New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s comments about “extreme conservatives” have provoked an intense response from conservatives who don’t view themselves as extreme. First, here’s what the governor said during an interview with public radio (as reported by the Daily News:
“Who are they?” Cuomo said about the Republicans. “Are they these extreme conservative, right to life, pro assault weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York. Because that’s not who New Yorkers are. If they are moderate Republicans, like in the Senate right now, who control the Senate—moderate Republicans have a place in this state.
These comments have been attacked by those who are pro-life, anti-gun control and anti-gay-marriage, although the intensity of the criticism has been from pro-life and pro-gun-rights groups.
The problem I have is that there are many who are gay (and gay supportive) who happen not to support (at the very least) late-term abortion on demand at taxpayer expense, believe in the right to keep and bear arms and support marriage equality. By tying the three issues into one bundle, Cuomo and Democratic Party activists advance their coalition progressivism but makes it harder to reach out to conservatives who might be open to libertarian arguments on marriage.
Their concern, of course, isn’t with advancing support for marriage equality among conservatives, but it should be ours.
43 Comments for “Our Assigned Place on the Left”
posted by Jimmy on
If moderate Republicans don’t like being conflated with hard right wingers, then they had better get busy taking party control away from them, especially at the grass roots level. Is that likely to happen? Is it the nature of moderates to do that? Moderates don’t vote in our open primaries in Indiana, so the state GOP is further to the right that I can remember.
Pro-life people are not necessarily absolutist anti-choice when life of the mother, rape/incest, etc. are factored in. Pro gun ownership folks may also think clip limitations and assault rifle bans are appropriate. At any rate, none of these people call the shots in the GOP. The ones that still hold office are likely to face primary challenges for voicing moderate positions.
Anyone concerned about changing the lay of the land in the GOP should have their focus on that, not wringing their hands over what some New York liberal said.
posted by Houndentenor on
Let’s see. I am certainly not in favor of banning all guns. I just want laws to make it harder for people with criminal records to buy them. That doesn’t seem all that extremist. And the federal government does not pay for any abortions, late term or not, so that’s a complete lie and I think you know that. I am pro-choice. I don’t know what part of choice is so hard for right-wingers to understand (since they seem baffled when a pregnant woman is pro-choice).
You seem angry that Cuomo has talked about Republicans like pretty much every Republican talks about Democrats. How often do we hear our center-left (and sometimes center-right) president characterized by Republican officials as a Marxist. (When they aren’t questioning his citizenship.) This kind of extremist rhetoric and strawmanning is common in our politics. If you want to speak out against it on the whole, I support you. But if you’re only going to call fowl when a Democrat does it, you’re as much a part of the problem as the NY Governor.
Also, as a former NY resident, there are indeed some very far right Republicans in the state legislature. There are also moderates. It was George Pataki, after all, who signed the state’s employment nondiscrimination act in 2003. Not all Republicans are far right loons. Nor are all Democrats far left loons. You can’t acknowledge one without the other.
posted by JohnInCA on
… yeah, read both those responses. It seems to me that the only way someone can say “I’m pro-life so Cuomo thinks I’m ultra-conservative!” is if they themselves conflate being pro-life with being pro-guns and anti-gay. Because if you don’t meet all three… he wasn’t talking about you.
I mean hell, he was pretty clear that he was talking about Republicans vs. Republicans, so getting upset over this just reinforces what he was saying: the Republican Party is eating itself alive.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If you read the article without a chip so to speak, Governor Cuomo was commenting on the current battle within the Republican Party, which appears to be the subject of considerable internal discord and comment within conservative circles:
New York, at least, seems to still be engaged in a battle about the issue. Wisconsin, for the most part, doesn’t. Under Governor Walker’s regime, the few remaining moderates have been mostly purged, both in the legislature and in the party structure. So count your blessings, Stephen, if you are lucky enough to live in a state where Republican moderates are continuing to fight against the likes of Ken Cucinelli and E.W. Jackson, and the battle is not over.
Of course there are Republicans who are not hell-bent to use government power to ban all abortions, Republicans willing to support reasonable regulations on firearms, and Republicans who are pro-equality. And of course there are Republicans who are might be extreme right on one issue but not the others. But Governor Cuomo was not — repeat not — negating that fact. He was drawing a contrast that Republicans are now drawing internally — between Republicans who are far-right extremists (and that is the right word) and Republicans who are rational conservatives.
