IGF CultureWatch

More (added Tue. night). Whatever you might think of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, they’re not the blathering anti-gay bigots that Santorum is, and almost as bad, Gingrich and Perry. So the fact that Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry brought up the rear in New Hampshire is welcome news.

And I’d be very happy if the prime challenger to Romney turned out to be a libertarian-minded opponent of the anti-gay federal marriage amendment who refused to sign Maggie Gallagher’s odious anti-gay marriage pledge, and who defends letting openly gay servicemembers serve their country (yes, Ron Paul). He also understands, unlike Gingrich et al, that businesses in a competitive economy must sometimes be restructured (and yes, downsized) to remain profitable and avoid bankruptcy.

Regardless of Paul’s particular strengths and flaws, the best thing that could happen to the GOP (and the nation) would be the emergence of a strong and permanent libertarian wing to counter the pernicioius dominance of intrusive-government social conservatives.

(Original post)

The view from the Log Cabin Republicans:

“Final pre-primary polls out of New Hampshire show strong support for Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. It is not a coincidence that these are also the candidates who demonstrated respect as elected officials for LGBT Americans and focused on economic rather than social issues,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. “Governor Romney, despite his opposition to marriage, continues to stand by his support for nondiscrimination and said in Sunday’s debate that he would stand for ‘increasing gay rights.’ Congressman Paul has a long libertarian record that includes voting for the end of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and consistently opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment. Governor Jon Huntsman is rising quickly in the polls as voters respond to his pragmatic, commonsense conservative message, including his unapologetic support of civil unions.

Even candidates like Senator Rick Santorum are learning that his past antigay language is not going to keep him in the top-tier, while Gingrich and Perry, who have doubled-down on divisive rhetoric, are floundering. In the state which proudly proclaims, ‘live free or die,’ the path to victory is support for freedom for all.”

During Sunday’s debate in New Hampshire, Romney, who opposes marriage equality, tried to soften his image a bit (as Amanda Terkel relates at the Huffington Post), saying: “I oppose same-sex marriage and that has been my view,” but adding, “If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people — that have different sexual orientation don’t have full rights in this country, they won’t find that in me.”

He’s both for and against discriminating against gays.

Santorum, who uses much strongly language in opposing marriage equality (he says the “country will fall” as a result of same-sex marriage and that gays adopting children with cause societal “dysfunction”) nevertheless said, “I would be a voice in speaking out for making sure that every person in America, gay or straight, is treated with respect and dignity and has the equality of opportunity.”

Glad he cleared that up.

[Note: For current IGF Cutlture Watch postings, please use the url https://igfculturewatch.com.]

————————————

Former senator Rick Santorum, reportedly surging in Iowa polls, is not only a virulent homophobe, he also is, according to the Cato Institute’s David Boaz, a long-time opponent of limited government and, in his own dismissive words, “this whole idea of personal autonomy, . . . this idea that people should be left alone.”

More. Romney’s move to the right on social issues, designed to attracted Midwestern and Southern evangelicals, bombed big time in Iowa. Religious conservatives, who dominate the Iowa GOP, went overwhelmingly for Santorum. But if Romney is the eventual Republican nominee, his anti-gay rights and anti-immigrant positions won’t play well with independents. When will they ever learn?

Furthermore. Santorum’s fixation on gay marriage as intolerable perversity gets booed by (some) New Hampshire college Republicans and would be a likely negative among the general electorate.

On the other hand, some are arguing that Santorum would be more likely than Romney, or Obama, to appeal to the white working class. Kimberley Strassel writes in the Wall Street Journal: “He’s the frugal guy, the man of faith, the person who understands the financial worries of average Americans. He’s directly contrasting his own blue-collar bona fides with those of the more privileged Mr. Romney. Identity politics is often a winner, and Mr. Santorum does it well.”

Let’s hope the popular response to Obama’s disastrous leftwing “leadership” to nowhere doesn’t turn out to be American fascism.

And finally… Viva Paul for his bare-knuckled attack exposing Santorum’s hypocrisy.

The anti-gay National Organization for Marriage is running an attack ad against Ron Paul, accusing him of supporting same-sex marriage. And they’ve created an entire Wrong on Marriage website to attack him.

Actually, while Paul opposes the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, he supports the Defense of Marriage Act. Somewhat muddying his support for the act (which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages), he also says the issue should be left to the states to decide.

But in the GOP field, Paul is viewed as a pro-gay marriage candidate—earning him the ire of the religious right.

