IGF CultureWatch

I think Stephen Miller might be letting partisanship eclipse his more characteristic common sense, similar to the way the partisanship of Nicholas Confessore and Michael Barbaro short circuits their ability to put together a reasonable thought for their article in the NYTimes.  (And I apologize to Stephen for the unkind comparison, but friends don’t let friends rely too uncritically on the NYT).  Any focus on liberals or Democrats misses the most important point of this story.

The heart of the problem for both Stephen and the NYT is the glaring use of the word “unexpected” in the article’s lede:

As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes.

In New York’s incestuous thinking, it probably is unexpected that conservative financiers would want to spend money supporting same-sex marriage.  That, after all, comes right out of the dominant theology of the left – that donors to the Republican party actually want what the religious right says they ought to want.

But while the religious right and those wealthy donors share a party, they do not share an ideology, or much of anything else.  Responsible, thoughtful and strategic members of the national GOP have a long-term interest in ridding the party of the toxic influence that Ronald Reagan first brought in, the first George Bush tolerated, and the second Bush encouraged in the most cynical and malignant way.  John McCain was the most recent, high profile victim of this political perversion, but he will not be the last.  And there are a lot of people who want out of this dead-end.

It will be no easy task to deliver the GOP from this brand of political illiterates.  They cannot be expelled from the party just as cancer can’t be expelled from the body.  The treatment will be long and painful.  Fortunately, there is no shortage of political donors who have no interest in killing their party, but want to be rid of these troublesome priests.

Same-sex marriage in a state like New York is one of the openings they have to help break the ice.  They need to enable moderate members of their party to dislodge themselves from the stigma of religious fundamentalism, so they can focus on the economic issues that are paramount for their party and for the nation.  More important, they need to send that message to voters.  After a decade and a half of ODing on the crack of homophobia, the GOP has found itself with the reputation for treating fiscal issues with the same casual political cynicism that they have had to feign on marriage and other culture war skirmishes.

No one who takes real politics seriously – the kind that actual, savvy, politicians of good will practice every day out of the tawdry spotlights of the political press – would or should be surprised by this move.  It shows no more than that “conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party” (as the NYT would have it) possess the normal level of self-interest that can be expected from any political faction, and that sometimes that self-interest has beneficial effects on the body politic.

I’m generally no fan of the way too smug Jon Stewart and his Daily Show, but this segment about gay life in San Francisco vs. Minneapolis actually hits on a real truth about how most of us live vs. what some still like to promote as gay identity.

The New York Times reports:

As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes. . . .

The donations are financing an intensive campaign of television advertisements and grass-roots activism coordinated by New Yorkers United for Marriage, a group of same-sex marriage advocates. . . . The newly recruited donors argue that permitting same-sex marriage is consistent with conservative principles of personal liberty and small government.

More. Apparently, some are too young to get the allusion.

I hope people aren’t missing the point of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which is back before that country’s Parliament.  The debate in America has focused on the bill’s death penalty provision, which is, by any measure, a horrifying use of naked governmental power in the 21st Century.

But does that  imply that replacing death with some lesser punishment would make the bill better?  I’m afraid this report from the indispensable Jim Burroway, leaves that impression.

It is not the death penalty that makes this bill intolerable.  It is the bill’s entire premise.  Its title is “The Anti-Homosexuality Bill.”  Its purpose is to use the force of government to prohibit “. . . any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex; and [ ] the promotion or recognition of such sexual relations in public institutions and other places.”

Whatever your thoughts about the proper role of government, this aggressive, punitive and ignorant bill is a corruption and an abuse.  Even with no death penalty, the bill sends the same message: lesbians and gay men are not only anathema, they must be removed from the body politic.  They are not to be tolerated.

We shouldn’t let the presence of the death penalty in the bill blind us to that far more important fact.  Otherwise, our arguments against the bill could turn against us, and we could wind up with an amended version intended to satisfy our expressed concern.  There is no version of this bill that is acceptable.

To the casual observer, the American Values Network (AVN) seems like a conservative Christian (some like to say “Christianists”) group. It’s currently involved in a campaign to attack the late novelist Ayn Rand as an “anti-Christian” atheist. That’s notable because, in addition to being an atheist, Rand was a leading proponent of free-market capitalism and limited government, and many of today’s leading conservatives, such as Rep. Paul Ryan, have cited her influence on their thought.

According to a press release from AVN:

Rand not only rejected Christ, but she condemned all those who believed in him and said his teachings were evil,” said Eric Sapp, Executive Director, American Values Network. “People of faith need to know what Ayn Rand believed and who her acolytes are in Washington so they can see how her teachings are being applied in government. Ayn Rand’s America is not one that good and decent people would want for their children.”

