Sooner or later, U.S. conservatives who are not fanatical zealots will come around on same-sex marriage. But they will do so in response to conservative arguments grounded in morality and concerns for social stability, not progressive contentions—such as those deployed in the failed campaign against California’s Prop. 8, in which political ads called rousinlgy for equal access to multitudinous government benefits. For libertarian-minded conservatives, arguments favoring freedom and recognition of natural rights (not rights to government entitlements) are most resonant.
Conservative arguments have certainly been made over the years, including by writers associated with the Independent Gay Forum, the now disbanded parent of this blog. But it’s good to see the conservative case gaining new prominence.
For example, National Review has published many attacks against same-sex marriage and legal equality for LGBT people. But this week they’ve included a supportive piece by their own managing editor, Jason Lee Steorts, An Equal Chance at Love: Why We Should Recognize Same-Sex Marriage. He writes:
Another way of saying this is that sexual counter-revolutionaries are telling a noble lie. The lie is that it is immoral to think of sex and marriage as anything other than child-directed …
The trouble with noble lies is that sooner or later people see through them. When they do, they tend to have revolutionary overreactions. And when that happens, what is needed is not a complete reversion to the old view, but a synthesis of what was right in that view with what was right in the reaction against it.
In their ideological absolutism, many traditionalists today stand in the way of such a synthesis. Their position on same-sex marriage is tragic, in that they have taken a stand against burgeoning social endorsement of commitment and sexual exclusivity as ends in themselves.
In a kind of concurring opinion, Prof. Jonathan H. Adler of the Case Western University School of Law offers A conservative case for gay marriage at the Volokh Conspiracy blog, noting:
A focus on the interests of children — the actual children who are alive today and who will be born in the years to come — supports a profoundly conservative, and quite Burkean, argument for gay marriage.
Set aside some utopian conception of what marriage is or should be about in the ideal, and instead recognize the way we live now — how and why we marry and how children are brought into this world and the homes in which they are raised. There are hundreds of thousands of children alive today who stand to benefit from being raised in more-stable, two-parent households. Every state allows gay people to raise children — and nearly all allow homosexuals to adopt or serve as foster parents. If this is acceptable (and few would argue that it’s worse for a child to be raised by gay parents than no parents at all) how can it be in the interests of these same children to ensure that they are raised in less optimal conditions?
He concludes:
If the Supreme Court acts as expected, these issues will be moot. But perhaps if conservatives think more about the children, they will feel a little better about the practical implications of such a result.
It won’t convince Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas, but the well-stated moral logic in these arguments will allow future conservatives to say, with British Prime Minister David Cameron, “Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us. Society is stronger when we make vows to each other and we support each other. I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative.”
43 Comments for “Making the Conservative Case”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m a bit baffled about how the arguments presented have become conservative arguments, given that the reasoning has presented in every federal case in the last two years, but that observation aside, I am glad to see conservatives begin to make arguments in favor of marriage equality. I hope that the spark now lit will grow into a fire.
posted by Lori Heine on
When I hear conservatives talk about “conservatism,” I’m always somewhat perplexed. There is no single conservatism. Different types of conservative are conservative for a variety of reasons. Other than a shared dislike of the left, and a desire to conserve something, the different factions have little else in common.
This is why the conservative movement is fraying. I suppose some of those in it can argue that same-sex marriage is a “conservative” idea. What’s really happening is not so much that conservatives are warming to it, but that more gay conservatives are coming out. That is a sign of the maturation of the LGBT liberation movement, far more than of the political right.
There are many on the right who will NEVER come around to supporting same-sex marriage. A sizeable remnant that wants to see us thrown in prison, or even executed, may always remain. They will continue to be loud and obnoxious–and other conservatives will go right on having no idea what to do about it.
It’s why William F. Buckley was unable to purge racists from the movement years ago. To maintain a stable “movement,” of any size, they must continue to allow some very nasty people–even some downright lunatics–into their big tent.
Because I understand this, I will never fully trust even the nicest of them. I’m certainly no leftist anymore. Libertarianism is a third point on the American triangle–and it will continue to be. A hundred Rand Pauls could never change that.
posted by Anastasia Beaverhausen on
Not sure why the reference to Rand Paul because he’s not a Libertarian.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Not sure why the reference to Rand Paul because he’s not a Libertarian.”
