IGF CultureWatch

In a number of tight Senate and House races, time and again it seems that GOP candidates who veer away from focusing on fiscal restraint and limited government, and instead jump on the culture war bandwagon (gay issues, in particular) are doing themselves no good. In fact, many swing district/state GOP candidates have hurt themselves by vocalizing their opposition to gay legal equality.

We need not point again to New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino. Instead, consider Colorado GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck. According to Denver’s Fox affiliate:

Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck’s comments about homosexuality continue to draw strong reactions just two weeks before the Nov. 2 election. Buck, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, said he believes people are gay by choice.

“You can choose who your partner is,” Buck said. “You don’t think it’s something that’s determined at birth?” host David Gregory asked. “I think that birth has an influence on it like alcoholism and some other things but I think that basically you have a choice,” Buck replied.

Reports the conservative Washington Times:

Democrats, in an effort to woo suburban female voters, have ramped up attacks on Mr. Buck’s anti-abortion stance, a rape case he declined to prosecute as Weld County District Attorney, and his remarks that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. . . .

The Democratic strategy has shifted the focus of the campaign away from economic issues, where Mr. Buck and Republicans have enjoyed success in hammering the Democrats on the stimulus bills, health care reform and the trilions of dollars being added to the national debt.

The race is now a dead heat.

More. Just as New York’s Paladino found himself stunned by the response to a little gay-bashing and tried to backtrack (Daily News: “Carl Paladino pleads for ‘forgiveness’ after anti-gay remarks set off campaign firestorm”), so too is Buck trying to stem the damage (Colordado Independent: “Buck campaign to gay teen’s mom: ‘Ken may have misspoke.’”) That, in itself, is a sign of how the world has changed.

As the Washington Blade reports, in Florida, GOP Attorney General Bill McCollum announced Friday that he won’t appeal a court ruling last month overturning Florida’s law banning gay people from adopting children, putting a “final end” to the 33-year old state prohibition.

Meanwhile, the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on openly gay servicemembers is back in effect, after an appellate court granted the Obama Administration’s request for an injunction to a district court ruling that had, for several weeks, put an end to government-ordered discrimination against gay citizens. With a Republican House on the horizon and the U.S. Supreme Court’s tradition of military deference, there is a real risk that the reinstated gay ban could be with us for a long time.

Interestingly, the Blade story reports that this need not have been the case:

legal experts, including constitutional specialists with the American Civil Liberties Union and the LGBT litigation group Lambda Legal, agree that presidents generally should defend federal laws. But they say the obligation to defend a law should not apply to cases where strong evidence exists that the law is unconstitutional and a court issues a ruling overturning the law on constitutional grounds. . . .
“The question is no longer whether the Executive will defend an Act of Congress, but whether the Executive will appeal from a well-reasoned, obviously correct federal court ruling based on findings of fact that are exceedingly unlikely to be reversed,” [ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero] said in his letter. “Given these findings and the proper legal standard of review to be applied, there is no reasonable argument for the constitutionality of the policy, and no reason for the government to appeal,” he said.

Generally, I believe that legislatively overturning anti-gay laws is preferable. But if that is not going to happen (because for the year and a half the Democrats had a filibuster-proof senate majority, they dithered), then the courts must be used to secure equality under the law. But when it comes to military discrimination, or the Defense of Marriage Act’s banning the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages that states have sanctioned, that’s not the view of this administration.

Rick Sincere blogs that, speaking at the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Convention, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum claimed that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan “are certainly two of the shoulders that we stand upon as the Republican Party.” Sincere quotes the Cato Institute’s David Boaz commenting on Santorum’s remarks:

“Santorum in Richmond speaks of freedom, individual rights, and the dignity of the human person. But he has demonstrated in the past that he doesn’t really mean the freedom to live your own life as you choose. He has denounced ‘this whole idea of personal autonomy … this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do.’ That’s the American idea of freedom, but it’s not Rick Santorum’s idea.”

Comments Sincere:

Given that Santorum has declared his interest in pursuing a bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, he needs to take some time to reconcile his contradictory views and ask himself, are Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan’s shoulders those of giants upon which Republicans stand, or are their old-fashion views about individual autonomy, personal responsibility, and human freedom at odds with the 21st century’s Republican Party?

That’s the question facing the GOP, and it involves whether Tea Party libertarianism will withstand attempts by GOP social conservatives to co-opt the movement.

More. Then again, some see the
winds of change altering the GOP itself.

Furthermore. From The Daily Caller, Sexual orientation makes surprise appearance as campaign issue.

