IGF CultureWatch

From AP: “‘The whole thing is a political train wreck,’ said Richard Socarides, a White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.” Hard to disagree. At one time, the bill to overturn “don’t ask, don’t tell” had several Republican sponsors. But when push came to shove, we didn’t even keep the two Maine moderates, Collins and Snowe (here’s the cloture vote). Talk about pulling a defeat out of the jaws of victory.

McCain disgraced himself. But Socarides is right to fault the Democrats’ strategy. And whose bright idea was it to highlight Lady Gaga at a pro-repeal rally the day before the vote? It’s the kind of “let’s just speak to each other and our allies on the left” foolishness that shows a disdain for even bothering to try to reach out to the opposition.

In retrospect, waiting for the military report, due by the end of the year, would have taken away a crutch some socially moderate Republicans used to vote down repeal. Holding a lame-duck vote after the election might also have been a better way to go. But what’s done is done, and the struggle will have to carry on in the next Congress, with a much larger number of Republicans onboard (with some chance of another vote this year, after the military report is released). Either way, the Democrats-only strategy will be an even bigger failure if that’s all we’ve got.

More. Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin says Harry Reid set up the vote to fail. He blogs:

The sixty votes needed to break the filibuster had already been lined up, but that was before Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to limit debates and votes on amendments. That led to a collapse in support in ending the filibuster. Servicemembers United, which has been campaigning for DADT’s repeal, saw through Reid’s political posturing.

There are going to be a lot of political postmortems on this one.

Furthermore. Shikha Dalmia, a senior analyst at the libertarian Reason Foundation, blogs ObamaCare’s First Major Casualties: Gays and Aliens.

Good news, everyone: things are infinitely better at the Family Research Council!

In a landmark New York Times op-ed piece back in 1994, David Boaz pointed out that the self-allegedly pro-family organization’s publications included more items on homosexualty than on family structure, parenthood, and teen pregnancy combined. And, yes, “There was no listing for divorce.”

Well, Boaz has just taken a look at a recent batch of FRC issue briefs. He counts seven papers on abortion and stem cells (which, whatever you may think about them, are not breaking up families), five on gays and gay gay marriage (ditto), and—drum roll, please—ONE on divorce.

Look at the bright side. One is infinitely better than zero. At this rate, in 2026 FRC will have two papers on divorce. In 2040, they’ll have three! By about 2100, they may be half as ready to talk about divorce as to blame gays for the country’s family problems. I don’t know about you, but I’m holding my breath.

This is very telling: The Washington Blade’s top story this week is about the DC mayoral Democratic primary, which incumbent Mayor Adrian Fenty lost to City Council Chair Vincent Gray. The story is headlined: “Activists hail Gray’s stunning win over Fenty.” The subhead (at least in the print version): “But mayor carries precincts with high concentrations of LGBT voters.”

That is, gay voters went one way, while the city’s “progressive” LGBT activists went the other.

In a nutshell, Fenty and Gray are both liberal African-American Democrats, but Fenty challenged the entrenched unions by supporting modest school reforms, which included firing teachers who failed to meet basic performance standards. That infuriated the teachers’ union, which strongly backed Gray, as did the rest of the public sector employee unions. Sadly, despite improved student test scores (and lower crime) under Fenty, Gray won the day.

LGBT “progressive” activists are joined at the hip with public sector unions and other elements of the “progressive” statist, entrenched big government coalition. Gay voters, however, cast their votes overwhelmingly for Fenty. This is a local story, but this November, and in November 2012, American voters will, I believe, rise up against not just ineffective big government, but the entrenched power of public sector unions, whose members’ salaries and benefits (that is, for federal and state and local workers), paid by taxpayers, are now far in excess of what taxpayers themselves earn for the same jobs in the private sector, not to mention the near-impossibility of firing public sector workers despite their lack of performance.

LGBT activists are showing that they will be on the wrong side, fighting tooth and nail to defend the privileges of their Service Employee International Union allies, and that’s not going to be good for gay people.

More. From Michael Barone, Public Unions vs. Gentry Liberals:

“Gentry liberals and public employee unions were allies in the Obama campaign in 2008. But now they’re in a civil war in city and state politics. This raises the question of whether the Democratic Party favors public employee unions that want more money and less accountability, or gentry liberals and others who care about the quality of public services. Right now the unions are winning.”

That would seem to mirror the split between gay voters and LGBT progressive activists over public union power.

Furthermore. From Reuters: “Now that most European countries are burdened with high deficits and debt mountains due to the financial crisis, the ‘big government’ left is not seen as offering a credible answer to the question of where and how to shrink the state. In many countries, public employees are the biggest bloc of socialist party members and constitute a brake on reform.”

