The Washington Blade reports Log Cabin continues to mull Trump endorsement, and David Boaz posts, “He’s wholly unfit for the presidency, he traffics in racial and religious scapegoating, but he’s not particularly antigay…. So what’s Log Cabin to do?”
And no, reports like this one, also in the Washington Blade, casting Trump as “anti-LGBT” for meeting with conservative evangelicals, at what must by definition be “an anti-LGBT event,” are engaging in falsification that’s, well, worthy of Donald Trump. LGBT progressives with bylines are just as scurrilous as the Hannity and Limbaugh gang on the other side.
On a more positive note, Rich Tafel and Ted Buerger look forward to how Creative Destruction Will Allow Republicans and Democrats to Rebuild After 2016, and conclude:
The irony is that, in the wake of Trump’s self-destruction, we Republicans may be more motivated to make that change, from which could rise a renewed, inclusive party of Lincoln. That is our opportunity.
If the party loyalists recognize that Ted Cruz opened the door for Donald Trump, than in the wake of Trump’s defeat there is indeed a possibility that the socially moderate message we heard from Jeb Bush and John Kasich could hold sway as the Republicans rebuild their party.
A good sign: Florida Gov. Scott: Same-sex marriage is ‘law of the land.’ “We need to figure out how to come together as a country,” he told Fox News. “[T]he Supreme Court has already made a decision. In my state, we’re focused on jobs.”
And the New York Times reports on Marco Rubio’s addressing Christian conservatives and telling them, “When it comes to our brothers and our sisters, our fellow Americans, our neighbors in the LGBT community, we should recognize,” he said, that American history “has been marred by discrimination against and rejection of gays and lesbians.”
More. Tafel and Buerger write of the two major parties and their presidential campaigns:
But Americans deserve better. Gallup polls now confirm that most Americans are “socially liberal and fiscally conservative.” As hopeful believers in the American dream, most Americans want a sustainable society based on innovation and opportunity, security and trust, private charity and public safety-net, inclusion and religious liberty, personal freedom and human dignity. That aspiration should be at the core of each political party. It is not.
Yes, inclusion and religious liberty are both core American values, although I can see LGBT progressives stamping their feet and shouting that “religious liberty” is nothing but code for discrimination (because, you know, God talk) that seeks to elevate individual conscience above compliance with the will of the state.
Furthermore. Progressives believe taxpayers should be forced to fund late-term abortions but that no taxpayer money should go toward grants allowing low-income students to attend religiously affiliated colleges that don’t support same-sex marriage.
26 Comments for “Trump and After Trump”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Washington Blade reports Log Cabin continues to mull Trump endorsement, and David Boaz posts, “He’s wholly unfit for the presidency, he traffics in racial and religious scapegoating, but he’s not particularly antigay…. So what’s Log Cabin to do?”
I can’t say that I care a whole lot about the nuances of LCR’s internal mulling or the result, since LCR endorsed Bush II, McCain and Romney, all of whom were staunch supporters of a federal anti-marriage amendment as well as all the other usual Republican dreck on LGBT issues (think NOM Pledge) and there is little daylight between the 2016 Platform and TPP’s positions on LGBT issues. Anti-equality positions of Republican presidential nominees hasn’t bothered LCR in the past, and if LCR doesn’t TPP, you can bet that it won’t be because his positions more or less mirror the anti-equality positions of the platform.
I’d love to see LCR grow a pair (several convention delegates have done so) and call TPP out on his LGBT positions, but I’m not holding my breath in light of Angelo’s gushing comments about TPP.
And no, reports like this one, also in the Washington Blade, casting Trump as “anti-LGBT” for meeting with conservative evangelicals, at what must by be definition “an anti-LGBT event,” are engaging in falsification that’s, well, worthy of Donald Trump. LGBT progressives with bylines are just as scurrilous as the Hannity and Limbaugh gang on the other side.
All that TPP’s attendance at the private meeting demonstrates is that TPP is not willing to piss of the anti-gay Christian right leg of the base. That’s not too surprising, since TPP folded on the “bathroom bills” as soon as conservative Christians pushed him on it. What counts is what TPP says to the group, and since its private, we probably won’t get much reliable information about it.
If the party loyalists recognize that Ted Cruz opened the door for Donald Trump, than in the wake of Trump’s defeat there is indeed a possibility that the socially moderate message we heard from Jeb Bush and John Kasich could hold sway as the Republicans rebuild their party.
Anything that moves the Republican Party in the direction of change on “equal means equal” is welcome. We’ll have to see what happens.