By tying the three issues into one bundle, Cuomo and Democratic Party activists advance their coalition progressivism but makes it harder to reach out to conservatives who might be open to libertarian arguments on marriage. Their concern, of course, isn’t with advancing support for marriage equality among conservatives, but it should be ours.
I know that it is hard to be unjustly cartooned, and Governor Cuomo’s remarks might have been more nuanced, to be sure. But before you go mental on him, consider the cartoonish characterizations of those of us who are Democrats, or “left/liberal”, or “progressive” on this blog.
Consider the statement you make above, for example. Don’t you think that such cartoonish (and, to be frank about it, patently ridiculous) statements are off-putting, given the amount of time that those of us who are not Republicans spend trying to convince Republicans to get involved in changing the party, and offering suggestions about how to do so?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
It is interesting if their is in fact a serious moderate vs conservative ‘debate going on within the NY GOP, because (frankly) I do not see that happening in Minnesota or most other Midwest states.
In Minnesota and (from what I hear) Wisconsin, the GOP pretty much treated moderate-socially liberal Republicans like a series of nasty skin boils. They were carefully extracted, drained and tossed aside. VERY few exist in any sort of real leadership position.
The Libertarian Party is (from my experience) different from folks who are sometimes libertarian when it suits them, sort of like a Asian food buffet line or something to that effect.
The Libertarian Party represents the Libertarian Right, where as some conservatives like to identify as “small” libertarians (typically they dissent from the LP on social/cultural issues, but generally OK with the LP’s economics.)
I speak as someone who has (a) read quite a number of libertarian books and AynRand books and (b) as someone who is dating a ex-libertarian and (c) been to several libertarian meetings (one featured some celebrity doing a video about how the Federal Income Tax does not exist….)
The problem is ……
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In Minnesota and (from what I hear) Wisconsin, the GOP pretty much treated moderate-socially liberal Republicans like a series of nasty skin boils. They were carefully extracted, drained and tossed aside. VERY few exist in any sort of real leadership position.
The last standing Republican legislator who voted against Wisconsin’s so-called Budget Repair Bill, Senator Dale Schultz, is being forced into retirement this election cycle. He’s been in the Senate since 1991, and was Senate Majority Leader in the mid-2000’s. As far as I know, nobody who voted against the bill is left in the Assembly at this point.
I can’t speak to the entire state, but I can speak to the county in which I live and three surrounding counties, in which the Tea Party is in full control of the county parties, having forced out the moderates. I think that’s pretty much the case statewide, although I’m sure that there are exceptions.
I have a number of Republican friends who (formerly in leadership positions in county parties and in some cases who have held elected office as Republicans) have effectively left the party, finding the current situation too much to swallow. We are talking about conservatives who are my age who have voted Republican for 30-40 years, and who hold political positions that are well within any reasonable definition of “conservative”, including “social conservative” — opposing marriage equality but thinking about it, supporting the right to bear arms but willing to consider some limitations, and opposing abortion but in favor of exceptions.
Around this area, these days, if you aren’t rabid, you aren’t conservative enough to be recognized as a “real” Republican by the county parties.
posted by Lori Heine on
So the advice to libertarian gays and lesbians who register as Republicans to work for change is…what, then?
The official answer is “they ought to work for change.” Which is always quickly followed by, “but it will do no good.”
That is the official rhetoric, gobbled up by the gullible like fish food. The only real hope, of course, is to let oneself be assimilated into the Borg. In one way or another, many of those who chide the bloggers on this site for their supposed benightedness are basically saying, “Resistance is futile!”
If intellectual dishonesty were an Olympic event, some of the commenters here would take the gold. Many of the comments here on libertarianism are, indeed, comedy gold.
Any libertarian would be hugely entertained by some of the things that are said here – evidently in touching earnest. That a trip to the Libertarian Party website constitutes a thorough education in libertarian thought. That because the libertarian label is frequently misunderstood by ignorant people or misstated by those who are dishonest, we must all accept that the term is so hopelessly muddled that no real definition can be found. Those who don’t understand what the “No True Scotsman” argument is will even mischaracterize an actual libertarian argument by accusing her of employing it.
