IGF CultureWatch

Social Issues and the Santorum Surge, in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, presents James Taranto’s interview with conservative politico Jeffrey Bell. An excerpt:

Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues…has a winning track record for the GOP. … The populist nature of social conservatism perplexes liberals, who think less-affluent Americans ought to side with the party of statist economics. … Yet Mr. Bell notes that social conservatism is largely a working-class phenomenon: “Middle America does have more children than elite America, and they vote socially conservative, even though they might not necessarily be behaving that way in their personal life. They may be overwhelmed by the sexual revolution and its cultural impacts.”

Santorum is “the most consistent and unapologetic social conservative in the race,” Bell notes.

I imagine Obama would beat Santorum in a matchup (at least that’s the conventional wisdom held by the elite, for now), but Santorum’s surge points out the extent to which we’ve failed to convince working-class America that gay equality is a positive development. Instead, gay rights has been perceptually lumped with both the over-expansion of state intrusiveness and the “sexual revolution”—phenomenon of the left that are viewed (and with some justification) as having destabilized traditional social bedrocks like marriage and community.

There’s a price to be paid by making gay rights part of the agenda of the left, and the Santorum surge may be part of that price.

More. Along the same lines, social conservative columnist Star Parker hails Santorum’s rise, linking it to “three recent left-wing victories”—the appellate ruling that California’s anti-gay-marriage Prop. 8 is unconstitutional; the orchestrated attacks on the Susan G. Komen foundation that led to the reversal of its decision to withdraw funding for Planned Parenthood over the latter’s abortion services; and the administration’s refusing to grant religiously affiliated organizations an exemption from Obamacare’s employer mandate requiring provision of free contraception, abortifacient drugs and sterilization.

The liberal-left supports all three actions; the social right opposes all three. Some of us hear the Sesame Street ditty, “which one of these things is not like the other.”

In a Washington Post op-ed (the print version was titled “The Myth of Gays vs. Blacks”), Maya Rupert, the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ federal policy director, argues that:

with depressing regularity, divisive and misleading rhetoric is dredged up whenever same-sex couples’ right to marry is put to a legislative or popular vote—often exacerbating the false myth of a rift between gays and blacks.

As the op-ed continues, it appears that black opposition to marriage equality isn’t exactly a myth, but it is the fault of insufficiently progressive government social policies and spending, in Rupert’s view. She admits, for instance, that:

The Post reported recently that 53 percent of black voters in the state opposed the marriage-equality bill introduced by [Maryland] Gov. Martin O’Malley (D). Another recent survey, by Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies Inc., concluded that support for marriage equality among black voters in Maryland has steadily declined over the past three months as the issue has gained prominence. The survey claimed that “opposition to same-sex marriage among African-American voters is what keeps the issue close in the state.”

But Rupert contends these numbers, like reports that 7 in 10 African Americans who went to the polls in California voted yes on the anti-gay-marriage Prop. 8 initiative, “mask a much more complex, and hopeful, reality.” Well, “hopeful” sounds nice, until you get to Rupert’s policy recommendations. She writes that:

marriage feels more fragile to many blacks because of a shrinking pool of available black men—due to disparate incarceration rates and the lack of meaningful and equal access to education and employment.

One could also say because of higher criminality rates among young black men.

Rupert continues that:

So while black couples are not legally precluded from marrying, social and legal inequalities make it just as inaccessible for many. Further, although the decline of marriage in the black community is rooted in racial and economic inequality, no state or federal policies have been introduced to address the problem. This political silence may well reflect much more about blacks’ historically lukewarm reaction to same-sex marriage than the oft-repeated, and offensive, assumption that black Americans are innately more homophobic than other groups.

So the answer is more welfare, economic redistribution and race-based preferences? That’s the liberal response to every social problem, I suppose.

As to Rupert’s contention about the “lack of meaningful and equal access to education,” black columnist Walter Williams wrote last week on this very topic, observing:

Many black students are alien and hostile to the education process. They are permitted to make education impossible for other students. Their misbehavior and violence require schools to divert resources away from education and spend them on security. … The sorry and tragic state of black education is not going to be turned around until there’s a change in what’s acceptable and unacceptable behavior by young people. That change has to come from within the black community.

Williams notes, further:

I graduated from Philadelphia’s Benjamin Franklin High School in 1954. Franklin’s students were from the poorest North Philadelphia neighborhoods—such as the Richard Allen housing project, where I lived—but there were no policemen patrolling the hallways. … Students didn’t use foul language to teachers, much less assault them.