If nothing else, Log Cabin’s lawsuit to overturn “don’t ask, don’t tell,” leading to a district court’s ruling barring enforcement of the policy, puts the White House on the spot. If the Obama Justice Department appeals, as it has just appealed a set of recent rulings against the Defense of Marriage Act, it won’t help shore up the Democrats’ liberal base. But it’s expected that lower court rulings invalidating laws passed by Congress should be appealed (although, apparently, there are exceptions). Obama has 60 days to decide. I expect he may wait until after the election and then appeal, although it would be uncharacteristically gutsy to announce the policy is now dead.

More. Obama Administration Requests Stay of Injunction Against ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Ruling. That didn’t take long. Our “fierce advocate” strikes again.

Furthermore. At least for now, Log Cabin Republicans Prevails Over President Obama. It’s a suit that the Human Rights Campaign and other Democratic party water-carriers would never have brought.

Still more. Obama’s Justice Dept. halts military equality, again.

Sometimes the political system just doesn’t work and there are no good choices, although there may be a lesser evil—sometimes a Democrat and sometimes a Republican.

Tea Party organizers and activists have shown a laser-like focus on reining in fiscal profligacy and eschewing social issues, but that’s not true for a few of the candidates they’ve supported through GOP primary victories. In the race for New York governor, Tea Party backed Carl Paladino has disgraced himself with his ignorant homophobia, some of which he now seems to be trying to distance himself from, given the uproar that, as if in a time warp, he failed to anticipate. If nothing else, his comments that children should not be “brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is acceptable”—coming in the wake of horrors such as the Bronx gay-bashing/torture story and a rash of gay teen suicides—show the political tone deafness of a candidate who fathered a daughter out of wedlock and sent racy (and some say racist) emails.

His opponent, Andrew Cuomo, is a career Democrat who, as Clinton’s head of HUD, is one of the godfathers of the housing bubble (e.g., through his promotion of the Community Reinvestment Act that strong-armed banks into making home loans to those without collateral). Expect more wasteful, unaffordable and counterproductive government interventions from his administration, which will bow to the public sector unions. But he’s clearly the better choice, alas.

Similarly, what more can you say about Christine O’Donnell in Maryland, with her history of wacky social conservatism? But her opponent is a serial tax hiker supporting establishment liberal policies that have choked off growth and innovation. I throw up my hands. Likewise, Nevada, with Sharron Angle vs. Harry Reid (although here, the chance to replace the unctuous Reid as the Senate’s Democratic leader would be worth the price of Sen. Angle).

Not all Tea Party backed candidates are this pathetic—Joe Miller in Alaska, Marco Rubio in Florida, Dino Rossi in Washington state, and Ron Johnson in Wisconsin seem solid, among others. I like Rand Paul in Kentucky as well, despite some political missteps. But clearly, for fiscally conservative social libertarians, sometimes there are no good options.

More. Back to Paladino, it’s hard to know what he actually thinks or believes, but it’s good to see him realize he crossed a line. I hope others on the right take note.

To clarify, it’s not that I don’t think gay pride parades should ever be criticized—in New York and San Francisco, The Onion may have hit the target—but the whole tenor of Paladino’s speech to the rabbis needlessly injected the divisive culture war into a race that should have maintained its focus on economic issues that unite all conservatives as well as many independents and libertarians. It was stupid politics, and coming on the heals of the gay-bashing torture and gay teen suicide stories, just wrong.

Furthermore. William Saletan at Slate writes that Carl Paladino is right about gay pride parades and wrong about gay marriage.

Saturday’s Wall Street Journal has a fine Weekend Interview profile of venture capitalist Peter Thiel, an early investor in Facebook, noting “Mr. Thiel has dabbled in activism to the minor extent of co-hosting in Manhattan last month a fund raiser for gay Republicans” (actually, it was GOProud).

Interestingly, Thiel reflects about Obama, “I’m not sure I’d describe him as a socialist. I might even say he has a naïve and touching faith in capitalism. He believes you can impose all sorts of burdens on the system and it will still work.” Unfortunately, he adds, government has become too big and too inefficient to work, “throwing good money after bad,” and has put up too many regulatory barriers to innovation and growth. He notes, for example, how Sarbanes-Oxley resulted in a dearth of initial public offerings—new public companies based on innovative ideas that are the foundation for robust economic growth—which is part of the reason why “we’re stuck in a period of long-term stagnation.”

The great exception, Thiel says, has been information technology: “So far computers and the Internet have been the one sector immune from excessive regulation,” he observes. Yes, so far.

For me, the profile highlights how openly gay conservatives and LGBT progressives view the problems facing us, as Americans, in starkly different terms. Peter Thiel is the anti-Barney Frank.