A quiet reminder, though: Before there can be a “wake of Trump’s defeat”, Trump must be defeated. So let’s focus on getting that done.
posted by Houndentenor on
Why do you think that the majority of the party that supported and supports Trump will ever embrace Kasich and Jeb Bush who didn’t even show up for the convention? Party “insiders” are still in denial and think they run the party, even after this year’s freak show. They don’t. The ouster of Boehner should have been a big clue. Maybe Trump will provide the wake-up call but from what I hear from actual GOP voters, they like Trump and are furious that the party “establishment” hasn’t embraced him. They take that as a personal insult. So as far as they are concerned, it’s Romney, McCain and company that have left the party. If that crowd wasn’t to run a party they are going to have to start a new one. They left and won’t be welcomed back.
posted by Jorge on
that the socially moderate message we heard from Jeb Bush and John Kasich could…
Oh, hell no.
You were doing great until you mentioned those two. They’re part of the problem! They were fine whining on and on and on about conservative values and their own superior self-righteousness until they got trumped by their own party.
and there is little daylight between the 2016 Platform and TPP’s positions on LGBT issues.
This is probably true. Much that is right about Trump is about tone rather than substance.
All that TPP’s attendance at the private meeting demonstrates is that TPP is not willing to piss of the anti-gay Christian right leg of the base.
The guy praised Planned Parenthood for Christsakes.
A quiet reminder, though: Before there can be a “wake of Trump’s defeat”, Trump must be defeated. So let’s focus on getting that done.
Not yet. There are bigger fish to fry.
posted by Houndentenor on
Trump is a little better on lbgt issues than previous GOP nominees. That’s nothing to brag about considering how low that bar is, but better. But then there’s the platform. And if that weren’t bad enough he picked Pence as a running mate who is worse than anyone else ever on social issues. So no, he doesn’t get any credit for toning things down a bit and a few shout outs during the convention, because his other actions showed the opposite. But that’s Trump. If he’s said anything at all that you agree with, he probably said the opposite, maybe even in the same speech.
posted by Jorge on
And if that weren’t bad enough he picked Pence as a running mate who is worse than anyone else ever on social issues.
This has never been explained outside of a few driveby references to his pro-life and pro-RFRA positions (granted I fear any inquiry into either VP nominee will bore me to tears). Is there something else to it or is it all about gay marriage and abortion?
posted by Doug on
Pence tried to cut AIDS research funding and move the money to support conversion therapy.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Much that is right about Trump is about tone rather than substance.
Snort.
posted by Jorge on
And then Marco Rubio hit his hands.
and that was his last mistake.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Lil Marco’s last mistake? Snort. He’s got his eyes on 2020. No-brainer prediction: The Robot make a bigger fool of himself in the next round than he ever did in the last one.
posted by Jorge on
Snort.
i watched Star Wars: The Force Awakens, last night, too.
*Swat*
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yes, inclusion and religious liberty are both core American values, although I can see LGBT progressives stamping their feet and shouting that “religious liberty” is nothing but code for discrimination (because, you know, God talk), which seeks to elevate individual conscience above compliance with the will of the state.
I wonder how many times we will have to go through this. Religious liberty is not protected by sanctioning targeted discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone, and opposing any and all attempts to expand “religious liberty” beyond that targeted discrimination.
FADA is a telling and apt example of the problem. When FADA protected religious opposition to same-sex marriage alone, the Republican Party (going so far as to support it in the party’s platform) and conservative Christians (AFA, FRC et al) were champions of “religious liberty”. When FADA was amended to protect religious affirmation of same-sex marriage as well as <opposition, FADA was dropped like a hot rock.
What is so special about religious opposition to same-sex marriage that it — and it alone — demands special government protection beyond Sherbert/Yoder? Until you and other self-described defenders of “religious liberty” face up to that question and begin to answer it, you are engaging in deception when you describe yourselves as defenders of religious liberty.
posted by Houndentenor on
How does anyone claim American is a socially conservative country given the polling numbers on gay marriage and abortion rights? The religious right is reduced to claiming that trans rights will allow sexual predators to cross-dress and molest girls in the ladies’ room in order to convince people to vote against gay rights ordinances because the gay part isn’t enough to get people riled up any more. I’ll agree that the country is right of center in many ways but not as right of center as the GOP is which explains the appeal of the Democratic party which is by and large only slightly left of center (and sometimes to the right of it).
posted by Jorge on
How does anyone claim American is a socially conservative country given the polling numbers on gay marriage and abortion rights?
Not to mention the survey results on sex before marriage.