How might one explain the greater civility of Philadelphia and other big-city, predominantly black schools during earlier periods compared with today? Would anyone argue that during the ’40s and ’50s…there was less racial discrimination and poverty and there were greater opportunities for blacks and that’s why academic performance was higher and there was greater civility?….If white and black liberals and civil rights leaders want to make such arguments, they’d best wait until those of us who lived during the ’40s and ’50s have departed the scene.

Someone might tell that to Maya Rupert.

African-American opposition isn’t the sole roadblock to same-sex marriage, of course—witness this week’s depressing veto of a marriage equality bill by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (and he’s considered somewhat of a fiscal conservative, social moderate by GOP standards).

But blacks, unlike white evangelicals, are part of the rainbow coalition of the left that supports the Democratic Party and pushes for progressive policies. While elected black officials are willing to support gay equality as part of that coalition, black voters clearly aren’t onboard. And more government spending or preferential treatment isn’t going to change things.

More. I expected some of our loyal left-liberal readers would take aim, but the reflexive characterization of myself and this post as “racist” is still disappointing. I can’t respond better than “Another Steve,” who replied in the comments:

Criticize the prevalence of homophobia in the black community – RACIST. Point out that government isn’t the solution to what ails the black community (and actually, it was the cause of a great many of the social pathologies that liberals would have government now rectify through more govenrment) – RACIST. Ah, well, Much more fun to…feel all smug and superior to those RACISTS than actually worry about the problems at hand — that a majority of the black electorate joins with the religious right in blocking marriage equality.

Steve Miller, Jon Rauch and Dale Carpenter all have solid takes on last week’s Prop. 8 ruling, Perry v. Brown, and all make essentially the same point: The court-ordered path to same-sex marriage runs directly through politics.  Despite what the most starry-eyed activists imagine, no single court decision should recognize nationwide same-sex marriage, at least not in the immediate future — which these days means about a decade.

Like legislatures, courts can move incrementally, which is the primary virtue in Perry.  There is a general rule that appellate courts should decide cases on the narrowest reasoning necessary to resolve the case before them.  While the trial judge swung for the fences, the appellate court found a narrower rationale to decide the case that limits its effect to California.

Limiting the decision is not just a satisfactory result, it is an excellent one as a political matter.  The political climate in California has changed a lot since the spasm of Prop. 8.  Even the feistiest of the Prop. 8 supporters were pretty tepid this time around.  There were no Prop. 8 supporters at the court on the morning of the decision, and the newsies had a tough time even tracking any of them down for quotes.  There has been a lot more work done in the Black and Latino communities in California on same-sex marriage, and Prop. 8’s proponents are struggling, both financially and in their ability to muster public support.  The Mormon church has backed off its anti-marriage tone and is holding the purse strings a bit more tightly on this issue, which would leave the Catholic church, now back to the fight against birth control, on the hook.  I think a California only decision would be well absorbed by the politics out here.

But California isn’t the only state that gets the benefit.  Court decisions may have narrow effects, but the opinions can persuade other courts, and even politicians.  Same-sex marriage will be coming up this year in various contexts: Washington, Maine, New Jersey, North Carolina, Illinois, Maryland and others look like they will be on the 2012 front lines.  Each iteration of this debate, even in the places where we lose, leaves a few more of our opponents winded and adds a lot more supporters to our side.

Those political debates happen in the same culture judges and lawyers live in, and give attorneys and the courts time to think about the constitutional issues in different and more nuanced ways.

That brings me back to Dale Carpenter, who offers an original spin on the notion of what counts as a rational basis for a law that is purely symbolic, as Prop. 8 was.  His piece is well worth reading, and moves the discussion forward in a sound but unexpected way.

Every enhancement to the debate changes the politics a little, and that helps the courts see more ways to resolve issues that are less disruptive than grand pronouncements and overarching rules.

We will get to equality, eventually.  But we won’t get there in a straight line, or all at once.  Every resolution brings us back to politics, one way or the other.

Younger attendees at the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) overwhelmingly thought the event’s organizers were wrong to bar GOProud, the conservative gay group that participated last year—triggering a boycott (since lifted after GOProud’s exclusion) by the Heritage Foundation and other anti-gay social-right groups, reports Stephen Richer at Forbes.com.

And so the fight continues among those of us who see the leftwing bureaucratic-welfare state as an economic dead end and the rightwing reactionary traditional-values-and-moralism state as a sociocultural dead end. Both represent an ongoing threat to a dynamic, innovative society founded on individual liberty and voluntary (rather than coercive) community.

