IGF CultureWatch

Another promising new organizational leader is the Gill Action Fund’s Kirk Fordham. As the Washington Blade reports:

Growing up in a Christian and Republican family, Fordham said he also has experience with parents who initially were unhappy about his sexual orientation, but later came to terms with it, and he knows what it takes to change the hearts and minds of people like them. …

A lifelong Republican, Fordham currently serves as CEO of Everglades Foundation, but has had experience working for several GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill, even some with anti-gay records. …

Fordham said he “absolutely” plans on reaching out to Republican lawmakers to influence them on LGBT issues and he knows “how to speak their language.”

Along with the impressive R. Clark Cooper at Log Cabin, the team at GOProud, and perhaps Chad Griffin, newly named head of the Human Rights Campaign (a liberal Democratic activist who has reached out to and worked with Republicans), the broader LGBT movement may yet realize that focusing on electing and lobbying Republicans who are socially libertarian (and preferably fiscally conservative) is the best way to make the Democrats less complacent toward us.

David Boaz of the Cato Institute remarks to Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin:

Every time Republicans have a big win — 1980, 1994, 2010 — it’s because Democrats have overreached on their big-government agenda and Republicans campaign on lower taxes and limited government. Every Republican strategist knows that smaller government is the unifying theme for Republicans and independents in this election. I think even Santorum knows it. I think he doesn’t really mean to get distracted into talking about homosexuality, contraception, and the outrage of separation of church and state. He just can’t help it.

In 2010, the nascent Tea Party movement, focused on fighting back against Obama’s trillions of dollars of debt expansion thrown willy-nilly at politically favored boondoggles, led to the GOP takeover of the House and strong gains in the Senate. But the empire strikes back, and social conservatives supporting Rick Santorum, the anti-libertarian, (and this) are showing they’re still potent.

This occurs just as the Koch brothers are attempting to take over the libertarian Cato Institute (a think tank that has played an important role in advancing gay legal equality, such as through its Supreme Court brief in Lawrence v. Texas that was cited approvingly in his decision by Justice Kennedy, and in supporting marriage equality) and turn Cato into another arm of their Republican election machine by placing Koch employees, Republican campaign operatives and social conservatives on its board. More on the libertarian-conservative divide from Outside the Beltway.

David Boaz writes of the societal progression toward gay legal equality:

Even as the Republican candidates fight to see who can get furthest to the right, acceptance of gay people and gay marriage in the United States is moving briskly along. … Republicans haven’t given up their opposition, but their resolve is weakening. A few GOP legislators helped put [marriage equality] over the top in New York, Washington, and Maryland. Former Republican national chairman Ken Mehlman and a group of libertarian-leaning GOP donors played a key role in [Gov. Andrew] Cuomo’s efforts in New York.

The formerly vocal opposition to gay marriage has quieted. Congressional Republicans haven’t revived the Federal Marriage Amendment. Conservative media stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh and Bill Buckley’s National Review have barely mentioned the issue. (When you search for gay marriage at National Review Online, you get lots of ads for things like “Gay Destination Weddings.”) The ambitious [N.J. Gov. Chris] Christie vetoed his state’s bill while also calling for a referendum on gay marriage rather than flatly rejecting the idea. He also has nominated an openly gay judge to the state Supreme Court.

As Boaz sums it up, “That sound you don’t hear is social change happening.”

Chad Griffin, newly named head of the Human Rights Campaign is, like his predecessor Joe Solmonese, a Democratic partisan with close ties to the Obama administration. But perhaps unlike Solmonese, who departs to join the Obama reelection effort, he seems more willing to work with Republicans (something you sensed Solmonese felt was anathema) and to be critical of the administration (again, something that seemed anathema for Solmonese). From The Advocate:

Griffin, 38, is a fervent supporter of President Obama with personal ties to White House officials, but … Griffin has been openly critical of the president’s evolving position on marriage equality, calling Obama’s indicated support for states’ rights on deciding who can marry “a step backwards.”

NARAL and Planned Parenthood pressed Obama to force Catholic-affiliated institutions to buy abortion-inducing drugs for employees. The environmental lobby got Obama to block a jobs- and energy-gushing pipeline and to lavish federal funding on corrupt “green” boondoogles. Meanwhile, HRC took a back seat to the Log Cabin Republicans on pushing for “don’t ask” repeal and sits back while Obama “evolves” ever so slowly on marriage equality. Will any of this change? We’ll see.

More. The Washington Blade concurs:

“The incoming HRC president also comes into the role as many critics contend HRC has been too cozy with the Obama administration and too afraid to criticize Democratic lawmakers.”