More. Barney Frank spins about his responsiblity for the mortgage crisis.

A recent blog post by David Link praised Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” project for reaching out to gay youth who might be contemplating suicide. But not everyone is a fan. For example, LGBT blogger Femmephane takes exception, calling it “ageist garbage,” and arguing that “This is a video for rich kids … Telling our own stories from our incredibly privileged positions overwrites youth experience,” while “Promoting the illusion that things just ‘get better,’ enables privileged folks to do nothing and just rely on the imaginary mechanics of the American Dream to fix the world.” Whatever. Femmephane, by the way, responds to critics here. Life in the blogosphere.

Bill Browning writes on the Huffington Post that the left’s “One Nation” march on Washington included LGBT progressives groups such as GetEqual, Human Rights Campaign, Stonewall Democrats and others. But, Browning relates, in an email to him Lt Dan Choi of GetEqual reported on the reception the group got as they carried signs with the faces of six LGBT youth who recently died by suicide:

We attended the “One Nation” progressive march on Washington today and were met with mixed reactions by “progressives.” All we intended was to bring visibility to the recent gay suicides. Some remarked: “Yeah…If y’all just stop killing yourselves, and turn to God…” and “You guys are stupid.”

Asks Browning:

Why wasn’t the LGBT community front and center as part of the progressive community? Because, as we’ve seen with the current crop of “progressive” leadership—both inside and outside of the administration—our rights are not a priority for our friends and natural allies. We are the group that is always the easiest to lop off when the going gets tough—when people start to feel “uncomfortable.” We are the group that gets “support” if we’ll promise to keep our mouths shut…

LGBT organizations that purport to represent us and our issues signed on to this march to increase our visibility and support among progressives—even though some of these same orgs refused to even add their name to a list of orgs supporting the National Equality March. I hope they’re satisfied with the results they got.

As long as progressive LGBT “leaders” view themselves as Democratic party operatives first and foremost, that’s not going to change.

More. How “liberal litterbugs” trashed the Mall. Blogs Jenny Erikson:

What a sad day. The left can’t get people to an event without bussing them in and making sure their bosses cross their names off the list. The left can’t make their own signs, they have to be handed flashy manufactured ones. The left can’t even get people to respect the National Mall, a place that deserves reverence. The left can’t get a group of people that claim to care about the environment to, you know, actually care about the environment.

I overheard one of the attendees talking to a park ranger. “I just don’t understand,” he said, “Why is there so much trash? I heard there wasn’t any at that Beck rally … How did they do it?”

From the AP:

[New Jersey Gov. Chris] Christie is among those who argue that Republicans can succeed when they focus on fiscal conservatism, often at the expense of focusing on key social issues, whereas former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee energize the party’s religious and socially conservative base. Palin and Huckabee have been in Iowa recently, as has Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenti, who courts that same base.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, of course, is another fiscal conservative who famously called for “a truce on social issues” (read: abortion and gay bashing). Yes, he added, “until the economic issues are resolved,” but a GOP president elected without making promises to the religious right, and in fact elected by downplaying social issues, won’t be indebted to them. That’s the fight, and it’s for the soul of the New GOP.

Jim DeMint, old school gay-baiter and never going to change. But he’s the past, not the future.

More. Because this is my post and it generated lots of bitingly negative comments, I’m going to highlight a response defending me by commenter avee:

It strikes me there is a certain purism among critics of Miller’s post. Miller makes the point (perhaps too broadly, but it’s a blog post, not a white paper) that a number of leading Republican presidential contenders are asking for a tone-down on social issues, and that this is significant. His critics blast him because these same leading GOP contenders are still not as good as liberal Democrats on gay issues, and therefore nothing has changed and we should all only support liberal Democrats.

Change is incremental, and failing to encourage small steps that can lead to bigger steps is a losers game — it’s the game of Democratic party fundraisers in LGBT-activist clothes. For my part, I’m tired of reading gay media articles that state (1) Gays are in big trouble if (or, more accurately, when) Republicans make big gains in November, and (2) offering no strategy other than going down with the Democratic ship.

Of course the critics weren’t persuaded, but neither do they have a convincing response to point (2) above.

The Cato Institute’s David Boaz blogs, Krauthammer Misreads History:

Charles Krauthammer calls same-sex marriage “the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history.” Really? . . . I would suggest that the truly radical redefinition of marriage is the revolution over the past generation in the idea that people should marry before they cohabit or have children. . . .But like socially conservative politicians, Krauthammer is not about to confront his friends, colleagues, and fans by denouncing that radical redefinition of marriage.