Roger Simon explains why a Santorum nomination would be a GOP disaster — the Republican social right may be fine with overt homophobia, but the country isn’t any longer:

[M]ost people these days have homosexuals among their friends, family, or work colleagues and don’t appreciate even the whiff of bigotry. It’s become a big no-no. Santorum does not have a good track record in that regard. He is the only politician I know of who merits his own Wikipedia entry on the subject: “Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality.” Some of the quotations at that site from the former senator are not pretty. …
In most areas — economics, foreign policy, health care, etc. — I agree more or less with Rick Santorum. … I am certain, however, a Santorum nomination will be fraught with allegations of homophobia that may very well be fatal to his chances and to the Republican Party. Romney and Gingrich, for various reasons, some of them obvious, will not be able to say much about this during the nominating process. But you can sure as Hell bet the Democrats will if Santorum succeeds.

The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto has an interesting analysis of the California appellate ruling striking down Prop. 8’s ban on same-sex marriage in that state.

The appellate ruling is stayed pending appeal to either a larger 9th Circuit panel or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In all likelihood, either the Supreme Court won’t hear the anti-gay appeal (which would restore marriage equality in the Golden State), or would hear it and uphold the 9th Circuit ruling in California (given that the appellate ruling is expressively tailored to track Justice Kennedy’s ruling in Romer), but not extend marriage equality throughout the nation. Or the High Court could rule against marriage equality and restore California’s ban.

The fact that the ruling is highly unlikely to result in a Supreme Court declaration of marriage equality throughout the nation is not a bad thing, given that an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment is still a possibility. I’d rather see the Supreme Court first strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, which would result in federal recognition of same-sex marriages in states where such marriages are legal. Then, in just a few more years, the nation will be ready for a ruling striking down anti-gay marriage laws and state amendments, and the backlash will be manageable.

Added. Jon Rauch shares his views in New York’s Daily News, Gay marriage ruling in California is politically shrewd. He explains “Why the 9th Circuit’s decision was so modest — and so clever.”

More. From Politico: “The White House brushed aside questions Tuesday about Obama’s view on the Prop. 8 decision, while also refusing to shed light on the state of Obama’s thinking on the broader issue.”

The president isn’t likely to spend any political capital going out a limb. Why should he, when the left-liberal gay establishment has already pledged its undying fealty (cough, HRC, cough). But it’s worth noting that this profile in noncourage comes after Obama took unpopular positions in favor of killing the jobs producing Keystone pipeline, which would have helped provide energy independence but was hated by Robert Redford and the left-environmentalist crowd, and after his administration interpreted Obamacare as requiring Catholic-affiliated institutions to buy and provide their employees with abortion-inducing drugs, an assault on Constitutional rights that delighted NARAL and the feminist left. But on marriage equality, Obama is still “evolving.”

Most of my gay friends, including libertarian-leaning ones, have no problem with the Obama Administration’s decision to require Catholic-affiliated employers, such as hospitals and charities, to cover contraception in their health plans. The policy has caused a row, and Obama seems to be looking for a way to back off.

He should, imho. I’m a fan of religious-liberty exceptions even though I’m an atheist who thinks the church’s position on contraception is absurd and harmful—and even though most American Catholics agree with me, not their church. (I’m told, in fact, that many Catholic-affiliated employers quietly provide contraceptive coverage right now, without the church’s making an issue of it.)

And I’m a fan of religious exceptions not despite being gay but because of it.

My gay friends say, “Look, we can’t go around giving exemptions to anyone who objects to some law on religious grounds. If we did, what would happen to antidiscrimination laws protecting gays, among lots of other things?” Yes, up to a point. But where’s that point? These same gay friends tend to favor a default assumption that any religious institution that receives any federal money, or even a tax break, should have to follow every jot and tittle of every federal law.

I accept, as I think all religious-liberty advocates do, that saying “It’s my religion” can’t be a magic wand exempting you from law. But that’s a straw man. I’m guessing we can all agree that the First Amendment gives religious-affiliated institutions some autonomy (quite a lot, actually, if you read the text: “make NO law”), yet in practice today we find ourselves arguing over whether it gives them any meaningful autonomy. Roll over, James Madison.

I think the starting point for discussion should be, “What’s the most—not the least—amount of leeway we can give to religious institutions without undermining important social or governmental ends?” First, because it’s what Madison and the founders intended, and they were smarter than we are. Second, because it’s good social policy to avoid unnecessary conflict. Third, because erring on the side of diversity is a partial brake on the natural but dangerous tendency toward absolutism in the exercise of power.

