New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, alarmed by signs that suggest GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump is seeing a rise in support from the gay community, made the following declaration:
“That’s terrifying,” Booker told the Washington Examiner after the Democratic National Convention. “Donald Trump probably picked one of the most anti-gay vice presidential candidates we’ve had in a long time.”
Booker said Gov. Mike Pence, R-Ind., has been at the forefront of leading efforts he said unfairly discriminate against members of the LGBT community. The New Jersey senator went on to argue why he believes the Democratic Party is best for the gay community.
“Clearly we are the party of civil rights, worker’s rights, women’s rights and definitely gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights,” Booker said.
“Instanpundit” Glenn Reynolds picked up on this, and his readers share some interesting comments.
I’ve previously explained why, in my view, Mike Pence is being unfairly demonized and why, in America, people should not be compelled by the state to provide expressive services to same-sex weddings when to do so violates their religious convictions. But Booker’s comments are in keeping with the view of LGBT activists and media. This week, the Washington Blade was devoted almost exclusively to a celebration of all things Hillary while it’s been denouncing all things Trump, including commentary deploying the “f” word (as in “fascist”).
There is much to criticize about both presidential candidates, but for all his many bad positions, animus toward gay people is not a Trump hallmark. He is arguably the best GOP presidential nominee on “LGBTQ” issues we’ve seen, and far better than the party as a whole when it comes to LGBT inclusion.
Also this week, the Washington Post reports that Chelsea Clinton, appearing on a panel sponsored by Facebook and Glamour magazine, shared this bit of wisdom:
“I would just say urgently to every young woman, and, yes, every young man, um, every person who may not know their gender yet, or may have no gender identity — whatever you care about is at stake in this election,” she said….
The next day, she was the star guest at a Human Rights Campaign lunch where, the paper recounts, “She received several standing ovations in her nine-minute remarks.”
Recall that, despite no journalistic experience, NBC News paid Chelsea Clinton an annual salary of $600,000 to be a special correspondent, which included interviewing the Geico gecko, until she lost interest in that endeavor. But when you’re party royalty, and it’s the correct party, nothing is good enough.
Semi-related. David Frum, a moderate Republican who opposes Trump, looks at what liberals don’t understand about Trump’s popularity among his supporters. (No, they’re not backing him because they’re “fascists.”) It speaks to the widely shared perception among Trump voters that the system is rigged in favor of wealthy elites and government-entitled minorities—what others have termed the liberal “top-bottom coalition”—and how their daily experiences confirm that view.
32 Comments for “Annals of the One True Party”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’ve previously explained why, in my view, Mike Pence is being unfairly demonized and why, in America, people should not be compelled by the state to provide expressive services to same-sex weddings when to do so violates their religious convictions.
Why the laser focus on same-sex weddings? What about other weddings (for example, weddings where one or both of the parties have been divorced) which are or may be religiously objectionable?
Are gays and lesbians deserving of special discrimination under the law? Why? Are religious opponents of same-sex marriages deserving of special treatment under the law? Again, why?
You seem to think so, but I can’t fathom why you think so.
posted by Walker on
If you can’t figure out how Miller thinks after rebutting him for 300 straight days, you should probably hang it up.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If you can’t figure out how Miller thinks after rebutting him for 300 straight days, you should probably hang it up.
I’ve asked this question for a long time, and Stephen has never so much as given a clue as to why he supports protection for “expressive services” only in the case of same-sex marriages. He’s never discussed religious liberty in any other context, and never discussed why religious opposition to same-sex marriage is so important, in contrast to any other form of religious liberty, that it demands special government sanction.
So I’m clueless, 300 days of asking or not. You obviously aren’t. So why don’t you explain Stephen’s thinking on this issue?
posted by Paul Mittleman on
And same sex marriage is a civil matter–I don’t understand how one could even have a valid religious objection to it.
posted by TJ on
BTW it’s pretty tacky to refer to Chelsea Clinton as “royalty”.