Reading any of the works of Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, Isabel Paterson, Leonard Read, Rose Wilder Lane, Friedrich Hayek, Henry David Thoreau, Wendy McElroy, Garet Garrett or Cathy Young is simply too much like work. As is Googling “libertarian thought” or “libertarian thinkers” and summoning a wealth of suggestive material to one’s fingertips. Evidently Reason magazine is simply too deep. And a magazine run by Seventh Day Adventists? Sounds like the right “Liberty” magazine to me!
TJ III’s passionate love-hate relationship with Ayn Rand burns on. Having dated libertarian men has given him such an encyclopedic knowledge of the philosophy that the decades of wisdom in the movement have nothing more to teach him.
When I’m sad and blue, I can always come to IGF and get a good laugh. Thanks, guys. I will, however, continue to steer clear of the Cube…
posted by Tom Scharbach on
So the advice to libertarian gays and lesbians who register as Republicans to work for change is…what, then?
The official answer is “they ought to work for change.” Which is always quickly followed by, “but it will do no good.”
I don’t know who puts out the “official answer”, but it is not what I hear being said on this list.
I’ve heard: “Pro-equality Republicans will not change the party unless they get involved at county, state and national levels and put in the work necessary to change it.” I believe it. In fact, I’ve said it any number of times.
I’ve heard: “Pro-equality Republicans will not change the party if they continue to support and vote for anti-equality Republicans, giving them political immunity from their anti-equality positions and actions.” I believe it. In fact, I’ve said it any number of times.
I’ve heard: “The road to change will be long and hard, and will take several election cycles at a minimum.” I believe it. In fact, I’ve said it any number of times.
But none of that is to say that the party can’t be turned or “but it will do no good.” So you want to give me some examples of comments which supports your statement that: The official answer is “they ought to work for change.” Which is always quickly followed by, “but it will do no good.”?
posted by Houndentenor on
I find it hilarious whenever someone claims to be libertarian yet votes Republican. GOP presidents are even more big government and bigger spenders than the Democrats. Sure, Republicans TALK about smaller government. Kind of like the people who brag about how good they are in bed. It’s all talk.
No one is stopping anyone from doing anything. Oh noze someone criticized you for being a Republican? People have a right to criticize each other. Are you quiet about other people doing things you don’t like? Of course not. Do those people have any fucks to give about your opinion? Mostly not. I don’t understand this aspect of American society. People want to be free to say whatever they want and also to be free from criticism for what they say and do. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Good luck reforming the GOP. I really mean that. If you find someone who isn’t foaming at the mouth right wing, please send them to run for office where I live. They’re trying to out-Tea Party each other here which, in spite of countless claims to the contrary, is almost all about social issues. Really, get to work on that. The GOP is going to run this country off a cliff if you don’t do something soon.
posted by Lori Heine on
Houndentenor, you find it “hilarious” that I would “vote Republican?” Never, though, did I say I necessarily would vote Republican — at least, not always so.
What I will do is attempt to influence the party at the primary level. Which means that in the primary, I will vote for the most libertarian candidates running — and support libertarians who want to run. That by no means locks me into voting for Republicans in the general election.
If an anti-equality Republican has prevailed in the primary and is running in the general, I will vote against him or her — either for a Libertarian Party candidate or for a Democrat, if that candidate is not anti-liberty.
As for examples, Tom, of comments suggesting that it will do no good to vote Republican, see most of them. Watch this space, and there will be plenty more. I know that is not what Houndentenor is saying, but it has been said here many times, by a number of people and in a number of ways.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As for examples, Tom, of comments suggesting that it will do no good to vote Republican, see most of them. Watch this space, and there will be plenty more.
I don’t recall having seen any comments that it will do no good for Republicans to vote for pro-equality Republicans. But I’ll watch, and I would be grateful if you would point comments to that effect out when you see them.