To the people here, apparently he is. Or so we keep being told.
If Beelzebub himself publicly claimed to be a libertarian (or even, as does Senator Paul, a libertarian conservative), his word on that would be gospel to many on the left. As is that of every drunken frat-boy on a college campus who makes a similar claim.
posted by Houndentenor on
Paul claims to be a libertarian. I don’t blame y’all for not wanting him. Libertarianism is no less clearly defined than conservatism or liberalism or any other ism. They’re all constructs and as such mean whatever the person using the term wants them to mean for their own purposes. We can all play the No True Scotsman game (and we all do) but it doesn’t accomplish much.
posted by Anastasia Beaverhausen on
He can claim to be a Venusian for all I care – but he was elected as a Republican. He campaigned for Mitch McConnell against a LP candidate, for heaven’s sake. He’s no Libertarian.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If Beelzebub himself publicly claimed to be a libertarian (or even, as does Senator Paul, a libertarian conservative), his word on that would be gospel to many on the left. As is that of every drunken frat-boy on a college campus who makes a similar claim.
That may be, but it is not just “many on the left” who make the mistake of morphing Paul (a self-described social conservative, and a prominent Republican politician) into the “libertarian” camp. As David Boaz, VP of the CATO Institute and the author of The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom, put it recently:
Boaz is right, for the most part, even if he falls into the trap of morphing Paul into the “libertarian” camp.
Paul is, like many of the so-called “libertarian” Republicans, a Republican (and self-described social conservative) with a few “libertarian” ideas that he touts when convenient.
Paul is no different in that respect than the many “libertarian” wannabes on left or right, however much they self-describe as “left-libertarian” or “right-libertarian” or just “libertarian”. As far as I am concerned, a few “libertarian” ideas here and there, however loudly and self-righteously proclaimed, does not a libertarian make.
A libertarian is defined, in my view, by a single question: Does the person put his/her money where his/her mouth is, supporting the Libertarian Party and Libertarian Party candidates? I know a number of Libertarians (including my brother-in-law) reasonably well, and I respect them.
posted by Lori Heine on
With all due respect to both of you, Tom S and Houndentenor, it is not playing the “No True Scotsman” game to assert that a political philosophy with a history of far more than a century, and a deep treasury of literature in which its thought has been developed over time, has some objective meaning.
I’m not taking basic vices (“no true Scotsman would get drunk and beat his wife”) and arbitrarily claiming that no libertarian would be guilty of such vices because, um, libertarians are just good people or some such. I’m appealing to a long and very rich philosophical tradition.
Going to the Libertarian Party website is nice, I suppose. At least it shows enough initiative to click a mouse a few times. But not anywhere near all libertarians belong to the Libertarian Party, because (A) we don’t all agree with its tenets and (B) we don’t all believe that having a political party, and pursuing governmental power, are the best means of implementing our ideas.
In short, it will require some intellectual effort to learn more about our philosophy. It will require reading and digesting our ideas. It will require spending some time following the serious libertarian media. If this is not done, you won’t understand what we’re about. A little hint: you won’t find out from listening to MSNBC — or, for that matter, to Fox.
posted by Houndentenor on
That’s all well and good Lori, but as I read the websites of Libertarian and Green and Working Families candidates every two years (because those are the only folks who run against the Teavangelical nuts where I live) I’m aware that a there is a wide range of people who run on the Libertarian Party ticket, just as is true for Democrats and Republicans. I realize your frustration with people misrepresenting you and even strawmanning your views, but at the same time you have to understand that there is no consistency as you’re making it sound and moreover I’m more interested in actual solutions and proposals than I am in overall governing philosophies (since those rarely seem to correspond to what the candidates do in office anyway). I take your point that Rand Paul isn’t really a Libertarian. What he does say (and often) is that he’s from the libertarian (small l) wing of the GOP which is maybe fair but even then that’s not something that means anything in and of itself.
posted by Lori Heine on
Rand Paul is, in 2016, the closest we’re going to get to a major (Tweedledee/Tweedledum) party candidate whose policies are libertarian. That says less about how close to the standard he is than about how far from it all the others are.
I’m not going to give real policy proposals because I’m not interested in them. How does a system as broken, sick and rotten as ours get reformed? It probably can’t. It needs to be dismantled–which can only happen a little at a time.