Also of interest, Slate’s David Weigel looks at Ron Paul newsletters from 20 years ago that had some disparaging comments about gays. Gay sex columnist and activist Dan Savage tells Weigel, astutely:

“Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum, and, as he isn’t beloved of religious conservatives, he isn’t out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies … 1990 was 21 years ago—an eternity in the evolution of attitudes toward gays and lesbians. What has he said about us lately?”

More. From Why Ron Paul Matters, a Wall Street Journal op-ed from the Cato Institute:

Support for dynamic market capitalism (as opposed to crony capitalism), social tolerance, and a healthy skepticism of foreign military adventurism is a combination of views held by a plurality of Americans. It is why the 21st century is likely to be a libertarian century.

Wouldn’t that be nice.

Former two-term governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson is reported to be ready to bolt the GOP and seek the Libertarian Party nomination for president, which would put him on the ballot in all 50 states. Johnson recently declared his support for marriage equality.

Political consultant Roger Stone believes that Johnson could have a bigger impact than many expect, writing that “Americans are about to discover Governor Gary Johnson and his Freedom Agenda. They are going to like what they find.”

If, say, Romney were to lose to Obama by a smaller percentage than Johnson’s vote, might that be a wake-up call to the Republicans?

In response to a gay Iowan. If only Obama’s administration wasn’t a rolling disaster I would.

But I’m hoping Ron Paul knocks Gingrich for a loop in the state—and it could happen. Not that Paul would ever get his party’s nomination, but to see an opponent of the anti-gay federal marriage amendment (he called it “a very bad idea”) and a supporter of gays serving in the military win the GOP caucuses in heavily evangelical Iowa would be a good sign.

Added. The Washington Blade reminds us that:

[Paul] voted on two separate occasions in 2004 and 2006 against a Federal Marriage Amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the country. Paul was among the five Republicans who voted for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal on the House floor in May even before the Pentagon released its report in November 2010.

Paul certainly takes positions I don’t agree with; my point is that his record on gay issues is (by GOP standards) well above average, and it would be good, in that regard, if he bested Gingrich and the rest who would pervert government to deny us equality under the law.

More. Some Republican blogs and GOProud (and even Log Cabin) are defending Gingrich and noting that he was responding specifically about gay marriage (and why supporters of gay marriage should or shouldn’t vote for him), and that he was not telling gays in general to vote for Obama. There is some truth that this is a somewhat different context, but his defenders are themselves wide of the mark as well.

It’s a bit as if during the 1964 presidential campaign Gingrich had told a black civil rights advocate that if ending segregation and Jim Crow laws were the advocate’s predominant issue, then he should vote for Lyndon Johnson, and the media reported “Gingrich tells blacks to vote for Johnson.” The headline would overreach a bit, but the sentiment that if you think receiving equal treatment under the law is important, don’t vote for me, remains accurate.

At this stage, gay Rebublicans and independents should be supporting GOP candidates who most support our legal equality. Leavings aside (with the rest of the media) former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, of the major candidates Jon Huntsman is the best—a strong fiscal conservative with solid foreign policy experience who supports recognition of civil unions and, if he does better than predicted in New Hampshire, still might emerge as a contender. As noted above, Ron Paul also opposes the federal marriage amendment, unlike Gingrich and Romney.

On “don’t ask,” Gingrich has gone further than Romney (who opposed repeal of “don’t ask” during a war but indicated he’d leave repeal in place), whereas Gingrich said he would reinstate the ban.

So why the support for Newt, who would enshrine second-class status toward gays in the Constitution and federal policy?

Gay men who live in states where same-sex marriage is legal are healthier, have less stress, make fewer doctor visits and have lower healthcare costs, reports USA Today, citing a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, for which the abstract is available online here.

This sort of data is going to be increasingly available and will help show that denying marriage equality has seriously negative repercussions not just for gay people, but in terms of broader social costs as well.

With the Labor Prime Minister staunchly opposing marriage equality, it’s a bit topsy-turvey down under. James Peron writes at the Huffington Post:

Recently, Australia’s ruling Labor Party has been fighting off an attempt to legalize same-sex marriage. The problem was that rank-and-file members, and most voters, support marriage equality, while left-wing Prime Minister Julia Gillard does not. She is quite adamant in her opposition. …

While the opposition coalition in parliament—an alliance of the Liberal Party and the National Party—is supposed to vote against the measure, there is hope. Canadian Melody Ayres-Griffiths, who married her Australian wife in Canada but now lives in Australia, has written that opposition Liberal MPs may still come to the rescue.