Policy aside, As offspring of major party presidential candidate, she seems remarkably grounded.
posted by Doug on
‘. . . in my view, Mike Pence is being unfairly demonized and why. . . ‘
Unfairly demonized? Pence proposed cutting AIDS research funding and using the funds for conversion therapy. You are one sick puppy, Stephen, if that isn’t suffice reason to demonize someone.
posted by TJ on
TPP has pledged his substantive domestic policy to the folks that don’t agree with the good things that the high court has said about gay rights.
He has not actually supported equality, without quickly backtracting.
posted by TJ on
It looks like a pro-life, conservative Republican is running against. Trump as an Independent. hmmmm.
posted by TJ on
No doubt an example of the religious un-liberty cause that Stephen supports
posted by Tom Scharbach on
David Frum, a moderate Republican who opposes Trump, looks at what liberals don’t understand about Trump’s popularity among his supporters. (No, they’re not backing him because they’re “fascists.”)
The “fascist” tag is intellectual laziness, politics of meme, and liberals are not the only singers using that hymnal.
TPP is a demagogue, but he did not clean the Republican establishment’s (tassel-loafer Republicans, social conservatives and “libertarians”) clock because his supporters are “fascists”. TPP cleaned the Republican establishment’s clock because conservative working class voters are disaffected with the party’s slavish devotion to the failed Reganite economic policies of the last three decades, despise the bipartisan consensus favoring ever more immigration of low-skilled workers and deportation of jobs to the second and third worlds, and sense (probably correctly) that the American elite has misgoverned the country at home and abroad.
Attacks on the Republican establishment in the past (think the “Tea Party” movement) challenged deviations from “official” conservative principle, TPP went after the full post-Reagan conservative matrix and won. If TPP becomes President, the “party of Reagan” is history. If TPP loses, the “2016 Autopsy” is going to be interesting, indeed.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
NBC has an interesting, in-depth statistical look at Trump primary voters. I’ll be curious to see what happens to those voters in the general election. I think that this election is going to be a lot closer than most people seem to think.
posted by Houndentenor on
Stephen, do you have data to support a rise in lbgt support for Republicans? Because the only numbers I’ve seen this year (and it was just one poll) showed considerably less lbgt support for Trump vs previous Republican candidates. Republican presidential candidates tend to get about 25% of the gay vote, but Trump was polling at about 16%. If you have other numbers, I would like to see them.
posted by TJ on
A person elected to major office, on a major party ticket, is probably going to back his or her party’s presidential candidate and encourage others to do likewise. It ain’t just “east coast elites”. This is why when a major party office holder doesn’t endorse the ticket. its often a human interest news story.
Granted, its entirely possible Trump has been too busy attacking the disabled, immigrants, Muslims, Jews and women….that LGBT people have missed out.
Not to mention the entire, “The President ain’t an American and ain’t a Christian” trash that Trump helped to promote via the birther movement.
The RNC was an exercise in laziness. Im sad to say this, but its true. I actually wish the party was so lazy. A few people said some nice things, but too many people were too lazy too actually do nice things.
Beyond all of that, the only major polls I have seen on gay voters are exit polls. So, Im not sure how anyone can say that the likely number of gay Republicans has significantly changed.
posted by Houndentenor on
At least once a week someone actually tells me with no shame or irony that they believe Obama is a Muslim and was born in Kenya. I think the more moderate and same people in the GOP have been in denial about this for years. And here it is embodied in Trump. They’ve lost their party. It’s official and there’s no getting it back. Either embrace Gary Jonson or start something new, but the GOP is the religious right/racist/sexist/homophobic party and a could of lbgt shout-outs and a Democratic speech by Ivanka Trump doesn’t change that.
posted by TJ on
Stephen;
You are going to have people with a “strong party ID” for the Republican or Democratic party. Major elected officials are probably going to demonstrate a strong party ID.
Now, strong party ID people are important for both parties, and some LGBT people may have this ID.