Between the macho-flashers on the libertarian left (“Smash the state!”) and the cautious little old ladies in the right wing of the movement–who still believe that our morally-repugnant system can be reformed–a reasonable center needs to hold.
Those in the center are usually the only ones who aren’t at least a little bit nuts.
posted by JohnInCA on
“political philosophy with a history of far more than a century, and a deep treasury of literature in which its thought has been developed over time, has some objective meaning.”
So which is it… Are Libertarians uniquely unchanging over the last century, or are Democrats and Republicans all just pretenders? ’cause if you apply that same statement to Democrats or Republicans you end up in the interesting position where no one is what they claim and they’re all just “in name only”.
posted by Lori Heine on
John, try actually thinking instead of trying to spin. I know you can do it. After a while, spin fogs the brain.
Some replies to your latest remarks:
(A) There is a difference between having a rich intellectual history and being “uniquely unchanging” as a result of that history. I asserted the former, but never even attempted to claim the latter.
(B) Intellectual laziness remains what it is regardless of the spin you attempt to put on it. If you blindly and gullibly believe everything the approved (big corporate) media tells you, and care about even investigating nothing else, that is a choice only you can make.
It either gives you delightful new directions to explore, or provides another chance to spin. What you choose to do with it is up to you.
Which choice you will make, I can’t predict. It would require knowing more about your character than I do.
posted by JohnInCA on
So we’re going with “you can define a Libertarian based on 100-year old Libertarians” *and* “you can define a Democrat/Republican based on modern Democrats/Republicans”.
Got ya.
And I’m not sure why you’re trying to make this about me, it’s *your* double-standard I was trying to understand.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Going to the Libertarian Party website is nice, I suppose. At least it shows enough initiative to click a mouse a few times.
How typically Loritarian.
In short, it will require some intellectual effort to learn more about our philosophy. It will require reading and digesting our ideas. It will require spending some time following the serious libertarian media. If this is not done, you won’t understand what we’re about. A little hint: you won’t find out from listening to MSNBC — or, for that matter, to Fox.
I follow Reason, read CATO articles as well as other occasional studies and papers from other organizations of a libertarian bent frequently. I studied a number of the classics underpinning the libertarian movement (e.g. Adam Smith, Henry George, Max Stirner, Benjamin Tucker) at one point or another, and was educated in the “Chicago School of Law and Economics” (intellectual self-puffery at its best, but charming) strongly influenced by the economic thinking of Milton Friedman and George Stigler, and from which sprang jurists like Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook and Doug Ginsburg (the latter two classmates), all of whom are reputed to have at least some “libertarian” orientation. I’ve read Noam Chomsky, but his linguistics work rather than his post-Vietnam political work. I was even subjected to reading Atlas Shrugged at one point in college, and will never read another word written by that moral and intellectual midget, having plenty of other options for destroying brain cells if I elect to embark down that road.
I recognize that I’ve dabbled, at best, usually in pursuit of an objective other than understanding libertarian political philosophy, and am not well schooled in libertarian thought. So I am willing to put some effort into understanding of libertarianism from your point of view, and would welcome a reading list, in order of priority, recognizing that I’m not going to be able to put more than about 100-150 hours this year into the exercise. I have a life. Come up with a list of books and/or articles/essays that you consider “essential”, and I’ll follow up.
But not anywhere near all libertarians belong to the Libertarian Party, because (A) we don’t all agree with its tenets and (B) we don’t all believe that having a political party, and pursuing governmental power, are the best means of implementing our ideas.
As we both know, libertarian political philosophy in the United States is fractured, with many strains of libertarianism — at odds with one another as often as not — arising out of different historic movements in the United States and Europe, all competing in the marketplace for the title “libertarian”. The various strains of the movement can be, and usually are, as different as chalk and cheese.
I can understand why, in that context, many who self-identify as “libertarian” (which means that they have adopted ideas arising out of one or more of the many strains of libertarianism and choose to label themselves), may not want to be involved with the Libertarian Party, which has sifted through the various strains of libertarianism and come up with an actual platform.
I can also understand why many people of a “libertarian” frame of mind shy away from seeking political power. Seeking political power in order to eliminate or greatly curtail political power is, in a sense, self-contradictory.