She observes that many of the people within the opposition coalition are fiscally conservative, socially liberal libertarians. “These libertarians — some of whom are very powerful inside the Liberal party — may force Tony Abbott [Leader of the Opposition] to allow his MPs to hold a conscience vote of their own,” she writes. This would mean that opposition MPs could support marriage equality, making up for lost votes from Labor’s conscience vote — a repeat of what happened in New York.

New York’s gay marriage legislation faced some staunch Democratic opponents who are fundamentalist Christians. However, some wealthy Republicans, who were more libertarian than conservative, came to the rescue and ponied up big bucks to push for equality.

The lesson is that relying solely on the party of the left, there and here, is not a particularly good strategy.

On the passing of our friend and former IGF editor and contributing author Paul Varnell, here’s one of his colulmns many recall fondly: A Valentine’s Story.

More. An example of how Paul will be missed. When Sarah Schulman wrote recently in the New York Times (“Israel and ‘Pinkwashing’”) to condemn gays who support Israel, which she characterized as “the tendency among some white gay people to privilege their racial and religious identity,” it would be good to have heard Paul’s voice, as in this 2002 column “Israel, Palestine, and Gays.”

Furthermore. A tribute by Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg, which includes this quote from Paul:

“This suggests,” Varnell continued, “that what would work best for us is an approach that emphasizes sharing our common humanity rather than attacking the mainstream and portraying ourselves as an aggrieved, victimized and petulant minority. It is, after all, the homophobes who are the sad, isolated, troubled little clot of obscurantists.”

More still. Remembrances by journalist Rex Wockner.

And here is the Chicago Tribune’s obit.

I’ve mostly refrained from commenting on the presidential race because it’s all too depressing, reflecting the political pathologies of our time. And neither party seems able to offer a way forward.

I won’t be voting for Obama, and I doubt I will vote for the GOP candidate. First, the Democrats. They’ve hitched themselves to a narcissistic, messianic leftwing community organizer/academic lawyer with no experience or knowledge of how the private sector generates wealth for society as a whole, and who rigidly adheres to the political ideology that raising taxes on “the rich” (including many small business owners) and expanding the bureaucratic regulatory state by leaps and bounds will lead to economic growth, or if not exactly growth, at least “fairness,” which is more important anyway.

———-
An animated Yule-time look at the Obama presidency thus far that’s not even parody—it’s all too true.
———

The likely Republican choice is coming down to Romney or Gingrich, one bland and one grandiose, pandering to the social conservatives in their base by pledging to deny us basic equality under the law.

The Democrats are stuck with Obama but the GOP has the opportunity to pick a socially moderate fiscal conservative with a proven record in prudent governance and foreign policy. That would be Jon Huntsman, who sits with 1% in the polls among Republicans. Not going to happen.

The other major GOP contender who at least opposes the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment (and who voted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”), Ron Paul, garners around 8 percent but likely would be less electable in the general election than Huntsman because his libertarian views on government—and especially foreign policy—seem out of the mainstream.

So there you have it. The next four years will likely see further polarization, without the bipartisan consensus necessary to trim the entitlement programs that are sinking us in astronomical debt, and will do so if not reformed regardless of any tax increases on “the rich.” The GOP isn’t likely to summon the will to make these cuts on its own, and the Democrats would rather demagogue (“Mediscare”) their way back to congressional power.

Politics is inherently corrupting since it is predicated on power and compulsion. That’s why limited government was so dear to the founders. We’ve lost our way, and may wander in the darkness for a long time to come.

More. In the comments, reader Tom Scharbach is more optimistic, noting: “Stephen, you can take some comfort in the fact that the presidential candidates most closely allied with the far-right religious conservatives (Bachmann, Perry, Santorum) — the true believers — aren’t doing all that well in the contest. …” He also writes:

It is going to take a while for the Republican Party to break loose of the death-grip of religious conservatives. The death-grip was thirty years in the making, and it will take time to undo it. But it will happen, eventually, because the county is changing rapidly. It won’t be too many years before opposition to “equal means equal” becomes a political liability, and that will break the death-grip.

There’s some interesting back and forth at not gay friendly National Review Online on why young conservatives seem much more proud to be pro-life than to be anti same-sex marriage. Here’s the third or so take: Re: Life vs. Marriage.