IGF CultureWatch

A majority of Americans believe taxes and government spending are too high, and a majority now supports marriage equality. Unfortunately, one party tends to favors greater economic but not personal freedom (with exceptions, such as gun-ownership rights), and the other tends to favor greater personal freedom (with exceptions, such as speech deemed to be offensive) but not economic freedom. Is there an opening for libertarianism?

In an answer to this question, David Boaz, the Cato Institute’s executive vice president, engages in a discussion with The Atlantic on “America’s Libertarian Moment.” Among his observations of particular interest to this forum:

I think you’re seeing a growth of self-conscious libertarianism…. [A] majority of Americans think our taxes are too high, a majority of Americans think the federal government spends too much, a majority of Americans think it was a mistake to get into Iraq. A bare majority of Americans now favor gay marriage, a bare majority favor marijuana legalization, a huge majority think there should be a requirement to balance the federal budget….

We would say that the issue of race in college admissions and the issue of equal marriage rights in the DOMA case are both applications of equal protection of the law. We actually had a similar experience 10 years ago, in 2003, when we were the only organization to have filed amicus briefs in support of Lawrence in Lawrence v. Texas [the case that struck down sodomy laws] and Jennifer Gratz in her lawsuit against the University of Michigan [for its affirmative-action policy]. There were a lot of gay-rights and liberal groups on our side in the Lawrence case, and a lot of conservatives on our side with Jennifer Gratz. We felt that we were asking for equal freedom under law for both Gratz and Lawrence….

What should a libertarian candidate be running on? I would say fiscal conservatism and social tolerance. Get the government out of people’s lives. Why do you care who marries someone else? But that’s one thing that Rand Paul can’t run on in a Republican primary. He’s not in favor of marriage equality….

If somebody’s Catholic values inform what they believe, on welfare or marriage or whatever, that’s their business…. And if your best arguments for banning gay marriage are, in fact, religious, then I think you can expect a limited reception in the courts, because the courts want to know what does the Constitution say. They’re not going to care what your religion says….

There will be more libertarian-leaning politicians in Congress, but we’re a long way from being a caucus at this point. What’s more important is what do the Republicans and Democrats who actually get elected want to do. I hope they will recognize that the country wants to move in a more tolerant direction on marriage and marijuana, and that we are overextended financially and need to restrain spending and the entitlement state.

It’s worth reading the whole thing.

More. This benighted Washington Post piece on “libertarian Democrats” reduces libertarianism to opposition toward NSA spying on Americans. No mention of supporting smaller government and lower taxes, or even issues such as school choice. The Post, of course, is the house organ of the Washington establishment, so no wonder our political elite is clueless.

A rightwing group called America’s Survival is deeply worried about Fox News’ new “pro-gay agenda,” says MEDIAite, reporting:

The [group’s] report includes a lengthy section titled “Fox News Joins the Pro-Homosexual Media Bandwagon,” in which the group wrings its hands over how Fox has “increasingly adopted a libertarian brand of ‘conservatism’ that eschews or downplays social issues, especially homosexuality, as too ‘divisive.’” The emergence of this “neutral (or shallow)” coverage of homosexuality has been exacerbated by the “pro-LGBT” advocacy of hosts like [Megyn] Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, and Shepard Smith.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation will not be pleased…with Fox News, that is. The last thing GLAAD wants is a conservative-leaning network to come onboard. Last March, you may recall we noted, GLAAD issued a stinging denunciation of Fox News and its anchors for, among other things, paying to attend GLAAD’s annual media awards fundraiser—the nerve!

In a saner, less rabidly partisan LGBT movement, GLAAD would have courted Fox and then taken credit for its turnaround (while noting there is more work to be done). But how would that serve the party?

According to this posting on The Volokh Conspiracy site referencing this article on BuzzFeed regarding how the Social Security Administration (SSA) plans to handle spousal benefits in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Defense of Marriage Act ruling:

the SSA has bucked the trend in other executive agencies of paying benefits to all couples whose marriage was validly celebrated. Instead, the SSA will pay benefits only to a couple whose home state (“domicile”) recognizes their marriage. …

SSA’s decision may well be required by 416(h)(1)(A)(i), and if so it is hard to criticize the administration. But the decision has the unfortunate effect of ensuring that same-sex couples will be married for some federal purposes and not for others.

Left uncertain, according to Volokh’s Will Baude, is whether same-sex couples in domestic partnership states such as New Jersey will be entitled to SSA spousal benefits.

Nevertheless, it’s pretty clear that in a post-DOMA world the federal benefits disparity between states that recognize same-sex marriage and those that don’t is going to make living in a marriage equality state, when practical, much more appealing to gay couples. And those who must remain in non-equal states due to career requirements or the need to care for elderly parents, for instance, will suffer the financial impact—unless and until state laws are changed or the courts rule otherwise.