Nonetheless, the Libertarian Party exists and is, in our political spectrum, the only political center-point for libertarian politics. As I recall, in states where party registration is required for primary voting, about 400,000 voters are registered as Libertarian, and the Libertarian Party presidential candidate got about 1.25 million votes in 2012. Those aren’t landslide numbers, but they aren’t peanuts, either. I look to the Libertarian Party (rather than try to sort out the mess of contradictory strains of “libertarianism”) because I believe in practical result, and respect people who put their time and tithe (so to speak) into obtaining a practical result. It seems to me that the only “libertarian” source for practical result is the Libertarian Party.
I’m not going to give real policy proposals because I’m not interested in them. How does a system as broken, sick and rotten as ours get reformed? It probably can’t. It needs to be dismantled–which can only happen a little at a time.
A good deal of frustration with your commenting (on my part, anyway, and perhaps for others) is that you don’t put forth specifics in furtherance of your philosophy. Whatever you intend to achieve by avoiding public policy issues, change in the political system and/or public policy changes will not be a result.
Thinking is fine, but action counts. I am, as you know, one of the many gays and lesbians who decided to work to move the Democratic Party toward “equal means equal”. We could have thought and talked in general/philosophical terms until we were blue in the face, I suspect, and nothing (certainly not much) would have resulted. Instead, we identified specific objectives and specific policies that we wanted to bring to fruition, and then worked to get to the result. Change comes (in practical terms) from hard work on specific issues and policies. That’s my thinking, anyway.
posted by Lori Heine on
Tom S, you are simply not going to be interested in much of what I do, or what I have to say. I don’t concern myself with big political policy issues. I focus on moral/spiritual matters–on how statism corrupts the human spirit, and what individual people might do to remedy that.
That is my thing. Political wonkery is not. There’s nothing wrong with your interests. I’m not criticizing them; I simply don’t happen to share them.
Much of your criticism of me seems to revolve around the fact that I simply don’t share all of your convictions or interests. There’s no obligation, on my part, to share them. I have my own, and you have yours. That doesn’t mean that either of us needs to criticize the other. It’s simply a matter of fact.
I suppose that makes me a “Loritarian”–whatever that means–in your view. I’m perfectly content to live with that.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But they will do so in response to conservative arguments grounded in morality and concerns for social stability, not progressive contentions …
And that is largely because, as both articles point out, equal treatment under the law with respect to marriage — “equal means equal” as I shorthand it — is not an argument that conservatives — who do not accept the that equal protection is applicable to gays and lesbians in the context of marriage — can or will accept.
The progressive case is based, for the most part, on equal protection, not societal stability. The Kennedy opinions are based on that (to me, solid) ground, and it is likely that the Court’s June decision will be based on equal protection. Conservatives may or may not accept the Court’s ruling, but it is almost certain that conservatives will reject the Court’s reasoning if the decision is grounded, as almost certainly will be, on equal protection.
It is something of an awakening for me. When JEB Bush said the other day that he did not believe that there was a constitutional right to marriage equality, I assumed that he was pandering to the conservative Christian base. I was wrong. He does not believe that there is a constitutional right involved. Nor do other conservatives.
That puts a different cast on the future, it seems to me. We cannot, and should not, demand that conservatives come to accept a constitutional decision (many, if not most, conservatives will go to their graves believing that the Court’s decision, if based on equal protection, is dead wrong), but instead come to accept that they must obey a constitutional decision as the law of the land, agree or not, and like it or not. That is quite a different proposition.
posted by Jorge on
The progressive case is based, for the most part, on equal protection, not societal stability. The Kennedy opinions are based on that (to me, solid) ground, and it is likely that the Court’s June decision will be based on equal protection. Conservatives may or may not accept the Court’s ruling, but it is almost certain that conservatives will reject the Court’s reasoning if the decision is grounded, as almost certainly will be, on equal protection.
What comes naturally to the mainstream left comes with difficulty to most on the right: the understanding that granting rights to the individual means giving more people the same chance to be traditional. To non-radical progressives, tradition is an end in itself. It is only conservatives (and only their intellectuals at that) who see tradition as the means to another end.
posted by Lori Heine on
“…the understanding that granting rights to the individual means giving more people the same chance to be traditional.”