If that is being said, it is wrong. Just about the only thing that is going to change the Republican Party is if pro-equality conservatives start supporting pro-equality Republicans, and no anti-equality Republicans. That, or a series of thrashings at the polls over the next several election cycles, thrashings that can be demonstrably linked to the party’s anti-equality positions.
posted by Houndentenor on
It was a more general comment (not simply directed at you) about the many people who tell me that they are Republicans because they are for smaller government. I plan to vote in the GOP primary this year as well. (We have open primaries here.) Unless there’s a hotly contested race for Democrats (which I doubt, the presidential nomination will likely be a done deal by the time they get to Texas). Now if only there will be a single Republican candidate who isn’t vehemently anti-gay. That seems unlikely, but I’ll wait until I know who is on the ballot and can research their positions before I decide what I’m going to do. I don’t do this because I think I can change the GOP. I don’t think there’s much chance of that. It’s that it’s my only option for having any say at all for who represents me in Austin and DC. In 2012 Democrats didn’t even put up candidates for local office so I would up voting Green and Libertarian in protest. So yes, voting in the primary is a good plan, because in AZ, like in TX, it may be your only chance to cast a vote that matters.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Their [Cuomo and Democratic Party activists] concern, of course, isn’t with advancing support for marriage equality among conservatives, but it should be ours.
I wonder how you square your theory with the facts surrounding Republican legislators who voted for marriage equality in New York.
Governor Cuomo worked hard with Republicans willing to work with him in the New York legislature to win the marriage equality battle. In the aftermath, Governor Cuomo did what he could, as a Democrat, to support those legislators. In fact, Cuomo offered his endorsement to Roy McDonald, one of the Republican legislators who voted for marriage equality and who narrowly lost his Republican primary, if McDonald would run in the general election as an independent. “Left/liberal” and “progressive” gays and lesbians and groups — including, specifically, the Human Rights Campaign — made significant financial contributions to the primary campaigns of the Republicans who voted for marriage equality and ran for re-election.
The bottom line is that none of the pro-equality Republican legislators lost their seats because of lack of support from “Cuomo and and Democratic Party activists”, but instead lost because social conservatives in the Conservative and Republican parties in New York vowed revenge and made good on it.
posted by Jorge on
Cuomo is expressing an accurate, if partisan, analysis of the current situation.
It seems obvious that the extreme right of the Republican party has no place in this state in terms of electoral success. Only the moderate right will have any success. But this is more true in statewide contests. That the Republicans have a very precarious co-control over the State Senate does not mean that all Republican state legislators are moderate. In local races there are some very conservative representatives and there were definitely threats to unseat Republicans who voted in favor of legalizing same sex marriage.
What he leaves out is that he has an unabashedly progressive social agenda–that does have a place in New York state. It is this very demographic of New York state that provokes such a division among the right. To be elected, you usually have to be liberal to moderate overall on social issues, or else simply be conservative without promising much. Not anti-gay rights, in fact anti-discrimination, but with the usual Republican skepticism toward progressive laundry lists, if not outright hostility.
The other thing that’s happening is that the Republican party organization is sending letters to Republican leaders urging them not to endorse Governor Cuomo for re-election. This makes the party look weak and the governor strong. Already, former Republcian Senator Al D’Amato has indicated he will endorse Cuomo, citing many things he has done well and right.
If the Republican party is in trouble statewide, this is the reason.
For in truth, it is not the extreme right of the Republican party that has no place in New York. It is their mainstream right, if you measure mainstream by the standards of the rest of the country. Those who try to slow down progressive reform in the interests of good government, or those who will not compromise on stopping it have a future. Those who do not support progressivism but will do little but vote their dissent, they have no future.
posted by Jorge on
Fortunately for Cuomo’s re-election prospects, his economic agenda is not so lopsided. Both New York State and New York City tend to reward pragmatists. For some reason people care more about jobs, jobs, jobs and the state of the economy more consistently than almost any other issue.
posted by Houndentenor on
Actually, you’d be surprised at how far right some of the Republicans in the state assembly are. The UWS of Manhattan isn’t the whole state.
posted by Jorge on
Is that not what I said?
posted by Mike in Houston on
I’m sorry, but boo-fffing-hoo… if so-called moderate Republicans don’t like being painted with the brush that their own party created, it’s certainly not the job of a Democrats to rectify the situation.
Ken Mehlman was asked why it was so hard to find visibly LGBT-supportive people in the Republican party — and his answer was the Republicans are “like nightingales — they won’t sing alone, only with others… you have to get one to call out before the others have the courage to do it as well.”
In the Democratic Party, we’ve been increasing the number of nightingales — while the GOP shoots them.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
I’m wondering if Lori Heini, could take a moment, in between angry outbursts masquerading as assertiveness, and provide us with a single example in which the Libertarian Party, or one of it’s candidates for office, has brought about tangible change in the United States, or any individual member state therein. The example doesn’t even have to be a change for the good. A change for the worse would suffice, just change directly attributable to the actions of the Libertarian Party or one of its candidates.
posted by Lori Heine on
And I’m wondering if Dale of the Desert, who’s too sloppy with hysteria to even bother spelling people’s names correctly, is capable of comprehending the comments he reads here.