You think? Recall that Democrats were in charge of the House, Senate (with a supermajority) and presidency, and ENDA never moved out of committee. Why spend political capital when the nation’s largest LGBT lobby views its mission as promoting the party.

Sadly, Andrew Breitbart, a tireless pundit and blogger for small government/fiscal conservatism who delighted in exposing leftwing hypocrisies, has passed away. Breitbart was an advisor to GOProud, the conservative gay group, and rallied to its support after GOProud was excluded from participating in the national Conservative Political Action Conference.

What’s striking about the comments following the report in the Wall Street Journal is just how hateful are the remarks by some self-professed liberals (they have now been deleted, I see; I think they should have stayed up). As one commenter responded, “I’ve never seen so much rejoicing at a journalist’s death.”

Somewhat related, here’s an interesting piece from the American Spectator on how Santorum and his followers are trying to drive libertarians (or really, all who might be fiscally conservative but socially moderate) out of the conservative movement. Well, they’d be ideologically “purer” if they succeeded, I suppose, but they won’t win elections. Which is why Michael Moore has been encouraging Democrats to vote for Santorum (as Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com website reported).

More. The Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher retweets some of the posthumous hate and praise.

More. James Kirchick writes The Audacity of Breitbart:

In 2010, Breitbart joined the board of GOProud, a conservative gay organization. The following year, when the Conservative Political Action Conference announced that it would ban GOProud from its conference in deference to complaints from social conservative groups like the Family Research Council, Breitbart pulled out of the conference and declared that he would host a party for the “homocons” instead. His attitude on gays, like on most things, was shaped by the socially liberal milieux in which he was formed: southern California and New Orleans, where he attended Tulane University.

And more here, from Gay Patriot, Breitbart welcomed gays into conservative coalition.

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani says the GOP’s stance on gay marriage makes it look like it “doesn’t understand the modern world,” in an interview with CNN. You think?

Social Issues and the Santorum Surge, in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, presents James Taranto’s interview with conservative politico Jeffrey Bell. An excerpt:

Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues…has a winning track record for the GOP. … The populist nature of social conservatism perplexes liberals, who think less-affluent Americans ought to side with the party of statist economics. … Yet Mr. Bell notes that social conservatism is largely a working-class phenomenon: “Middle America does have more children than elite America, and they vote socially conservative, even though they might not necessarily be behaving that way in their personal life. They may be overwhelmed by the sexual revolution and its cultural impacts.”

Santorum is “the most consistent and unapologetic social conservative in the race,” Bell notes.

I imagine Obama would beat Santorum in a matchup (at least that’s the conventional wisdom held by the elite, for now), but Santorum’s surge points out the extent to which we’ve failed to convince working-class America that gay equality is a positive development. Instead, gay rights has been perceptually lumped with both the over-expansion of state intrusiveness and the “sexual revolution”—phenomenon of the left that are viewed (and with some justification) as having destabilized traditional social bedrocks like marriage and community.

There’s a price to be paid by making gay rights part of the agenda of the left, and the Santorum surge may be part of that price.

More. Along the same lines, social conservative columnist Star Parker hails Santorum’s rise, linking it to “three recent left-wing victories”—the appellate ruling that California’s anti-gay-marriage Prop. 8 is unconstitutional; the orchestrated attacks on the Susan G. Komen foundation that led to the reversal of its decision to withdraw funding for Planned Parenthood over the latter’s abortion services; and the administration’s refusing to grant religiously affiliated organizations an exemption from Obamacare’s employer mandate requiring provision of free contraception, abortifacient drugs and sterilization.

The liberal-left supports all three actions; the social right opposes all three. Some of us hear the Sesame Street ditty, “which one of these things is not like the other.”

In a Washington Post op-ed (the print version was titled “The Myth of Gays vs. Blacks”), Maya Rupert, the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ federal policy director, argues that:

with depressing regularity, divisive and misleading rhetoric is dredged up whenever same-sex couples’ right to marry is put to a legislative or popular vote—often exacerbating the false myth of a rift between gays and blacks.

As the op-ed continues, it appears that black opposition to marriage equality isn’t exactly a myth, but it is the fault of insufficiently progressive government social policies and spending, in Rupert’s view. She admits, for instance, that:

The Post reported recently that 53 percent of black voters in the state opposed the marriage-equality bill introduced by [Maryland] Gov. Martin O’Malley (D). Another recent survey, by Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies Inc., concluded that support for marriage equality among black voters in Maryland has steadily declined over the past three months as the issue has gained prominence. The survey claimed that “opposition to same-sex marriage among African-American voters is what keeps the issue close in the state.”