I think more Americans are personally conservative than liberal, and this is what tricks political conservatives (think the personally pro-life/politically pro-choice voter that very few pro-life politicians go after). In matters of social politics, if there’s an equal chance of either position being wrong, most people would err on the liberal side. Politics presents difficult decisions as certainties, but that is a falsehood. (It’s also a falsehood that any two positions have an equal chance of being valid, but that’s a different story.)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The divide is between those who believe that personal conscience, religious or non-religious, should be the arbiter of abortion decisions and those who believe that the government should be the arbiter of abortion decisions. That is what accounts for the relatively large number of people who are “personally pro-life/politically pro-choice”.
The divide is not liberal versus conservative, or Democrat versus Republican, although it plays out that way because those who believe that the government should be the arbiter of abortion decisions cluster in the Republican Party.
posted by Jorge on
The divide is not liberal versus conservative, or Democrat versus Republican, although it plays out that way because those who believe that the government should be the arbiter of abortion decisions cluster in the Republican Party.
Oh. Hi!
I support Roe v. Wade. Abortion can be banned when we can prove human life begins, and not before. Why should personal conscience be used as an excuse to allow people to kill? So human life gets defined by the government as viability–well that at least is objective.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
My, how smug. A surface debating point, but nothing more, and irrelevant to the arbiter analysis.
posted by Jorge on
I’m simply evaluating your position, Tom.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m simply evaluating your position, Tom.
No you’re not. You’re deflecting.
Roe and other cases limiting bans/restrictions on abortion over the last 30 years are drawing a constitutional line, deciding when bans/restrictions on abortion fall afoul of the constitution, as written and interpreted by the Court. Roe and subsequent did not promulgate or support bans/restrictions on abortion, but instead ruled that the constitution prohibits the government from banning/restricting abortion in some circumstances.
The constitutional line is irrelevant to the political/philosophical distinction I was making. Except for clustering effects, the political/philosophical line is independent of party and/or conservative/liberal affiliation.
posted by Jorge on
No you’re not. You’re deflecting.
That’s an odd way to describe someone who’s agreeing with you.
posted by JohnInCA on
“progressives stamping their feet and shouting that “religious liberty” is nothing but code for discrimination”
Every single time conservatives are given the opportunity to demonstrate that “religious liberty” isn’t just code for LGBT-discrimination, they balk. “Afterschool Satan”? Balk. “School choice” vouchers going to Muslim schools? Balk. FADA covering both religious support and opposition to gay marriage? Balk. The SCOTUS saying a Muslim prisoner can grow a half-inch beard? Balk.
Fact is, it’s possible to structure these “religious liberty” laws and ideas such that they aren’t about discrimination, that they really are about religious liberty for everyone. And every single time, they refuse.
Heck, just saying “fine, you can have your discrimination, you just can’t spring it on people, announce it ahead of time”? They balk. The “religious liberty” crowd wants to discriminate, they want to not suffer social consequences for it, and they don’t want other religions to have the same liberty they seek to enjoy.
posted by Jorge on
Every single time conservatives are given the opportunity to demonstrate that “religious liberty” isn’t just code for LGBT-discrimination, they balk.
I call BS on the Muslim school vouchers and the half-inch beard.
posted by JohnInCA on
Given your history, I’m not sure I trust the accuracy of your olfactory-detection system.
posted by Jorge on
You’re “not sure?”
How can you be not sure? You’re the source! You should be dead certain of the quality of your own information. Just what is it you’re trying to hide?
Damn right my history is good reason for you to be “not sure” of your own information. And you can “not sure” yourself back to whichever hit-run piece you grabbed your information from until you’re Sure about it.
posted by JohnInCA on
Another thing I’m unsure about is your ability to parse a sentence and extract the correct meaning.
posted by Kosh III on
Sorry but no BS on Muslim school vouchers. These are both from the conservative paradises you soooooo adore from your comfy blue haven.
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/123616/religious-freedom-confusions-banning-mosques-and-muslim-school-vouchers
https://thinkprogress.org/tennessee-may-deliberately-exclude-muslim-schools-from-new-voucher-program-cdebfa0a1ef#.twpqwmdc1
posted by TJ on
Again, un-freedom ain’t freedom. These bills on religion are promoting in-freedom.
TPT picked a VP who wanted to gut AIDS funding, in order to fund ex-gay ministries. In addition to backing un-freedom.
I wouldn’t be surprised if somewhere down the road, the Republican party ends up being two parties.
Bloomberg is probably the most visible socially liberal-fiscal pro business Independent in America, and he backed Hillary.
I don’t see hardcore ideological parties – Green or Libertarian- gaining much political ground.