Years ago, in a Harper’s article, I made the case for pluralism over purism. It’s still the right answer. Society has a positive interest in the preservation of dissent and heterodoxy. People who are so certain they’re right that they’d stamp out alternative practices and beliefs might want to have a second think. Especially if they’re gay.

Oh, those evil corporations. When they’re not oppressing the 99%, they’re … advancing legal equality for gay people. Oh, nevermind.

At the New York Times, columnist Frank Bruni writes that several large corporations, including Starbucks, Microsoft, and Amazon, have expressed public support for state initiatives to legalize same-sex marriage. Bruni observes:

“More so than politicians, corporations play the long game, trying to engender loyalty for decades to come, and they’re famously fixated on consumers in their 20s and 30s. They see support for same-sex marriage as a winner, something that will help with employee recruitment as well.”

Along the same lines, JCPenney has hired Ellen DeGeneres as its advertising spokesperson, hoping to project a more hip image to consumers. That’s social change!

More. On his Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly defends JCPenney’s hiring of DeGeneres.

Alas, David and I are never going to agree on the matter of forcing Catholic insitutions to provide contraceptive services to their employees, but I will respond to David, below, that I don’t consider Notre Dame University or Holy Cross Hospital (for instance) to be secular businesses – they are Church affiliated and view themselves as fulfilling a religious mission in the world (same for various Catholic charities).

Defending “contraception” is pretty easy – even if the issue is a government dictate that Catholic institutions buy condoms and IUDs for their employees. David avoids the uglier issue of abortion-inducing drugs. I would, too, if I were defending his position.

What next, forcing Jewish hospitals to serve their employees ham? Because we think ham is good for you and the kosher prohibition strikes us as superstition (and after all, we’re liberals and we know best)?

As for David’s contention “Insurance is a product, and people buy it.” Many employers self-insure – creating a set of benefits for their workforce with an insurance provider. Only very small businesses these days tend to buy insurance off the shelf for their workers. And it’s the employer who almost always still pays most (and sometimes all) of the premium.

Stephen Miller makes a good enough point, as far as it goes.  But it doesn’t go very far.

He’s one of the last people I’d expect to use squishy liberal rhetoric, but there’s just no kinder way to describe that “free.”  Only Pelosi-philes really think that insurance benefits are free just because you don’t pay for them at the point of service.  Insurance is a product, and people buy it.  The question is what and how much you’re paying for.

And that gets me to the main point.  Steve is willing to accept the church’s position that any corporate structure they choose to devise is religion if they say so.

The government not only has no business interfering with the exercise of religion, I think that’s one of the most consequential and revolutionary aspects of our constitution.  And that fully includes religious discrimination against lesbians and gay men.

But is the government required to be a sap about it?  Like all other bureaucratic organizations, churches have been known to abuse power and privilege — and laws.  And that is nowhere more true than when it comes to rules about sex.  Catholics are free to accept their church leadership’s hypocrisy and cluelessness about sexual matters.  But when the church selectively wishes to exempt itself from some laws (about contraception, say) while following others (about tax advantages) in its business operations in the private — not religious — sector, then I think it’s fair to question their lawfulness, and even their seriousness.

Their non-Catholic employees need health insurance as much as anyone else does.  And those insurance policies are government regulated, whether any of us around here like it or not.  Within the limits of its authority over actual believers, the church is free to be as extravagant in its hypocrisy as it wishes.  But when it operates a business that is not limited to believers (and doesn’t even pretend to be), something different is at stake — the rule of law.  This is a case where the Catholic hierarchy is simply using its power over its own believers (which they freely ignore) to make life more complicated for non-believers who work for them.  And that is not any matter of conscience, it is a matter of naked power.

If any significant number of believing Catholics actually followed the church’s rules against contraception, this would be a somewhat harder case, I suppose.  But it would still come down to the fact that the church has chosen to establish a secular corporation in the private sector to provide an inarguably valuable public good.  Having chosen to do so, it is not free to pick and choose the laws that apply to it based on some flexible corporate notion of “conscience.”  If churches have the power to make even non-believers subject to their rules, in ways that are entirely convenient to the church, then we have recreated the problem of religious establishment under an infinitely expandable version of religious exercise.

That cannot be right.  It certainly isn’t what any of the founders would have imagined.   This is not just the religious exemption that Steve has in mind.  Church rules are appropriate for believers of that religion.  But there is and should be no constitutional right for religions to bully nonbelievers.  That principle is at the heart of this nation’s DNA, and it looks like the bishops want us to live through that battle again.