As I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, I’m under no obligation to explain or provide examples for a damn thing they do or do not do.
Let go of your pearls and breathe. I remember very well how third-grade girls behaved, because I was one once. Most of us grow up and move on.
posted by Houndentenor on
An election or so ago, Gary Johnson stood on the stage in the GOP primary debates and came out for gay marriage. That’s a big thing. No, he never got anywhere in the polls much less any primaries, but in my opinion it was important for someone to take that position and he meant it. (He wound up taking the Libertarian nomination for president.) Speaking up in places where your opinion will not be popular takes courage and that is to be applauded. One of my frustrations with gay Republicans is that they don’t seem to focus much on their success stories. I’d be crowing loudly every time a Republican cast a pro-gay vote, made a speech, anything. There aren’t that many. The problem is that they all seem to be hard-core types who view almost all the pro gay Republicans as RINOs. It’s why they can’t get anywhere. They want someone who is a hard core right-winger but libertarian (if not liberal) on gay issues. But not the other social issues. Oh no. It’s really not a successful strategy.
BTW, Mike Signorile’s interview with Jimmy LaSilvia (I’m even spelling his name right this week out of sympathy) was very interesting. He posted clips on his Huffpo page.
posted by Jorge on
One of my frustrations with gay Republicans is that they don’t seem to focus much on their success stories. I’d be crowing loudly every time a Republican cast a pro-gay vote, made a speech, anything. There aren’t that many.
Actually, they do crow–among themselves. I’m a little tired of the email spam from GOProud.
I have been known to (and shall again) “crow” about about Rick Santorum being the main presidential Republican primary candidates to speak in favor of the rights of gays internationally, and about the presidency of George W. Bush making great advances pulling the dividing line between right and left far to the left, from John Ashcroft to Dick Cheney, and I have made much about the personal example of these leaders making the country a better place in the wake of the virulence of anti-gay speech around the time Matthew Shephard was murdered. I suppose I could talk about John Boehner standing up for having his leadership support for gay Republican congressional candidates. But for me, about him, that wouldn’t be a point of pride so much as a public question.
Very few people see things in the same terms as I do. To say such things runs the risk of people insulting me in shrill tones. It is well that you have said it’s important to stake out positions that are not popular, for praising pro-gay Republicans is something that is likely to make you instantly unpopular among other gays and gay rights supporters. (It is mandatory for me to say there are some actions that would expose one to the risk of far greater hatred, actions which are easy to avoid. But I do not think they have much to do with party politics.)
posted by Doug on
Just to be clear, on January 1, 2014 Lori Heini wrote the following “What makes people squirm about libertarians is that we DO cut issues down to their basic moral and logical core. ” Note the word ‘we’. It would appear from that sentence that you are in fact a Libertarian. So which is it, are you or are you not a Libertarian?
posted by Lori Heine on
I am a small-l libertarian, as that is my political philosophy. I am not a capital-L Libertarian, because I do not belong to that political party.
If you don’t even know the difference, Doug, you might want to familiarize yourself, at least to an elementary level, before getting into someone’s face like Perry Mason on steroids and DEMANDING an answer to a question that displays your ignorance.
posted by Doug on
To quote you again “Let go of your pearls and breathe”.
posted by Lori Heine on
I can certainly see why more women do not comment on this site. We don’t particularly enjoy the whole up-against-the-bar-with-fist-in-face tactic of “debate.”
Now, Doug, comes the time when you prove how indistinguishable from a conservative Republican you really are, by simpering “Boo-hoo! The widdle woman is compwaining I’m too rough!”
No, I’m calling you an ass. It’s obviously VERY objectionable to you to hear a woman not back down to a man in an argument. But I find it grating when I am basically shoved against the wall and issued ultimatums or demands. I don’t respond to it, because I don’t reward bad behavior.
