IGF CultureWatch

Living in a solidly blue district, my household received a fundraising letter from the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee urging us to donate money at www.dscc.org/SilenceGOPlies.

At the site it doesn't, or no longer, uses the ominous phrase "Silence GOP lies," and instead offers the somewhat less threatening "Stop GOP lies" - perhaps because a number of bloggers have called attention to the DSCC's call to "silence" the opposition. Reportedly, many of these fundraising letters also have included a "Silence GOP lies" button.

Think about that; it's not "respond to GOP lies" or "expose GOP lies." The fundraising message (at least in the letter) is "Silence GOP lies." That's a little scary, but quite tellingly captures what's so wrong with the "progressive" mindset today.

And what, exactly, are these "lies"? Some are strongly partisan criticisms of Obama, but others are policy views widely shared by much of the American public, such as the "lie" that "the badly needed stimulus bill" that cost nearly a trillion dollars (helping to create our debt tsunami) and which preserved mostly government jobs wasn't, er, "badly needed." Silence those lying liars before they lie again!

And isn't it the Democrats who like to claim that the GOP uses threatening words in its criticisms of Democrats? So, what exactly is "Silence GOP lies" supposed to convey?

The letter also attacks "Tea Party hysteria" in terms that are, well, hysterical (say, isn't the word "hysteria" supposed to be sexist and no longer permitted? Uh, oh, somebody at the DSCC is gonna be in trouble!).

More. No, my point is not just to engage in partisan sniping, but to critique it. And the "gay" angle is my consistent argument that the fight for our equality should not be tied to just one of the two governing parties (and the negative repercussions of having so much of the LGBT political movement controlled by Democratic party operatives, whose agenda often places their party's needs first.

Blogress Ann Althouse discusses implications of a McDonald's ad running in France (you can view it with captioned translation through the above link) that's caused expressions of consternation from Bill O'Reilly and other American conservatives. As Althouse summarizes,

"we see a young man and understand something about him - he's gay - and then we see his father doesn't really get that, but they love each other and spend time with each other...at McDonald's.

". . .When O'Reilly jokes about McDonald's doing an ad in this series showing a member of Al Qaeda, he's revealing that he thinks gay people are a group that most people view with justified hostility. McDonald's, operating in France, hasn't analyzed things that way. That's their judgment call, and I hope it's a good one."

Actually, I think O'Reilly and other miffed conservatives are showing how out of sync they are. With "Glee," one of the Fox network's biggest hits, including storylines about a gay high school student and his sympathetic but not-quite-comprehending father (shades of the French McDonald's ad), it's clear that the times have changed. I'd be very surprised if in the near future we don't see gay inclusive ads such as this one running here in the U.S., despite the wailings of certain members of the old guard.

More. I should add, it's also another sign of how capitalism drives equality, as discussed here, when not thwarted by social conservatives or anti-market progressives (as in this blast from the past).

Former Congressman Tom Campbell, the fiscally conservative, pro-gay marriage GOP candidate running in California's Senate primary, had been leading his opponents but now trails failed CEO and gay marriage opponent Carly Fiorina going into next Tuesday's vote, as social conservatives ramp up their attacks.

Campbell has the best poll numbers against current Democratic Sen. Barbara ("No Ma'am") Boxer, best know for her advocacy of out-of-control government spending and disdain for the U.S. military. But he may not get the chance to face her.

It would have been savvy for LGBT activists who actually want to see gay equality advance within the GOP, and hence the nation, to at least give Campell support in the primary, but aside from Log Cabin Republicans they didn't. Much better to keep the Republican party avowedly anti-gay in order to fundraise against the GOP demons.

After a long spell with no staff whatsoever, the national Log Cabin Republicans' board of directors has named R. Clarke Cooper as the group's new leader. Here's the announcement. And some background on Cooper's military service (well, he seems like a straight shooter!).

As I've often argued, to the dismay of the one-party-is-all-we-need crowd, we will never obtain full legal and social equality if the conservative party in the U.S. remains in adamant opposition. That's why making gay integration into American society a conservative goal is so important. Witness the strides toward legal equality in Britain, where several top Torie party leaders are openly gay.

In the U.S., as of now the left-leaning Democratic party has an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress and the presidency, and after two years we are not going to see even partial repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay unions sanctioned by individual states (no joint tax returns, no Social Security inheritance, no tax break on employer-provided spousal health care, etc. etc.). The reason: the Democrats have more or less gotten a free ride, so why spend political capital?

Let's hope with new leadership, LCR (along with newer rival GOProud), can help to move the ball forward.