Writing at the Huffington Post, Charles Francis reminds us how very different things were 50 years ago today (Aug. 8, 1963), when Rep. John Dowdy (D-Texas) held hearings on his bill to revoke the nonprofit status of the “society of homosexuals” organized by Frank Kameny.

The International Olympic Committee has the authority to do Vladimir Putin’s dirty work for him.  The NY Times reports the IOC charter prohibits political expression by athletes.

The issue is coming into focus after Frank Bruni proposed a silent rainbow flag protest by American athletes — or any athletes — during an Olympic ceremony.

There is no doubt that, while it is possible the Russian government might try to go after openly gay or lesbian athletes — there are very few of them, after all — they could not possibly go after every straight athlete who expressed support for gay equality, which would be a clear violation of the law prohibiting propaganda.  While the Russian people clearly retain much of the world’s remaining prejudices about homosexuality, it’s hard to think they would have the stomach to really punish thousands of Olympic athletes for simply articulating — possibly silently — a widespread political opinion.  Let’s not forget that these athletes are overwhelmingly young, and well within the demographic of greatest support for gay equality.

The IOC, though, has much greater control over the athletes than the Russian police.  They have their political expression rule for their own administrative reasons, and the athletes would obviously have to take a public pronouncement seriously.

This would be collaboration of the ugliest sort.  I don’t think there is any reason to believe the IOC would actually do this.  But if they do, I think it’s pretty likely Putin would greet the news as a public relations victory and an enormous gesture of assistance.

Via Politico: Bob Filner’s 9th accuser comes forward. But at least he’s a Democrat! Sure glad the LGBT activists in San Diego went all out to back for mayor this noble exemplar of their political values rather than, gasp, his openly gay Republican opponent. Now, that would have been beyond the pale!

The blowup between Chris Christie and Rand Paul is highlighting differences between libertarians (with a small “l”) and Republicans (with a cap “R”). From the Washington Post:

In the 1992 election, for example, a Cato Institute analysis found that the 13 percent or so of voters who were libertarian-minded—those who told pollsters they wanted smaller government but tolerant social policies—split almost evenly among Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush, Democrat Bill Clinton and third-party candidate Ross Perot. …

When libertarian Clark Ruper was a University of Michigan student from 2004 to 2007, he recalled, “there were, like, five of us on campus, and we all knew each other.” Now vice president of a rapidly growing organization called Students for Liberty, Ruper says of the dust-up between Christie and Paul: “I think it’s fantastic. When guys like Chris Christie are attacking us, we must be doing something right.”

Ruper, for one, rejects Reagan’s depiction of conservatism and libertarianism as being one and the same. “We are not a branch of conservatism,” largely because of social issues like same-sex marriage and drug legalization, Rupar said. “Those are real deal-breakers where we can’t get along with conservatives. We find our allies there on the left.”

And this:

Libertarians still count relatively few elected officials as their own. Rand Paul comes the closest. Libertarians have cheered his stance on surveillance and his 13-hour filibuster in March to protest the Obama administration’s use of unmanned drones. That filibuster brought withering commentary from the conservative establishment. …

Yet even Paul draws some skepticism from libertarian purists. They are leery, for instance, of his recent overtures to the Christian right, a constituency he cannot afford to alienate if he hopes to win his party’s presidential nomination.

Too often, it’s pick your poison—Republican religious rightists or Democratic total statists. But I think it’s evident that libertarians gay and straight in the GOP know they are battling for the soul of their party, whereas LGBT activists in the Democratic fold often embrace the worst aspects of their party’s bigger-bigger-bigger government agenda.

More. Enjoy 23 Libertarian Problems.

The Washington Post reports that a “coalition of civil rights groups” is launching a $2 million campaign “aimed at mobilizing support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which has languished on Capitol Hill for nearly two decades.” Moreover:

The coalition, which also includes the American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of Teachers, National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, will focus on senators in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. With the exception of Democrats Mark Pryor (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), all the targeted senators are Republican. HRC President Chad Griffin said he was optimistic the campaign, which will also include business leaders, would be able to persuade conservative and centrist lawmakers to support the law.

If they think Democratic-front “civil rights groups,” including those that consistently work to defeat openly gay Republicans running in non-incumbent races, are going to be effective at targeting members of the Grand Old Party, they’re delusional.

While it’s good that Pope Francis is willing “not to judge” celibate gay clergy who are devoted to serving the Church of Rome, I think some of the joyous responses are overblown. But I guess we will see if this is a small sign of a larger shift or just a small step back from Joseph Ratzinger’s view that homosexual orientation itself is an intrinsic moral evil that should disqualify even the celibate from serving as priests. You remember Ratzinger, the former Hitler Youth, Third Reich gunner and head of the inquisition, and, oh yes, Pope Benedict XVI. Compared to that, I guess Francis is a saint.

Still, I’d bet Austin Ruse isn’t happy.