that his son probably has similar sympathies. The Constitution Party is hardcore opposed to gay rights, (and anything else that is not in line with the old-time-religion-theocratic-right) but promotes economic views and foreign policy attitudes that are similar to the Libertarian party.
Will the Republican Party improve its record on gay rights issues? I suspect it will have to eventually. However, Republicans that want to improve their party’s record with regards to gay rights (and be seen kindly for in the history books for doing so) need to get off their collective rear ends.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I didn’t mean to set off a back-and-forth about Rand Paul. Pandering or social conservative believers, it seems reasonably clear that the Republican Party is not going to change on our issues for the next couple of election cycles (2014 or 2016).
Priebus, the College Republicans, and the rest of the Republican establishment is calling for a tone-down of the social conservative message with respect to gays and lesbians, but not calling for a change in position.
I think that Tom Jefferson nailed : “Will the Republican Party improve its record on gay rights issues? I suspect it will have to eventually. However, Republicans that want to improve their party’s record with regards to gay rights (and be seen kindly for in the history books for doing so) need to get off their collective rear ends.“
posted by Fritz Keppler on
The state motto of North Carolina is “Esse Quam Videri”, to be rather than to seem. It appears that Mr Priebus and his colleagues wish to turn the motto of the current day Republican Party to “Videri Quam Esse”.
posted by Gus on
It is no longer necessary for grassroots Ohio Republicans to show up at these Faith and Freedom gatherings. Every Republican county meating in the state is more like a tent revival or a Bible School than the Republican Party I knew growing up.
posted by Don on
Politicians lead from behind. There are some exceptions, but they want votes and go with what they believe is the will of the voters. Both parties’ federal politicians incorrectly assess voters in their districts. Almost all of them say their voters are 10 points more conservative than they actually are on nearly every issue.
But as with nearly every issue, society is ahead of government. Families changed before government adapted. Sexual liberation came before government changed the blue laws. And those being left behind culturally fought to have the laws remain the same in a desperate hope to return society to what they wish it had remained.
Forge on socially and government will eventually have to follow. We’re already winning that war. And with all social change, one party or the other takes advantage of where they believe the will of the people is going – the other gladly panders to the existing majority against. And they hold those positions, pander to them, and fundraise off them until the social change gets to a point where no one can get enough votes or raise enough money off of those who fear change.
The fundamental change will come when Republicans give up the reactionary portfolio and become the party of embracing change rather than fearing it. (as was during the Reagan years – mostly)
posted by Mike in Houston on
OUTREACH!
Idaho Republicans Want to Void Local LGBT Non-Discrimination Ordinances
Lawmaker Urges Classes on Gender Roles
House GOP Passes Abortion Ban In Deeply Symbolic Move
Cruz: Immigration Just A ‘Crock’ Sold To GOP To Buy Hispanic Votes
posted by Doug on
The crazy wacko GOP has officially taken over the asylum. BTW where is that jobs bill Boehner promised so many years ago. Maybe he was masturbating in the womb. . .
posted by Doug on
Add another loon to the list.
Steve King: Secret Income Is ‘Part of Freedom’
posted by Mike in Houston on
This Ben Sargent editorial cartoon pretty much sums it all up…
http://www.gocomics.com/bensargent#mutable_966755
posted by Houndentenor on
Ken Mehlman helped get anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments passed in 21 states. No, I haven’t forgiven him. He hasn’t cleaned up his own mess yet. Why would I embrace someone who stabbed us in the back 21 times?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Progressives who won’t forgive Mehlman his past transgressions aren’t serious about creating bi-partisan support for gay equality.
I don’t, for the life of me, understand why anyone would have to forgive Ken Mehlman in order to effectively work with pro-equality conservatives. Although Mehlman was an instrument of destruction during his time in power, he is no longer a prime mover and, as the article you cited notes, “how much difference he is making is difficult to determine”. What’s true now is doubly true for the future. My view is that we would do a lot better working with younger Republicans coming into power than with a has-been with a Rolodex.