Exactly! You win the thread.
posted by Jorge on
…But they will do so in response to conservative arguments grounded in morality and concerns for social stability, not progressive contentions
So in other words, 30 years after the progressives win?
posted by Houndentenor on
Something is going on here in Texas. An anti-gay bill just died, one that surely would have passed had it been up for a vote. Someone is putting pressure from behind the scenes, either business leaders or party leadership. I won’t speculate as I have no facts but someone is making this case. Sadly, the state legislative districts are so Gerrymandered that the vast majority of Republicans have no fear of a Democratic challenger but a very real fear of a primary challenge from a candidate even further to the right. It took back room dealing to defeat these ridiculous (and in some cases redundant) bills from passing and further embarrassing the state. Someone is pulling strings, and it’s certainly not liberals doing it.
posted by Mike in Houston on
It was largely an effort by pro-business and progressive organizations (EQTX, Texas Competes, Texas Wins) working tirelessly with friendly committee chairs and others that blunted what would have normally been an anti-LGBT legislative wave. (20+ anti-gay bills filed this session.) The Gill Foundation Action Fund had a hand in this — as did Out & Equal and HRC pulling in the grassroots to lobby and flood the phones, inboxes and twitter accounts of legislators.
The message from the business community was simply: knock it off. Getting the Texas Association of Businesses (TAB) on board was a real coup — as was getting companies like Dell and BP to step up publicly. That took quite a bit of behind the scenes effort in and of itself.
The so-called “Texas Values” folks were backing Cecil Bell’s unconstitutional “defy the Supremes on marriage” bill, Sanford’s “license to discriminate in adoptions” bill, Riddle’s “target trans kids” bill among others basically got nothing.
Their only “victories” were the so-called “Pastors Protection” bill which simply restates the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights and a non-binding resolution in “support of marriage as one-man and one-woman”. (Commenters on twitter took to counting the multiple divorces among the supporters of that resolution.)
posted by Mike in Houston on
One of the big reasons for “progressive” LGBT groups being able to work hand-in-hand with little “c” conservative business interests has been a marked change in tactics…
The SoCons have been reduced to fear-driven emotion-based campaigns.
Instead, LGBT advocates in Texas, Georgia, & Florida — and Indiana — are going with data-driven, non-moralistic arguments — the same “business case” that LGBT employee groups have successfully made for the past 30 years.
Inside the conservative bubble, equality in employment — including recognizing LGBT families in the same context as straight families — seems to be brand new… unfortunately for these folks, we now have decades of data that proves the value of LGBT employees and pro-equality policies. Even worse for the fear-mongers, reality has a liberal bent: Straight employees see on a daily basis that LGBT co-workers don’t have tails and their family issues (braces, school, etc.) are as mundane as their own. And this has happened in conservative industries like the oil patch and auto-manufacturing… look at the HRC Corporate Equality Index and you’ll see the breadth and depth of the business culture change.
posted by clayton on
The Indiana RFRA act was opposed by business interests. Many major national corporations now have nondiscrimination policies, and it must be a HR nightmare when the marital satus of LGBT employees changes every time they cross state lines. Louisiana’s RFRA met similar opposition, causing it to die in committee, and causing Jindal to issue his executive order — which major corporations oppose. I would be very much surprised if business interests were not working behind the scenes in Texas. With NC governor McRory pledging to veto that state’s version of a RFRA, we may be seeing a real and tangible split between the ideologically driven base and the pragmatic party officials who see the writing on the wall and want to move on already.
posted by MR Bill on
Georgia’s “Religious Freedoms” bill was absolutely killed by the Business Republicans, much to the chagrin of the TeaParty/Religious Right crowd. And, much as it pains me, my rep. House Speaker David Ralston(R.-Blue Ridge) was instrumental in making sure it never made it out of the Judicial committee.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Heh, heh. And don’t think for a moment that the soc cons aren’t noticing the LGBT-friendly stance of the business community. Go to any TP/christianist blog, and you’ll see them grumbling. The long simmering differences between big business and big religion is about to boil over.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I have no doubt that many conservatives are probably not as insane as say, “God hates f-gs” or “religious freedom only applies to my religion” crowd.
The problem is that their are more then enough people in both groups to be relevant in primary elections and (thanks to seedy things such as gerrymandering) general elections as well.