Adding to the posts below by Dale and David, it doesn't appear to me that Obama deserves any credit for being forced to move ahead on repealing "don't ask, don't tell." The movers here are those Democrats in Congress who are, finally, standing up to the president.

As the AP reports, under the proposal Congress would overturn the Clinton-era law barring gays from serving openly in the military, but would "allow the Pentagon time-perhaps even years-to implement new policies" following completion of a comprehensive study. At that time, implementation would require approval of the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And tellingly, according to the AP:

"The White House had hoped lawmakers would delay action until Pentagon officials had completed their study so fellow Democrats would not face criticism that they moved too quickly or too far ahead of public opinion in this election year. Instead, administration officials recognized it could not stop Congress in its effort to repeal the 1993 ban and joined the negotiations."

In other words, Obama's hope was to sacrifice his commitment to gay equality in the military for electoral expediency. But at least some congressional Democrats, who may or may not have the votes to put this across, aren't letting him get away with it. Good for them.

More:

uh-oh.

"A lukewarm endorsement from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and opposition among some lawmakers cast doubt Tuesday on whether Congress this week would lift a 17-year-old ban on gays serving openly in the military....

"I see no reason for the political process to pre-empt it," Sen. Jim Webb, a conservative Democrat from Virginia, said of the military study."

By the way, the Human Rights Campaign's website is still bragging about the group's support for Webb.

ADDED: With House passage, all eyes will be on the Senate, which isn't expected to vote until later this summer. At issue: will the Senate Republicanbs mount a filibuster?

Also, it should be noted the despite the characterization in the excerpt above, Sen. Jim Webb is no "conservative Democrat." He was an enthusiastic supporter of the Obama mega-billion pork-barrel "stimulus" and of so-called health care reform. He's a big spending, government expanding Democrat who thinks he can placate Virginia conservatives by opposing equality for gays. Nice. Let's all send our checks to HRC to keep him in office.

Benefits of bipartisanship. GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine backs repeal, giving conservative Democrats some wiggle room.

American libertarians, including Barry Goldwater back in the day, have opposed racial discrimination but been wary of using the federal government to make discrimination by private employers against "protected classes" illegal, as Reason' hit & run blog notes.

Which brings us to the current Rand Paul brouhaha. This erupted after the Kentucky GOP Senate primary winner, a favorite of Tea Party patriots, told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (when asked) that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring discrimination in hiring by private employers. Predictably, Paul was branded a "racist" and has come under enormous political fire by the mainstream media.

But libertarians' opposition to the Civil Rights Act no more makes them "racists" than their opposition to outlawing anti-gay hiring discrimination in the private sector makes them homophobes (as Nigel Ashford addressed here back in 1999).

Whether you agree or not, it's a principled view based on assumptions about, and in defense of, individual liberty. But as a society we've become unable to discuss and debate serious positions regarding political philosophy, and instead have only demagoguery and partisan grandstanding.

What I find interesting is the fact that the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which would make sexual orientation and gender identity into classes protected from employment discrimination, is going nowhere fast (as Dale Carpenter makes clear), despite two years of a liberal Democratic president with sweeping majorities in both houses of Congress.

But in this case, it's not because Democrats are closet libertarians; they just don't see the advantage in using political capital on our behalf. And their inaction seems perfectly fine with the liberal grandees of the mainstream media, given their silence on the issue. For them, at least, some forms of private-sector discrimination are more tolerable than others. And that is not a principled position; it's just a political calculation.

This account in D.C.'s City Paper is about a burning issue facing our community: making sure that we all use LGBT (or LGBTQ, or LGBTQIT, or...) and not the no longer correct GLBT. For those not consumed with politically correction nomenclature, the only truly progressive stance is to put lesbians before gays, bisexuals and the transgendered in the ubiquitous if ungainly (and mystifying to the uninitiated) acronym. But see, we're striking a blow against male privilege, and after all, isn't that what matters?

And if you ever wondered why after two years of Democratic majorities we will not be seeing an end to "don't ask, don't tell" or movement on the anti-discrimination law that activists say is their top priority, this sort of nonsense may give you a clue.

Following protests by LGBT activists, the Energy Department removed Washington University physics professor Jonathan Katz from a select group of five top scientists asked to pursue a solution to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The reason had nothing to do with the physics of stopping oil from pouring into the sea. It centered on Katz's postings on his website regarding his adamant disapproval of homosexuality.

Let's be clear: Katz is a homophobe, and proud of it. As the Washington Times reported, in Katz's website posting titled "In Defense of Homophobia," he opined that "the human body was not designed...to engage in homosexual acts," and that "Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet...sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things."

Pretty offensive stuff. But should opinion written on a personal website get you booted from a government assignment? What about from your job? Where does the line get drawn?