You’d be out of line to talk to another man that way, too. A lot of lesbians simply aren’t going to put up with it.
posted by Doug on
I haven’t a clue what you are talking about although based on your posts it’s obvious you are angry about something but I will not degrade myself by name calling.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
By gosh, dad gum, I feel badly about missspelling Lori’s name, an error which seemed strike such a sensitive nerve that I’m wondering whether I am not the first guilty of it. The error was not intentional, and I apologize. But I do want to point out that I neither said nor implied that Lori was under any “obligation” to answer my question. However, since she routinely writes here with striking confidence, even if not authority, on the topic of libertarianism and libertarians, I thought she might be capable. But alas, ad hominem responses are pretty much neither constructive nor instructive, and certainly not capable. So maybe somebody else can answer my question: Can someone provide a single example in which the Libertarian Party, or one of it’s candidates for office, has brought about tangible change in the United States, or any individual member state therein? The example doesn’t even have to be a change for the good. A change for the worse would suffice, just change directly attributible to the actions of the Libertarian Party or one of its candidates.
posted by Jorge on
So maybe somebody else can answer my question: Can someone provide a single example in which the Libertarian Party, or one of it’s candidates for office, has brought about tangible change in the United States, or any individual member state therein? The example doesn’t even have to be a change for the good. A change for the worse would suffice, just change directly attributible to the actions of the Libertarian Party or one of its candidates.
I’m going to have to side with Lori Heine and say that it is more appropriate to draw from libertarians overall, rather than from the Libertarian party per se. And thus I would put forth as my anti-champion Ron Paul.
Who has through his presidential run in 2008 made it safe to be a libertarian in the Republican party, sticking around long enough to build a following in 2012 that presented a serious challenge to neoconservatism. Who has made a thoughtful and intellectual critique of the War in Iraq, the antipathy toward Iran gaining a nuclear weapon, even American intervention during the Cold War. Who has pointed toward (I’m not sure if he’s actually stated) the critique of the Civil Rights Act. Very coherently, never with a mistep or a hint that he believes in anything less than the best interests of this country and all who live here. Ron Paul spoke for the fatigue creeping even among the right and gave it a legitimacy to stand on. Such that most of the other candidates to various degrees were comfortable expressing a more moderate version of some of his ideas.
In the end I don’t think he was successful at accomplishing what he set out to do in 2012. In fact I think he did more to marshall the neo-cons at a time when their main foes were the tea party-types than he did to harm them. But the seeds of his efforts remain. The libertarians will be back.
posted by Houndentenor on
She shares a surname with one of the great poets, Heinrich Heine. Most of the German Romantic composers wrote songs to Heine’s poetry (Schubert, Schumann, etc.) I can’t see her name without humming a bit of Schubert in my head.
posted by Lori Heine on
Jorge frequently gets exactly what I mean, and he’s done that again here. I think his reply is very good, so I’ll just let it stand.
I’m never sure what someone like Dale of the Desert means by “tangible change.” Taking power, pushing rivals out of the way and shoving everybody around to exert one’s own will in the place of others’? That is usually what the meaning seems to be — though I’m considered gauche for stating it so plainly.
Libertarians (small-l for the most part) are nibbling away at the foundations of statism. For tangible proof, see the entire Millenial generation, which will not be the starry-eyed little toadies for power that the Baby Boomers turned out to be. The edifice of power based on aggression and hoaxing the public into believing in State omnipotence is crumbling. I’m encouraged by how fast that’s happening, because I actually expected it to take longer.
And I like that Houndentenor hears Schubert when he reads a comment from me! I think I’ll make his “Serenade” my theme song. When I hear Schubert, I think of Katarina Witt. (A personal fantasy, and as it’s very much a lesbian thing, it might not resonate here.)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The WP reports an odd twist on the “battle for the soul” of the Republican Party. I don’t follow state-level internal Republican politics outside Wisconsin with any real attention, but I would have thought, given the legislative battles in Iowa over the last few years, that social conservatives, not libertarians, were in control of the party in Iowa. I guess that was wrong.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Thinking about the “battle for the soul” of the Republican Party, the standard analysis seems to be that the “establishment” will, eventually, prevail, and return the Republican Party to sanity. I’m not so sanguine.
The Tea Party – Christian Right axis is well funded, and is (for the first time that I can detect) implementing a well-organized, coordinated and targeted strategy for winning 2014 primary battles against establishment incumbents, running credible campaigns in a dozen Senate and two dozen Congressional primaries.
This is a marked departure from the ill-coordinated “insurgent” campaigns of the Tea Party’s past, and the Christian Right’s “mobilize from the sidelines” strategy of past years. I am aware that the “establishment” is fighting back, hard, and I don’t have a prediction about the outcome.