I don’t have any trouble forgiving Mehlman. I’ve long since done so. We’ve all done things we need to be forgiven for doing, and Mehlman’s story isn’t new under the sun.
I think that the important thing to keep in mind is that forgiveness goes hand in hand with repentance and atonement. Mehlman has a lot to atone for — he was a key strategist behind the Republican “faggot, faggot” strategy of the last decade, and his atonement won’t be complete until the damage is undone and set right. He’s got about 20 years of work ahead of him unless the Supreme Court intervenes, and given his age, he’ll be at retirement age before he has undone the damage he did.
I’ve forgiven Mehlman, but I’m not about to hand him a medal, either, now or after his atonement is complete.
They prefer Republicans to stay anti-gay, because that’s better for the Democratic party.
Uh, huh. It is time for you to get off this kick, Stephen. Perhaps you should emulate Ken Mehlman and get out of the echo chamber long enough to actually talk with a few Democrats and dreaded left/liberals who have been doing the work of turning this country around. I know that venturing out into the real world can be frightening, but if you did, you’d find out different.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I woke up this morning with an epiphany of sorts: Stephen’s meme “Progressives who won’t forgive Mehlman his past transgressions aren’t serious about creating bi-partisan support for gay equality. ” isn’t really about Ken Mehlman individually at all.
It is about forgiving all of the Republicans and Republican apologists, including Stephen, who entered into the Faustian bargain years ago, the Republicans who participated in or excused “faggot, faggot”, trading principle for power.
And it isn’t really about forgiveness either. It is about forgetting, ignoring the destruction and damage that “faggot, faggot” did to gays and lesbians and to our country.
What Stephen really wants is for all of us who have been doing the work for thirty-odd years, opposed every step of the way by those who entered into the Faustian bargain, to now say “It is all okay.”
We won’t. It isn’t okay, and never was okay. It was wrong. It was wrong to cooperate with it. It was wrong to make excuses for it. It was wrong to trade principle for power.
The simple fact is that Stephen and the others who entered into the Faustian bargain are responsible for the damage and destructi0n, and will always remain so. I’m fine with forgiving; I’m not fine with forgetting.
That doesn’t mean that we don’t welcome you to the fight, or that we won’t work with you, side by side, if you are willing to finally abandon the bargain you made and get to work with us.
But it does mean that we won’t forget why the struggle for equality will take another decade to resolve, when we could have been almost done at this point.
posted by TomJefferson III on
—Progressives who won’t forgive Mehlman his past transgressions
Well, the man did have a role to play in electing anti-gay candidates to major office and in pushing for state ballot measures that banned gay marriage.
So, forgiveness may be divine, but do not expect it to come overnight and don’t expect everyone to drop their dirty looks. When he starts producing equality results, then folks will probably be a bit more willing to forgive/forget.
Again, I have zero problem with creating ‘bi-partisan support for gay equality’. Heck, given the growing number of self-identified ‘Independents’ we probably should be working on a ‘tri or quad partisan basis’.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s ludicrous argument. What difference does it make if you are I or any other person forgives Kenny Mehlman? How does that change the GOP’s stance on gay issues? It’s more of the same from Miller: “It’s really the Democrats’ fault that Republicans are so anti-gay.” As if I had any say in the GOP’s platform and campaign rhetoric even when I was a Republican (1976-1989) or after?
posted by Doug on
I do not forgive and I do not forget. Ken Mehlman has blood on his hands. No he did not actually kill anyone but the policies he fought for have resulted in the deaths of many of our LBGT community.
Mehlman has not done nearly enough to atone for that yet. . . not by a long shot. In fact this is the first time I’ve heard his name mentioned in quite some time.
posted by Houndentenor on
If I haven’t yet forgiven the Clintons for DOMA and DADT (1993 and 1996), why would I have yet forgiven Mehlman for all the anti-gay ballot initiatives he helped push through in 2004?