According to the newspaper's account, A.J. Bockelman, director of the St. Louis LGBT advocacy group PROMO, applaued the decision to remove Katz, saying, "It's disappointing at a time like this that when all Americans need to come together and focus on relief efforts and recovery efforts in the Gulf, someone divisive was placed in a position of power." But obviously it's not "all Americans" that Bockelman thinks should come together to solve the Gulf spill, since Katz, too, is an American, and one (unlike Bockelman) with expertise that the Obama administration felt would be valuable to the mission at hand.

Rather than demanding that Katz not be allowed to help solve the spill, in an effort, more or less, to punish him for his wrong-headed advocacy, it would be far more productive to engage him (and the many who think like him) in open and vigorous debate. But that is no longer the progressive way, and hasn't been for many years. Bad speech is to be punished, otherwise some may be misled. End of story.

I might be more sympathetic to the argument that Katz's personal advocacy placed him beyond the pale if it weren't for the hypocrisy of so many on the left, who believe one of the great crimes of the 20th century was that certain American Communist Party members (and yes, they were), who during the time of Stalin worked to advance the cause of communist tyranny, suffered grievously by being denied movie industry work in Hollywood.

Eugene Volokh discusses the new liberal line being taken by Elena Kagan advocates, i.e., "She can't be lesbian, she's dated men." Says Volokh,

seems to me pretty odd to see assertions...that she must be straight because she has dated men.... As I understand it, the great majority of women who are not purely heterosexual are actually to some degree bisexual.

That's certainly what the surveys, and everyday observation, seem to suggest (not to mention lessons learned from TV's Grey's Anatomy).

But the Obama administration and its fellow travelers-including, it seems, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, as quoted here-have decreed that questions about Kagan's personal relationships are out of bounds (unlike, say, for relationship questions about nominees who are unquestionable straight), and any suggestion she might not be exclusively heterosexual is a smear. (Reminds me of how so many feminists joined with liberal men to argue that it was a terrible thing Sarah Palin wasn't staying at home, where she belonged, to raise her children.)

More. In response to the disbelieving commenter, here's one example (hat tip: Bobby)-the Washington Post's Sally Quinn, as recounted by Politico: " 'Her first priority has to be her children,' Quinn wrote. 'When the phone rings at 3 in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make?' "

But I grant you, liberal men were far more likely to engage in this sort of thing, and worse.

Leaving aside the brouhaha over whether Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is in the closet-and the Obama administration's contention that even to ask is a "slur"-there is a bigger gay-related issue with the nominee. As dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan barred military recruitment on campus because the military discriminates against gay people. She reversed herself when it looked like mega-endowment-rich Harvard Law would otherwise lose funds that the government takes from Joe Taxpayer and gives to the elite university.

As former New Republic editor Peter Beinart, himself a liberal, writes at The Daily Beast:

The United States military is not Procter and Gamble. It is not just another employer. It is the institution whose members risk their lives to protect the country. You can disagree with the policies of the American military; you can even hate them, but you can't alienate yourself from the institution without in a certain sense alienating yourself from the country. Barring the military from campus is a bit like barring the president or even the flag. It's more than a statement of criticism; it's a statement of national estrangement.

At the conservative National Review, Ed Whelan blogs:

It's also worth emphasizing that what Kagan mischaracterized as the "military's policy" is in fact the Clinton administration's implementation of a provision of the defense-appropriations law that a Democratic-controlled Congress enacted in 1993 (with Clinton's signature). Instead of taking potshots at military recruiters who were merely complying with the law, did Kagan ever exclude from campus any of the politicians responsible for the law? Of course not. Indeed, whatever moral opposition Kagan had to the law when it was adopted didn't deter her from seeking and obtaining employment in the Clinton White House. Nor will it keep her from palling around with the many senators who voted for it, such as Vice President Biden.

Let's be clear: I abhor "don't ask, don't tell" as much as Elena Kagan. But something is very wrong about Harvard faculty and students taking the view, during a time of war, that the military's gay ban means that they need not consider serving in the armed force.

Working to keep the military from recruiting Harvard's "best and the brightest"-the soon-to-be power elite-was never the way to oppose the congressionally imposed military gay ban. But it sure gave Harvard elitists the perfect excuse for leaving the fighting, and the dying, to those with calloused hands.

More on Kagan. Politico reports that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation is complaining about a Wall Street Journal photo showing Kagan playing softball, whining it implies she's a lesbian (sadly, I'm not making this up). Chris Barron of the conservative gay group GOProud comments to Politico, "I fully expect the White House to push back and claim Kagan never played softball and that it's a smear to insinuate she did."