As long as Republicans feel the need in primary or general elections to pander to the ‘God hates f-gs’ crowd or the ‘religious freedom really means anarchy’ crowd, they will probably do so.
In the U.K. the Conservative Party had to become more supportive of equality, because that was where the electorate was. Voters pushed all three parties — Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats — to the center on a number of policy issues.
Granted, the Conservatives are talking about gutting the U.K. Human Rights Act, so we will see what happens with that. However, once it became incredible clear that anti-gay politics was NO LONGER GOING TO BE REWARDED, the Tories acted accordingly.
Again, in the United States we still see Republican candidates pandering to anti-gay politics in primary and general elections. We still see too many gay Republicans and straight Republican allies willing to reward the GOP for its bad behavior.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988 and while he soon rejoined the GOP he made a lucrative financial-political career of appealing to the far right-wing with language that could also pick up some lucrative libertarians along the way.
Ron Paul’s son — Paul Ryan — is playing the same sort of career, although it is a bit tougher for him because certain issues — like gay marriage — have taken front stage in the debate and its really hard to appeal to both the far right and libertarians on an issue such as that.
When folks at the Cato Institute — a main libertarian think tank — essentially give their blessing to Ron Paul or Paul Ryan, it is little surprise that people associate these men and their policy ideas with libertarianism,
I would argue that their ideas are generally VEY close to the libertarian-right, which was heavily influenced by Ayn Rand. The main difference is that in order to appeal to the far right-wing, they have taken to a very un-libertarian reading of the 14th Amendment (or just pretend it does not exist).
posted by Lori Heine on
Paul Ryan(?????!!!!!)
TJIII, was Paul Ryan adopted by Ron Paul as a child? I had not heard this.
Perhaps he also adopted “Norm” Chomsky.
Your commentaries are becoming more interesting all the time.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. Ron Paul is the father. His son is Rand Paul. Both have made a successful career out of pandering to the far-right wing, in a manner that a sufficient number of libertarians (and libertarian wanabees) will buy.
With regrets to some of the name and grammar problems. My new, hi-tech ‘Fire’ — Kindle Fire — likes to make (cough, cough) “suggestions” whenever I use it to post messages on the Independent Gay Forum.
posted by Lori Heine on
Understood, TJIII.
Yes, those computer-program suggestions are sure to provide much mirth. I seem to remember an Olympic athlete whose last name was Gay, but who showed up in online articles with the moniker of “Homosexual.”
Offhand, I can’t recall his first name. Probably because–unfortunately–this is the only thing most people remember about him.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tyson Gay
posted by Houndentenor on
George Pataki just announced he’s running for President. For those not from NY, Pataki not only signed but lobbied for the state’s gay rights bill which had been languishing in the state senate for years. That may make him the only GOP candidate so far with a decent record on gay issues. He will no doubt drift to the right a bit but compared to Santorum, Cruz and others he is still far ahead. I hope he has some impact on the race or at least the conversation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/18/nyregion/pataki-signs-law-protecting-rights-of-gays.html
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Governor Pataki’s candidacy, although it is unlikely to be a factor outside of New Hampshire, provides an opportunity to test whether a pro-equality constituency remains in the Republican Party, and the strength of that constituency. I’ll be curious to see what happens.
posted by Jorge on
For those not from NY…
And some of us in it.
Well actually no, I remember he was part of that really old movement. But on the details, I remember Giuliani far more.
Well, thank you Houndentenor for giving me a reason to think his candidacy is actually relevant. I think he’s nuts for even considering running and I don’t intend to pay him any mind.
I mean, okay, maybe he’ll win New York (not a bad calculation), but Giuliani was from New York, too and that did not end well.
posted by Houndentenor on
I say this at least once a day somewhere. If I’ve said it here, forgive me. Running in the presidential primaries isn’t just about getting the nomination. Yes, for a handful it is. But it’s also the one time that each party has a public conversation about the policies and the agenda for the next four years. Different points of view need to be heard during the primary season and that means people running who know their chance is close to zero (although they won’t say it nor should they be forced to…it’s like a team admitting they aren’t going to win a game their about to play). Sometimes ideas from those candidates wind up in the platform and even become law or at least influence what the policies are for the next four years. That’s something. Our media loves to treat elections as a combination beauty pageant and horse race. We should find that insulting. They prefer polls over policy and issue discussion. That doesn’t mean we have to. Someone on the GOP stage who isn’t a complete far right anti-gay bigot would be something. It’s a shame that so far he looks like the only one.
posted by Jorge on
Oh I agree with 100%. It’s why I was very satisfied with Rick Santorum placing second last time, firmly defeating Ron Paul’s small government, dovish influence and moving Romney toward the big government, hawkish side.