However, a large segment of people have a weaker attachment to a party.
For LGBT people in this category they may vote for the Democrats, because the Republicans in their neck of the woods, hate gays as much as they hate Mexicans or Arabs or Muslims .
It ain’t “blind” party loyalty.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
[A]nimus toward gay people is not a Trump hallmark.
True. But as far as I know, none of the Republican nominees of recent vintage (Reagan, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, Romney) expressed any particular animus toward gay people, either, though, so I’m not sure how this factors in. It seems to me that positions on LGBT issues, not animus or lack of animus, are what are important.
He is arguably the best GOP presidential nominee on “LGBTQ” issues we’ve seen …
Also true, in terms of positions taken. TPP is the first Republican nominee who opposes a federal anti-marriage amendment, and at one point made an offhand comment that suggested support for the Equality Act, which would, if he follows through as President, be a historic first for a Republican. In addition to his positions, TPP also “directly referenced the LGBTQ community” in his acceptance speech, at (per LCR’s Greg Angelo) “political risk” and against the advice of the “consultant class”. In comparison to past nominees, I’d say that TPP is clearly “the best … we’ve seen”.
The question, though, is what that means in practical terms. Which leads us to:
… and far better than the party as a whole when it comes to LGBT inclusion.
I guess (TPP has been silent on conversion therapy, for example), but nonetheless, TPP’s positions mirror the platform’s positions in most important respects.
The platform opposes same-sex marriage. TPP opposes same-sex marriage.
The platform describes Obergefell as a “judicial Putsch” and demands that it be overturned. TPP described Obergefell as “shocking” and takes the position that it should be overturned.
The platform calls for appointment of judges and justices who will overturn Obergefell. TPP pledges to appoint judges and justices who will do so.
The platform endorsed FADA in its original form, which was laser-focused on protecting opposition to same-sex marriage. TPP supported FADA in its original form. No word on whether either will continue to support FADA now that it has been amended to cover religious objection to other forms of marriage. The FRC, the Liberty Counsel and other Republican-aligned conservative Christian groups have pulled the plug on FADA since the amendments.
And so on. We can go through the platform’s and TPP’s positions point by point in more detail, I suppose, but I think that while it is fair to say that TPP’s divergence from the platform on LGBT issues, where it exists, is a positive development, it is a serious stretch to say that TPP “is far better than the party as a whole” in this respect. A bit gushy.
posted by Houndentenor on
One of my childhood friends reminded me this weekend on Facebook that I had been “all in” for Gerald Ford in 1976. I was. And I don’t regret that. I do regret later votes for Reagan and Bush Sr (1988 not 1992), but I liked Ford. If that was still the GOP I’d be a swing voter. And I still think Betty Ford was the best FLOTUS of my lifetime. (No subsequent First Lady has dared speak her mind that openly which is a real shame.) I would love to have choices for public office in which one didn’t promise to roll back lbgt court rulings. When is that going to happen? After over 30 years of Log Cabin efforts this year’s GOP platform is the worst ever.
posted by Jorge on
There are few stats I’m as fond as quoting as President Bush winning 23% of the LGBT vote in 2004 when the Federal Marriage Amendment was a political issue (down from 25% in 2000).
Now, the previous time (we?) checked, Trumps’ support among gays was something like 15 or 17%.
I don’t think anybody really understood the reason. It’s not that surprising that the gay right vote would ignore Mike Pence and the RNC platform (I did) and respond to the overtures of Trump, Peter Thiel, and even Caitlyn Jenner to bounce back. So what are we going to see (I haven’t seen the latest results)?
On a side note, am I the only person who thinks Hillary Clinton gave a really good speech? I’m back to being undecided, leaning Trump.
posted by Jorge on
(Looks)
…..I see no substance to the claim. If it’s there, the articles aren’t providing or linking to it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It speaks to the widely shared perception among Trump voters that the system is rigged in favor of wealthy elites and government-entitled minorities—what others have termed the liberal “top-bottom coalition”—and how their daily experiences confirm that view.
