IGF CultureWatch

Via BuzzFeed: The 5 Republicans Who Mentioned (Gay) Marriage on Stage in Tampa. Romney and Ryan spoke in code about honoring and defending marriage, while Huckabee, Santorum and McDonnell were only slightly more forthright. All, however, avoided the words “same-sex” or “gay,” or explicit appeals to pass the anti-gay federal marriage amendment. It’s what some call “dog whistle politics,” in which independents might hear nonthreatening words about respecting marriage while social conservative activists decode a harsher message.

All in all, outside of the platform, (red meat for the hardcore base, the right’s “wingnuts”), social issues were decidedly low key at the GOP convention.

Another BuzzFeed post sent reporters to the convention floor, where they observed two interesting findings:

I only saw one person wearing something for “traditional” marriage, and it was this pin. (#34).

and

This PRO-LIFE pin was the most popular pin. It was everywhere. (#31)

It’s a continuing shift, and it will take one or two more cycles (at least), but the energy in the conservative movement is moving away from anti-gay militancy. And that includes major donors, including the biggest players.

More. Openly gay former GOP congressman Jim Kolbe does the best a gay Republican can in giving a qualified endorsement to Romney. If Log Cabin Republicans don’t go at least this far, they will be frozen out of the GOP discussion with no access to White House insiders, as they were after their refusal to endorse the reelection of George W. Bush. If they do give a qualified endorsement, the LGBT left will go ballistic. But since Log Cabin’s mission is to work to influence the GOP, better to have the gay left upset, I would think. (GOProud, the more ideologically conservative gay group, already endorsed Romney.)

The New York Times considers the future of Ron Paul-inspired pro-liberty Republicans:

The purity of the movement’s principles has long left it in self-imposed isolation. The minimalist role it envisions for government repels a vast majority of Democrats; its noninterventionist foreign policy and live-and-let-live social views repel most Republicans. . . .

Simple generational change could give the movement a boost in elections to come. Younger voters of all stripes display increasing tolerance on social issues like same-sex marriage; the fiscal conservatives among them will fit into the libertarian camp far more easily than older, conservative Christian Republicans. In New Hampshire [where Paul placed second to Romney], for instance, Mr. Paul drew half his votes from people under 45. Three-fourths of Mr. Romney’s votes came from people 45 and older.

No one is saying it won’t be a challenge, but the fight must be engaged. Simply working to elect big-government Democrats whose agenda is pro-gay but promises a menu of ever-increasing bureaucratic statism means that gay legal equality gets forever tagged as part of anti-liberty leftism.

Paul wasn’t right on everything, but he opposed the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, calling it a “very bad idea,” and voted to end “don’t ask, don’t tell,” citing his conversations with gay veterans. More on Ron Paul and marriage equality, here and here.

More. From the Washington Times, “Paul forecasts a libertarian storm brewing.” Ron Paul bids farewell to his supporters, telling them that the cause of liberty is bigger than any convention or election:

“We will get into the ‘[Republican] tent, believe me,” he said. “Because we will become the tent, eventually.”

But Paul-style libertarians (unlike many tea party activists) are at ideological odds with big government social conservatives, and many say they will not vote for Romney (or Obama). The only way they can “become the tent” is if the theocratic right diminishes.

Furthermore. Michael Barone observes: “conservative stands on cultural issues have repelled affluent suburbanites, particularly unmarried women…. (Republicans) need to add votes from other groups to win. White noncollege voters and white evangelical Christians were only 42% and 37%, respectively, of the winning Republican coalition in the 2010 congressional elections.”

In light of Missouri GOP Congressman and Senate candidate Todd Akins’ remarks about a woman’s ability to tense up and avoid pregnancy during a “legitimate rape,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie reportedly said:

Akin should to resign from public life, not so much because of the “incomprehensive” statement, but for his beliefs. “I listened to the video three times,” Christie said. “It is some of the stupidest stuff I ever heard in my life.” “I’m offended by what he thinks,” he said. “My problem is that he thinks it,” said Christie.

Meanwhile, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabbee, a leader of the party’s social conservatives, is blasting the GOP for not standing behind Akin. In a fundraising email on Akin’s behalf, Huckabee slams the party for selling out social conservatives, writing:

The Party’s leaders have for reasons that aren’t rational, left him behind on the political battlefield, wounded and bleeding, a casualty of his self-inflicted, but not intentional wound. In a Party that supposedly stands for life, it was tragic to see the carefully orchestrated and systematic attack on a fellow Republican. Not for a moral failure or corruption or a criminal act, but for a misstatement which he contritely and utterly repudiated. I was shocked by GOP leaders and elected officials who rushed so quickly to end the political life of a candidate over a mistaken comment in an interview. This was a serious mistake, but it was blown out of proportion not by the left, but by Akin’s own Republican Party. Is this what the party really thinks of principled pro-life advocates? Do we forgive and forget the verbal gaffes of Republicans who are “conveniently pro-life” for political advantage, but crucify one who truly believes that every life is sacred?