It notes that a memo from AVN provides:

a collection of Ayn Rand’s own teaching and statements about what the goals and purpose of her morality and thinking were—goals that stand in absolute contrast to Judeo-Christian morality and explicitly condemn the teachings of Christ. It also includes numerous quotes by Republican leaders and conservative pundits praising her, as well as Scripture references for the Bible’s teaching on the various subjects she addresses.

So, an internecine battle on the right? Not exactly. It turns out that the American Values Network is a Democratic front group. The head of AVN is a former Hillary/Pelosi staffer. Its National Advisory Committee includes Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and other Democrats. It’s their attempt to sow dissension “on the right” by setting the GOP’s socially conservative base against the limited government libertarians. And in doing so, they’re taking the side of “Judeo-Christian morality.” Nice work, eh.

Ron Paul, the Republican House member and presidential candidate, seems as clear as mud on the Defense of Marriage Act. Here’s what he had to say about it in last week’s Republican debate:

PAUL: I think the government should just be out of [marriage]…. But if we want to have something to say about marriage, it should be at the state level and not at the federal government.

SHANNON BREAM (Fox News): All right. Given that answer, I have to ask you about your defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Even just weeks ago, you criticized this administration for its decision to no longer defend it against legal challenges.

PAUL: And — and the main reason there is, the Defense of Marriage Act — and I’ve been quoted as I voted for it. Of course, I supported it, but I wasn’t there. But because that bill actually protects the states — see, I do recognize that the federal government shouldn’t tell the states what to do. And the Defense of Marriage Act was really designed to make sure that the — that the states have the privilege of dealing with it and the federal government can’t impose their standards on them.

As Jim Cook, among others, points out, DOMA has two parts. One lets the states go their separate ways on marriage. That’s consistent with federalism and with Paul’s stated position — and it’s the part of DOMA that is not under legal challenge.

The second part of DOMA establishes a separate federal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, regardless of what states may say: a frontal assault on Paul’s stated federalism. This is the portion of DOMA which is under court challenge, and it’s the part President Obama says he can’t, in good conscience, defend.

I guess we can’t expect a Republican presidential candidate to come out and say he agrees with President Obama and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders about DOMA (or anything else). But the implication of Paul’s position is that he does agree with them—but he’s going to try not to admit it.

If the GOP strategy in 2004 was to impale Democrats on gay marriage, in 2012 the Republicans’ priority is to avoid being pinned down on it themselves. Paul exemplifies the evasions they’ll try to use. How about we all ask him, and other Republican candidates, about DOMA at every opportunity. Smoke ’em out.

A very nice profile of Redondo Beach, Calif., mayor Mike Gin, who is running for Congress, via the Washington Blade. The openly gay Republican would be the first person in a same-sex marriage elected to Congress if he wins:

“Certainly, we all need role models, and being gay and being married is just a part of who I am,” Gin said. “If somehow my election would provide some inspiration or maybe help a young person that’s very conflicted about being gay, then I think that’s a wonderful thing.”

An all-party primary is set for May 17.

Among the bills that Gin said he’ll support: the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States, and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Gin has been endorsed by 10 current or former mayors in the South Bay of California and the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce. He is running with the vigorous support of Log Cabin Republicans, but (as I posted earlier), Equality California is trumpeting its support for Gin’s very left-liberal, straight Democratic opponent, naturally. Gin also is seeking support from the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which to date (and to its continuing discredit) has failed to endorse him.

Replying to my recent post criticizing the (counterproductive, imho) attack on King & Spalding (“A Victory We Could Do Without”), my friend and fellow IGF blogger David Link says, “I’m just not buying it.” His thinking is exemplary—but exemplary, unfortunately, of the kind of thinking that plays into the other side’s hands.

David’s suggestion that I’m saying anything like “Never play hardball” is a straw man. What I did say is that, when we do play hardball, “we had better be accomplishing something worth the PR cost” of bolstering the other side’s “gay bullies” narrative. If David can tell me what the K&S stunt accomplished, other than moving Paul Clement to a smaller law firm and drawing a condemnation of our side’s “bullying tactics” from the pro-gay Washington Post (this is not helpful!), I’ll reconsider my position.

Of course the other side plays hardball whether we do or not. Of course the other side will call us bullies no matter what we do. That’s the point: they are baiting us.  I’ve said it once, twice, a thousand times, and it’s still true: the point isn’t to win over Maggie G. or to expect reciprocity from the Family Research Council, it’s to retain our superior moral credibility—which is our most precious strategic asset—with moderates, who will decide the outcome.

David is right about one thing: there’s no military command structure in the gay-rights movement. We can’t count on everybody, or anybody, to show restraint. But we can hope for subtle, supple leadership, which HRC and others certainly didn’t show in this case. I fear, though, that if I can’t talk even someone of David’s sensitivity out of a damn-the-torpedoes, tit-for-tat approach, we don’t have much chance of evading the trap Maggie et al. are setting for us.

Jonathan Rauch makes as good a case as there is for minding our Ps and Qs in the political battle over marriage equality, but I’m just not buying it.