All of the Republican candidates said that in one form or another. Its been the standard Republican meme for thirty years, back to the days of Reagan’s “welfare queen” talking point. It has been an article of faith among Republicans that “liberal elites” and minorities have somehow been outsmarting them and robbing them for a long, long time. Nothing new in that.
What differentiated TPP from the 16 political midgets he slayed during the primaries was that TPP didn’t offer up the old, tired, unworkable Reaganomic nostrums, coupled with a replay of the conservative Christian version of “Scary Movie” about gays and lesbians, single mothers and all the rest. TPP didn’t double down on conservative orthodoxy, but instead tossed it aside.
I’m not sure what that means for the future of the Republican Party, but I’ll make an observation. I laughed when the establishment started talking about turning to Speaker Ryan as Republican moshiach, and not just because Ryan is from Wisconsin and we know him as the lightweight he is. Ryan was smart not to run in the primaries, because TPP would have destroyed him.
posted by Jorge on
What differentiated TPP from the 16 political midgets he slayed
Really? They were all political midgets? Even Tom thinks Trump is the “only one” who can save this country. Or is this just a commentary on how bizarre the qualifications for political office have become?
TPP didn’t double down on conservative orthodoxy, but instead tossed it aside.
Yeah!
Unworkable rostrums + scary movie. That sounds like this election, too.
If Paul Ryan is the most important or most promising potential figurehead of the Not Trump faction, pitting him in direct opposition to the Trump candidacy is useless. Most of Ryan’s power derives from being Speaker of the House, and the power of that position derives from its relationship to the president, not the candidates for president. The minute he steps away from that role, he loses his power.
The Speaker of the House fills an important role in the separation of powers. It is also second in the line of presidential succession. Thus when cultivating Paul Ryan as a potential competitor to Trump, it is important to preserve his power as much as possible.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Really? They were all political midgets?
Yup, they were. Not one of them caught on to the game Trump was playing, and none of them so much as thought about his appeal. One by one, they spouted the same old conservative mush, entirely missing the fact that Trump was stealing the party out from underneath them because Trump was speaking to a sizeable audience that had been ignored by the party for years and years. A decent politician would have quickly caught on to the shifting winds in the party, and fashioned an effective response. None did. They just kept reading off the same tired old script.
posted by Jorge on
Not one of them caught on to the game Trump was playing, and none of them so much as thought about his appeal…
I think that’s a little harsh and also premature. There is more to the presidential election than who the Republican nominee is and whether or not Hillary Clinton wins. I also think you’re too dismissive of the factionalism and ongoing rightward shift of the party that shaped the race between the non-Trump candidates.
It really is quite ridiculous how much of the primary devolved into diatribes about who the Republican nominee should be and what terrible things will happen if Clinton wins. But that is not all that it was about. There was some muscling through of actual ideas. There always is. Trump’s philosophy is a little different, but he couldn’t ignore his opponents on substance entirely. Neither could Clinton.
That struggle of ideas is still going on. Every whisper, sigh, and groan is both a statement about what the next president needs to actually do and a posture at the opposite pre-Trump faction of the party. In the end, Trump will either have a great fall or avert one, and either way, the Never Trump movement wins.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Jorge, I don’t know what I’m dismissive of or not, but my point has nothing at all to do with the much ballyhooed “struggle for the soul of the Republican Party”, the tassel-loafer Republican’s dismay at the aftermath of years and years of encouraging both hard-core religious conservatives and Tea Party types. That will be a subject for the 2016 Autopsy if TPP loses, or be moot if he wins, because the party will be recast in gold.
I’m speaking to something much simpler issue — the cluelessness and confusion that the other candidates and party officials displayed as TPP swept the rug out from under them, and the total lack of an effective political response on the part of any of the candidates and on the part of party officials.