(And then Mitt Romney #&%!ed it all up worse than Santorum on beastiality, pun intended. Gay swing voters probably make up less than 1% of the population, but Hispanics, people on government benefits, and poor Americans whose votes were up for grabs? Probably a lot more.)
Someone on the GOP stage who isn’t a complete far right anti-gay bigot would be something. It’s a shame that so far he looks like the only one.
In addition to Rick Santorum and just about everyone to the left of him, you overlook Lindsey Graham. I believe his line is he opposes gay marriage “without animosity.”
posted by Kosh III on
Meanwhile, in the conservative paradise that Sullivan, Stephen and fellow travelers revere so much…..
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/05/28/3663548/alabama-minister-fined-sentenced-probation-tries-marry-sex-couple/
Maybe they will go to Prattville and convince these conservative champions of liberty (sarcasm alert) that equal means equal?
posted by Jorge on
Nothing’s more worth genuflecting about in Conservative paradises than good old civil disobedience.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
It will be interesting to watch the George Pataki Presidential campaign, just like it will be interesting — for different reasons — to watch the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign.
George Pataki has flirted with the possibility of running for President before (I believe Bloomberg may have also thought about it), but (apparently) he feels that this is the best time for him to run in the GOP presidential primary.
I hope that his campaign does not simply transform into a method for helping another, better financed candidate — say, Bush — gain ‘cred’ as a moderate. in other words, I hope that Pataki campaign does not simply exist so that Pataki can — for a price — endorse Bush (or whomever the front runner becomes) and Bush (or whomever) can point to Pataki as evidence of his moderate nature, even through the promises will be made to folks that are not especially moderate.
posted by Jorge on
So I decided to take a look at Pataki’s campaign website.
He’s running as a moderate. A conservative moderate, or bipartisan or non-partisan of what have you. The only issue he talks about is big government, and in only the most cursory way. But the website does argue explicitly for a candidate who can reach across party lines, which he claims was once him.
I think Pataki fails to realize that in New York, more than the country as a whole, the tail wags the dog. New York is a state that loves its politics. It’s corrupt as all heck, and quite liberal, yet the state’s and city’s voters are very used to playing kingmaker between Republicans and Democrats, not to mention different Democrats.
There’s an article that actually argues Pataki has the best resume of any candidate running. It’s just that he’s the victim of poor timing many times over.
But that is why you do stuff in your free time. Write a book. Appear on TV. Join a think tank. Run the speaker circuit.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Rick Santorum essentially took the political position that gay sex should still be outlawed (in his criticism of the 2003 Lawrence decision). It could very well have been a cynical, calculated political move to make him the hero of the hardcore, socially conservative voters (who probably actually expected the criminal laws to be enforced should Santorum become president)
Oh I agree with 100%. It’s why I was very satisfied with placing second last time, firmly defeating Ron Paul’s small government, dovish influence and moving Romney toward the big government, hawkish side.
(And then Mitt Romney #&%!ed it all up worse than Santorum on beastiality, pun intended. Gay swing voters probably make up less than 1% of the population, but Hispanics, people on government benefits, and poor Americans whose votes were up for grabs? Probably a lot more.)
Someone on the GOP stage who isn’t a complete far right anti-gay bigot would be something. It’s a shame that so far he looks like the only one.
In addition to Rick Santorum and just about everyone to the left of him, you overlook Lindsey Graham. I believe his line is he opposes gay marriage “without animosity.”
posted by JohnInCA on
“without animosity”?
I’d ask if anyone actually buys that B.S. but then I remember that whats-his-name around here keeps insisting that Santorum is a stand-up guy.
posted by Lori Heine on
Yes, the “without animosity” line is most darkly amusing.
My mother had a saying: “Pretty is as pretty does.” The notion that people can do hateful things to others–yet “without animosity”–is farcical. Of course they have animosity toward us, or they wouldn’t be behaving toward us with animosity.
Pretty is as pretty does.