In the first place, lesbians and gay men aren’t a military operation, and there’s no one to enforce the kind of discipline that would be required for us to maintain the virtually unified face his concern would require.  How would any group in a country like this be able to “be cautious” about giving any appearance?  I’ve long been in Jon’s camp about political moderation and conservative goal setting.  But if there’s any way for us, or anyone, to moderate the millions of individuals who don’t share our philosophy, I’ve certainly never found it.  I listen to Jon pretty carefully, but I doubt Tony Kushner does.

That goes to the heart of the problem with Jon’s argument.  Maggie Gallagher, Bryan Fischer, Bill Donohue and others who oppose marriage equality are fully committed to this last, substanceless defense of their discriminatory dream: “We’re The Victims Now.”  No one who’s actually gay has to do anything for them to find the “appearance” of homosexual bullying.  I’m quite certain no one at the 125 year old law firm of King & Spalding, 800 lawyers strong, and representing clients from Bank of America to Walmart, had anything like a gun held to their head by a Sister of Perpetual Indulgence, or wound up bloodied and bruised on the (I’d guess) marble floor of a partner’s suite.

In this context, the appearance of bullying comes merely from succeeding.  Maggie and her friends know this as well as HRC and Georgia Equality do.  Does anyone think HRC wouldn’t have claimed this victory if they’d done virtually nothing substantive – which may not be an inaccurate view?  Whether the claim is victory or super-uncool-meanness, it can be based on nothing more than an end result if the party is savvy enough.  There will always be details for the spin.

The bar for bullying is now awfully low, partly because we set it there.  When we’re talking about children, particularly in school, it’s probably not unfair to see bullying as intimidation that falls short of physical violence.  Kids can have a natural streak of cruelty, particularly about sexual orientation, and if that is left unchecked in a school setting, it can become a serious threat to the educational mission.

But while there are good reasons for setting a low bar in school, when you’re talking about adults in the commercial world, it’s harder to draw the line between bullying and hardball.  I’d say we’re even having a hard time drawing a line between bullying and softball, or badminton.  With all due respect, what Jon is proposing for us could have come right out of the left’s playbook for Lifted Pinky, Ever-So Respectful Political Discourse.  It is the artificially heightened sensibilities of Ms. Gallagher that have brought Jon to this point, I think, and while I can’t argue that she has had success with her stratagem, she’ll find her material no matter what.

I’m satisfied to cast my lot with the hardball players on our team.  Not the hood ornaments at HRC, but the business leaders who know what the hell they’re doing.  They have the most practical, material interest in knowing where the culture is, and in their judgment, opposing marriage equality has more downside than upside.  As with all judgments, there are those who differ, and good for them.  That’s what makes a market.

Hardball is unavoidable in adult interactions where a great deal is on the line.  Should we give it up when it’s quite clear our opponents won’t, as Virginia’s Attorney General has now demonstrated?  I think that’s the bottom line to Jon’s formulation of avoiding even the appearance of bullying.  Any time we win, our opponents will be able to spin us as bullies.  To ungracious losers, winners always give that appearance.

OK, so what have HRC, Georgia Equality, and other gay rights groups achieved by driving King & Spaulding off of defending the Defense of Marriage Act? (Here’s a good roundup.) Well, the same formidable lawyer, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, is still on the case, undeterred. He’ll be at a smaller firm, but he’ll also be a martyr, and he’ll have no trouble getting any resources he needs.

So maybe HRC et al. have succeeded in making the point that being anti-gay in today’s America comes at a cost, so think twice? That may be the lesson our side thinks it’s teaching, but the lesson a lot of lawyers may hear is: Don’t represent unpopular or controversial clients—including, next time around, gay ones. Obviously, the other side can use the same tactics against us; that is why minorities, especially, have a stake in a system where unpopular and controversial people can get top-flight legal representation.

What’s really going on here is not reflective, it’s reflexive. Activists found a weapon and used it and it worked. OK, that’s politics. I get that. Gay rights groups aren’t paid to make life easy for their opponents.

Here’s the thing, though: as gays emerge into effective majority status, the best and maybe only weapon the other side has left is the “homosexual bullies” narrative, in which they’re the oppressed minority, just trying to speak their mind and practice their religion, and we’re riding roughshod over their civil rights by trying to silence and intimidate them. We can’t stop the other side from flogging this narrative, but we can, and should, be cautious about even giving the appearance that the “gay bullies” narrative is true. If we look like we’re clobbering someone, we had better be accomplishing something worth the PR cost.

Just guessing, but I don’t think Paul Clement’s having been pushed to a smaller firm is going to change the Supreme Court’s judgment on DOMA. I don’t think it’s going to deter the other side from going to court. I don’t even think it will deprive the other side of good lawyers. It did show gays have some muscle. It didn’t show we’re smart about using it.