But Rupert contends these numbers, like reports that 7 in 10 African Americans who went to the polls in California voted yes on the anti-gay-marriage Prop. 8 initiative, “mask a much more complex, and hopeful, reality.” Well, “hopeful” sounds nice, until you get to Rupert’s policy recommendations. She writes that:

marriage feels more fragile to many blacks because of a shrinking pool of available black men—due to disparate incarceration rates and the lack of meaningful and equal access to education and employment.

One could also say because of higher criminality rates among young black men.

Rupert continues that:

So while black couples are not legally precluded from marrying, social and legal inequalities make it just as inaccessible for many. Further, although the decline of marriage in the black community is rooted in racial and economic inequality, no state or federal policies have been introduced to address the problem. This political silence may well reflect much more about blacks’ historically lukewarm reaction to same-sex marriage than the oft-repeated, and offensive, assumption that black Americans are innately more homophobic than other groups.

So the answer is more welfare, economic redistribution and race-based preferences? That’s the liberal response to every social problem, I suppose.

As to Rupert’s contention about the “lack of meaningful and equal access to education,” black columnist Walter Williams wrote last week on this very topic, observing:

Many black students are alien and hostile to the education process. They are permitted to make education impossible for other students. Their misbehavior and violence require schools to divert resources away from education and spend them on security. … The sorry and tragic state of black education is not going to be turned around until there’s a change in what’s acceptable and unacceptable behavior by young people. That change has to come from within the black community.

Williams notes, further:

I graduated from Philadelphia’s Benjamin Franklin High School in 1954. Franklin’s students were from the poorest North Philadelphia neighborhoods—such as the Richard Allen housing project, where I lived—but there were no policemen patrolling the hallways. … Students didn’t use foul language to teachers, much less assault them.

How might one explain the greater civility of Philadelphia and other big-city, predominantly black schools during earlier periods compared with today? Would anyone argue that during the ’40s and ’50s…there was less racial discrimination and poverty and there were greater opportunities for blacks and that’s why academic performance was higher and there was greater civility?….If white and black liberals and civil rights leaders want to make such arguments, they’d best wait until those of us who lived during the ’40s and ’50s have departed the scene.

Someone might tell that to Maya Rupert.

African-American opposition isn’t the sole roadblock to same-sex marriage, of course—witness this week’s depressing veto of a marriage equality bill by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (and he’s considered somewhat of a fiscal conservative, social moderate by GOP standards).

But blacks, unlike white evangelicals, are part of the rainbow coalition of the left that supports the Democratic Party and pushes for progressive policies. While elected black officials are willing to support gay equality as part of that coalition, black voters clearly aren’t onboard. And more government spending or preferential treatment isn’t going to change things.

More. I expected some of our loyal left-liberal readers would take aim, but the reflexive characterization of myself and this post as “racist” is still disappointing. I can’t respond better than “Another Steve,” who replied in the comments:

Criticize the prevalence of homophobia in the black community – RACIST. Point out that government isn’t the solution to what ails the black community (and actually, it was the cause of a great many of the social pathologies that liberals would have government now rectify through more govenrment) – RACIST. Ah, well, Much more fun to…feel all smug and superior to those RACISTS than actually worry about the problems at hand — that a majority of the black electorate joins with the religious right in blocking marriage equality.

Younger attendees at the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) overwhelmingly thought the event’s organizers were wrong to bar GOProud, the conservative gay group that participated last year—triggering a boycott (since lifted after GOProud’s exclusion) by the Heritage Foundation and other anti-gay social-right groups, reports Stephen Richer at Forbes.com.

And so the fight continues among those of us who see the leftwing bureaucratic-welfare state as an economic dead end and the rightwing reactionary traditional-values-and-moralism state as a sociocultural dead end. Both represent an ongoing threat to a dynamic, innovative society founded on individual liberty and voluntary (rather than coercive) community.

Roger Simon explains why a Santorum nomination would be a GOP disaster — the Republican social right may be fine with overt homophobia, but the country isn’t any longer:

[M]ost people these days have homosexuals among their friends, family, or work colleagues and don’t appreciate even the whiff of bigotry. It’s become a big no-no. Santorum does not have a good track record in that regard. He is the only politician I know of who merits his own Wikipedia entry on the subject: “Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality.” Some of the quotations at that site from the former senator are not pretty. …
In most areas — economics, foreign policy, health care, etc. — I agree more or less with Rick Santorum. … I am certain, however, a Santorum nomination will be fraught with allegations of homophobia that may very well be fatal to his chances and to the Republican Party. Romney and Gingrich, for various reasons, some of them obvious, will not be able to say much about this during the nominating process. But you can sure as Hell bet the Democrats will if Santorum succeeds.