I am beginning to think, though, that Stephen’s characterization of the fight as a “battle for the soul” is not just hype. I don’t know about the “soul” part, but it is a real “battle”.
I can see why Governor Cuomo was concerned enough to comment.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, except a lot of that funding is from people who just want lower taxes and deregulation but don’t give a damn about the social issues. They may pull their money at at any moment leaving the Tea Partiers (who, in spite of claims to the contrary are all about the social issues) high and dry. I’m not sure that’s going to happen soon if at all. American politics is built on unseemly alliances because of the two party system. Economic conservatives are stuck with social conservatives because without them they can’t get anywhere near 50%. It will take more than an occasional loss here and there to break apart a political alliance.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a side note, Indiana Speaker of the House Bosma removed jurisdiction for the anti-marriage amendment from the Judiciary Committee (where is was uncertain whether it had the votes to pass) to the House Elections and Apportionment Committee (where apparently it does have the votes):
More power to him. He’s building the “pure bias” court case beautifully.
posted by Jimmy on
Those members of the Judiciary Committee who haven’t given this their rubber stamp are toast. Bosma and the state party will see to it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The decision is going to cost the party in Indiana. Andrew Markle, who had been running for the Assembly in the Indianapolis area, quit the party yesterday:
Bosma has put down his marker: The Republican Party in Indiana stands firmly on the side of anti-equality, and will go to any lengths to get it. Whatever happens to the anti-marriage amendment, he has ensured that Hoosiers, like the viewers of Duck Dynasty, will have to think twice about buying in.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’ve been listening to the testimony before the House Elections and Apportionment Committee for the last couple of hours. As I listen, I’m running down a mental checklist of the findings of fact that will form the basis of the federal District Court case that will declare the anti-marriage amendment unconstitutional, if it is on the ballot in November and passes. Item by item, the statements of Republicans on the committee and the testimony of the anti-marriage witnesses are filling in the checklist.
For example, Chairman Smith admitted that the only reason that HR3 had been assigned to the committee was to ensure that it would pass. Another witness argued that the only reason to pass the anti-marriage amendment instead of relying on the state’s statute, which was upheld in state courts, was to eliminate the ability of Indiana’s courts to reconsider the matter under Indiana’s constitution, requiring future challengers to bring the lawsuit in federal courts. Another witness, from the ADF, flat out lied to the legislators about the cases in Michigan holding that virtual identical wording precluded the state from offering any benefits to same-sex couples. Another testified that the anti-marriage amendment was needed to stop polygamy. Another
On and on. And we haven’t even gotten to the ministers yet.
I don’t know whether, by this time next year when the Indiana case is heard in federal court, whether “bias” will be a requirement to win the case (the most recent decisions don’t require “bias”, but are based on lack of rational relationship), but the Republican committee members and the anti-marriage witnesses seem to be going out of their way to lay the foundation for an open and shut bias case.
What I find so remarkable is that Indiana Republican leadership could have left this alone, instead of charging into the brick wall, building the case for us. I just can’t fathom what motivates them.
posted by Jorge on
What I find so remarkable is that Indiana Republican leadership could have left this alone, instead of charging into the brick wall, building the case for us. I just can’t fathom what motivates them.
Some people might like to suggest to you the expression that a tyrant grasps the tightest at power when he is losing it.
Surely that expression does not apply only to tyrants. It is part of a broader psychological human trait.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well, whatever the reason, HR3 was approved 9-3 and will move to the House floor in a matter of days. As expected, nine Republicans voted for the anti-marriage amendment and three Democrats against.
The House vote is expected later this week or on Monday or Tuesday of next week. Let’s hope that Speaker Bosna allows a full and full-throated floor debate, so that anti-marriage legislators can contribute to the record that will be taken into consideration in court.
posted by Don on
Well, we’ve officially added Florida to the list. I’m the one in the red tie. My hubby-to-be is the one in the bowtie.
We weren’t going to sit on the sidelines. And I can’t believe how long it took to get Florida on the map. But we’re finally joining in.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Congratulations to you and your husband-to-be, and thanks for putting yourself on the line, Don. The road ahead won’t be all roses (trust me, I’m a lawyer) but it is people like you who make equality happen.
posted by Don on
thanks, Tom.