In retrospect, this might be seen as a defining moment for the GOP. The religious right has just cost them a Missouri senate seat, and possibly control of the Senate. A cadre of loyal foot soldiers is increasingly being exposed as a reactionary liability.

From the Log Cabin Republicans, on the GOP platform:

[Family Research Council head] Tony Perkins may be boasting today about having written an antigay marriage plank into the Republican Party platform, but it will be a hollow and short-lived victory,” said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper. “The obsessive exclusion of gay couples, including military families, from the rights and responsibilities of marriage, combined with bizarre rhetoric about ‘hate campaigns’ and ‘the homosexual rights agenda’ are clear signs of desperation among social conservatives who know that public opinion is rapidly turning in favor of equality.

Unfortunately, what voters can’t see in this document is the significant debate within the Committee. We were pleased to see vigorous debate on amendments in support of civil unions and to delete language regarding DOMA. While these measures failed, the future direction of our party clearly trends toward inclusion. This may well be the last time a platform will cater to the likes of the Family Research Council on marriage, and the fact is, platforms rarely influence policy. Tony will never see his discrimination written into the United States Constitution.”

Let’s hope so.

Here’s an example that shows how LGBT Democratic partisan operatives who present themselves as LGBT activists owe their primary allegiance to the party, not to struggle for gay legal equality.

As San Diego’s LGBT Weekly reports, far-right Democratic Kansas state representative Jan Pauls will run against a Republican with a record of support for gay rights in the state legislative race. Democrat Pauls authored the Kansas anti-marriage-equality law and has fought hard to keep its sodomy laws on the books. LGBT activist groups are unlikely to support her, but the Equality Coalition “has not decided whether or not to back [Paul’s opponent Dakota Bass] in the general election.” Bass is a former board member of the Hutchison chapter of the Equality Coalition, and until recently a Democrat himself. He describes himself as “socially liberal” and a “fiscal conservative,” and said he favors same-sex marriage.

The Kansas Democratic Party said it is supporting Pauls, as it does all party nominees.

It’s just a state legislative race, with a truly awful anti-gay Democrat against a truly pro-gay Republican, and the LGBT activist coalition (of which the GOP candidate has been a member!) can’t say whether they’ll unhitch themselves from the Democratic Party and support the Republican. And gay activists wonder why the GOP isn’t showing more progress on gay issues.

David Boaz parses recent survey data that finds about 13% of the electorate consists of independent “deliberators” who are highly likely to vote but as of yet remain undecided. Among this small group who will determine the election:

64% support “smaller government with fewer services,” and 63% favor gay marriage. The former position, of course, puts them closer to Republicans, and the latter closer to Democrats. These are the true swing voters, and they might well be described as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Boaz has more to say about (small “l”) libertarian-minded voters—and why they are a leading indicator of how the much larger number of self-identified “independents” are likely to vote—in this video interview with reason.tv.

You might expect that given the importance of these voters both Democrats and Republicans would try to woo them. Yet the Democrats remain captive to the big government left as the Republicans remain captive to the socially conservative right. That may please the ideologues and party operatives of the left and right, but it leaves the broad swath of the country in despair.

Increasingly, we’re going to see social conservatives act as a drag on the GOP, as demonstrated by Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin’s idiotic statements about rape and abortion, which in all likely have assured that Missouri’s senate seat will remain in big-spending Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill’s hands.

And then there was Pat Robertson’s recent warning about adopting foreign-born kids who might have been sexually abused and thus might turn out “weird.”

More. Democrats spent $1.5 million to help Akin win the GOP primary because they believed he gave incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill her best shot at retaining her seat. They must be chortling now. But it has a corrupting influence on the (small “d”) democratic process. You see this as well when some LGBT progressives oppose gay Republicans running for office because a GOP that remains vehemently anti-gay is in their own partisan self-interest.

“Have you ever wondered why conservatives are so opposed to government interference in the marketplace yet so tolerant, even welcoming, of its role in our personal lives?” asks Bloomberg columnist Caroline Baum. She observes:

The idea that government knows best is anathema to fiscal conservatives, who believe in a limited government of enumerated powers. How is it that same government can be the ultimate authority on how we live our lives, whom we can marry, how we raise our children, where we worship, what we inhale and ingest, and what we do behind closed doors?