I don’t know if a winning response could have been mounted, given that about 40% of the Republican base is, was and will continue to be rock-solid for TPP. But the candidates and party officials couldn’t even formulate a counterattack at all, much less an effective counterattack. I don’t think any of them could see outside the box of Republican orthodoxy, and ended up being steamrolled.
The panic and confusion hasn’t stopped. As TPP appealed to his base this week by doubling down on his anti-Muslim meme and his attacks on the “disaster” that our military has become since it became more diverse, not to mention his dismissive remarks about the Purple Heart and the nature of military sacrifice, coupled with going after Speaker Ryan and other establishment Republicans, the party is running around like panicked sheep in a thunderstorm.
We can talk about why the Republican establishment can’t mount an effective response to TPP (I think that the reasons are built in), but I’m simple observing the facts and commenting on them.
posted by Jorge on
…I don’t know if a winning response could have been mounted
And I would suggest that not in every case should a winning response have been mounted, that in some fronts, the “struggle for the soul of the Republican party” was the more important one.
Consider how different the Romney campaign’s position on foreign policy might have been if Ron Paul instead of Rick Santorum had finished second in the 2012 primary. Or what Clinton’s and the party’s domestic policies might be if Jim Webb instead of Bernie Sanders placed had a close second this year. Why did any of those also-rans even bother fighting the juggernaut? Granted, this year so many candidates thought they had a good shot.
The panic and confusion hasn’t stopped.
I would agree with that. Trump has a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory when he should stay on message.
I also find myself agreeing with him that the election is going to be rigged–by his own side. (Not entirely surprising now that I think of it.) Trump is perfectly justified not endorsing Paul Ryan and other establishment Republicans in their primary races. This recent narrative that Trump may be mentally ill or thinking of dropping out of the race has all the fingerprints of a desperate false flag attack, and it makes me very angry.
We can talk about why the Republican establishment can’t mount an effective response to TPP (I think that the reasons are built in)
They’re being undermined by the moderates they thought they had cowed into submission?
People don’t listen to their flowery junk mail anymore; they want results, not ideological fluff or alarmist partisan warnings?
posted by TJ on
Trump is playing the Know Nothings Party playbook. If we did a better job teaching history, more people might actually know this.
The nativist party was one of the first and most successful third parties in America.
posted by Kosh III on
Tell me again why Trump is absolutely fabulous for gay citizens?
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/trump_to_address_hundreds_of_evangelical_leaders_at_event_linked_to_anti_gay_hate_group
posted by Jorge on
Why is he absolutely fabulous for gay citizens? 1) Because he and his surrogates have declared illegal immigrants, Black Lives Matter his enemies and law and order his mission.
And radical Islam, too.
Why is he absolutely fabulous for gay citizens? 2) Because he wants Second Amendment citizens to get Hillary, Peter Thiel doesn’t like talking about bathrooms. and he sometimes forgets who David Duke is. This isn’t a zero-sum game. The leader of the United States should be willing to meet with representatives of all political ideologies and social groups. A little too mindlessly optimistic? He should exclude some groups as beneath his dignity? Then…
posted by Doug on
I guess you missed the support for ‘conversion therapy’ in the platform. Hope you have your pink triangle ready to pin on.
posted by Jorge on
In an era of increasing paranoia over giant nothings, I think the fact that a mainstream political party cares enough about spiteing political correctness and the nannystate to put support for the right of people and practitioners to utilize practices often derided as conversion therapy is something to be celebrated.
posted by Doug on
I’m sure the good folks in Flint, Michigan would appreciate having the ‘nanny state’ make sure their water was safe instead of being poisoned and lied too by the Republicans in charge.
posted by Jorge on
I’m sure the good folks in Flint, Michigan would appreciate having the ‘nanny state’ make sure their water was safe instead of being poisoned and lied too by the Republicans in charge
Much as I love big government Republicanism, you do realize you’re attacking big government Republicanism in response to a small government argument, right? That’s called attacking a strawman.