When Baum asks the question of Cato Institute libertarian David Boaz and Heritage Institute conservative David Azerrad, she gets illuminating responses.

In response to the shooting at the Family Research Council headquarters in Washington, D.C., the Log Cabin Republicans strike the right tone:

“As fellow conservatives, Log Cabin Republicans are often in the same room with the Family Research Council. Though we rarely see eye to eye, we absolutely condemn the violence that occurred today,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. “Keeping in mind that at this time we know little about the shooter or his motives, whatever our political disagreements, in this country, we use ballots, not bullets, to address them. We offer prayers for the injured security guard, his family, and everybody at the FRC building, barely a fifteen minute walk away from Log Cabin Republicans national headquarters. In many ways, this is a reminder that we aren’t so far apart.”

More. The shooter was identified as a volunteer at the DC Center for the LGBT Community. A coalition of 25 gay rights groups released a statement through GLAAD condemning the shooting.

Furthermore. Conservative pundit John Hinderaker blogs:

There seems to be no doubt that he wanted to shoot up the Family Research Council because he disagrees with the FRC’s position on gay marriage. It is also reasonable to suspect–although presumably more will be known about this in due course–that he was influenced by the many left-wing and gay activist organizations that labeled the FRC a “hate group.”

And a roundup from The Hill: Shooting spurs heated debate on gay rights, ‘hate group’ label.

The shooting plays into the narrative of intolerant gays, the same as the Chick-fil-A zoning blowback. And many LGBT gay progressive activists can be, in fact, hatefully intolerant — something this blog, gay Republicans and others have experienced first hand. But that doesn’t obscure the fact that the Family Research Council has earned our antipathy not simply because it opposes marriage equality, but because (as The Hill story points out), it has used extreme language and cast spurious allegations to demean gay people. This gets lost, however, just as the story became Chick-fil-A being targeted by liberal politicians instead of Chick-fil-A’s corporate donations to organizations—such as the Family Research Council—that work every day to deny gay people legal equality.

That being said, labeling the Family Research Council a “hate group” was never going to convince anyone of anything if they were not already in our camp. Too often, the left and the right turn to incendiary rhetoric instead of sound argument and debate. Emotions get inflamed, but little light is shed.

Rep. Paul Ryan, Romney’s veep pick, while not a social conservative fire-breather, supported the anti-gay (and anti-federalist) federal marriage amendment and opposed repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But he is one of the few politicos to have shown any sanity and courage about the entitlement and deficit crises, which liberal Democrats continue to shamefully demagogue for political advantage.

The political challenge of our time is to push the Democratic party back toward relative Clintonian fiscal moderation (imposed on Bill Clinton by a Republican congress), while continuing the struggle within the GOP to counter the pernicious control of hidebound social conservatives who will otherwise doom the party’s prospects among the next generation of voters.

More. From the Log Cabin Republicans, “Congressman Ryan’s 2007 vote in favor of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act and his consistent willingness to engage with Log Cabin on a range of issues speaks to his record as a fair-minded policymaker.” From GOProud, “Paul Ryan is one of the few political leaders anywhere in the country willing to tell the American people the truth about the unprecedented budget crisis we are facing, and – more importantly – willing to put forward bold plans to put this country back on the road to fiscal solvency.”

Social conservatives have pushed both Romney and Ryan to the right on gay issues. Should the ticket win, we’d have to see where they situate themselves.

However, if the issue of gay equality dominates all others, you won’t be voting for the GOP ticket. But those who believe the economic well-being of future generations of Americans is at severe risk given another four years of the present administration, support for the GOP is not an indication of self-loathing, as LGBT Democratic operatives would have it.

Another option: lodging a protest against both parties by voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who strongly favors both marriage equality and deficit reduction with real entitlement reform. Third-party candidates don’t get elected nationally, but their forward-looking agendas can, in time, change the terms of the debate.

Furthermore. Reader JamesR comments:

“Both Ryan and Romney once supported ENDA. They were, of course, pushed to the right — politicians respond to the prevailing political winds. Neither is hardcore anti-gay — it’s not what they want to talk about, and never has been. They are not Santorum or Huckabee.

So, if the winds can be changed — yes, probably in the GOP they can’t be, but IF they could — I don’t doubt that Romney and Ryan would again be supportive on gay issues.

And that remains the challenge.