There, as here.

The Cato Institute’s David Boaz expects tea-party congressional freshmen to push for a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, not an amendment to ban gay marriage. “I don’t think there’s likely to be a lot of social activism coming out of them,” he tells the Wall Street Journal.

More thoughts from Boaz on the tea partiers, here.

There’s no question that the tea party patriots have focused like a laser on Washington’s fiscally unsustainable course. Could that change? The Journal notes, “82% of tea-party supporters interviewed said they oppose gay marriage, compared with 74% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats, according to a Zogby International poll.” On the other hand:

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted in June found that just 2% of those identified as tea partiers put social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage at the top of their priority lists for federal action. By contrast, 29% chose job creation and economic growth at the top, and 25% picked the deficit and government spending.

Engagement and dialogue with the tea party movement, rather than rank attacks from the LGBT left is the better way to help ensure that they don’t shift gears and make common cause with the cultural warriors.

More. Just received a fundraising letter from the Human Rights Campaign that attacks the Tea Party movement, without citing any evidence of the Tea Partiers’ anti-gay activism. For HRC, it’s all about supporting the Democratic Party.

Jonathan Rauch has written two very insightful articles for the National Journal about the Tea Party; one focusing on its leaderless anti-organization, and one examining its effects on national politics and particularly the Republican Party.

In looking for precedents to the leaderless group, Jon misses what I think is one of the most relevant, and obvious examples: ACT-UP.  Formed formlessly well before the internet, ACT-UP wasn’t an organization, it was an impulse, a reaction against a deadly status quo that wasn’t being reacted to by anyone else.  Like the Tea Parties, its fury came from what everyone else was just taking for granted.  Its variant affiliates across the country all had the same animating spirit, but acted up in their own unique ways.  No one led ACT-UP.

Also like the Tea Parties, ACT-UP had more than its share of members addicted to a theatrical style that crossed over into parody and sometimes developed into actions that were fully offensive.  The 1989 invasion of St. Patrick’s Cathedral during mass still stands as one of its signature delinquencies.

But in the end, ACT-UP was successful beyond anyone’s imagination in actually changing federal bureaucracies for the better, and that will remain its legacy – one the Tea Party should take very seriously.  Major protests at both the FDA and the NIH, along with sustained follow-up work, led to changes in focus on HIV, and long-term advances in compassionate use of experimental drugs, as well as other institutional innovations that made the bureaucracies more humane and actually helpful.  Government changed because of ACT-UP.

The Tea Parties have a more developed infrastructure, but they also have a bigger and more diffuse target – fiscal sanity in a political environment that can’t envision ever spending less.  That’s an ambitious undertaking

But the Tea Parties have one other big difference from ACT-UP: a hungry pack of national politicians eager to speak for them.  That would be an advantage for any traditional organization, but as Jon notes, the internal contradictions of the Republican party, first synthesized by the sheer magic of Ronald Reagan, and held together ever since by duct tape and Krazy Glue are splitting back into their component and inconsistent parts: the religious right and the small government faction.

You can see the problem as the American Family Association’s increasingly deranged Bryan Fischer tries to co-opt the Tea Party Express’s Amy Kremer.  She is as candid as one can imagine when she tells him that she has to disappoint him.  If the Tea Party were to include the religious right’s social issues, “this movement is going to fall apart.”

That’s sticking to your guns, but it’s no small fact that she was, at the time, attending the Values Voters Summit.  Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally at the Lincoln Memorial was a religious revival under a Tea Party tent.  Despite Kremer’s protestations, she, no less than any current Republican leader, will have to deal with what Karl Rove hath wrought.

I wish the Tea Party well, if they’re really serious about smaller government.  I hope they can do better in dealing with the problems of politicized religion than the GOP has.  But it’s a heavy lift.

Keep your eyes on the prize, Tea Partiers.  Silence = Debt.

This video is making the rounds, and deservedly so.  It’s a pretty amusing parody of the “No homo” tick hip-hop invented to defend itself against The Gay.

But it’s got more going for it than that.  What makes it both funny and pointed is that it shows how closeted gay men are as irritating to heterosexuals as they are to homosexuals.  We all have a direct interest in making sure that people don’t delude themselves about their own sexual orientation.  Straight is cool, gay is cool, bi is cool (if confusing); but for God’s sake, man, figure yourself out.

And the video is especially timely because its humor comes from the same tortured logic that gave us Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  The delusion of mostly older heterosexuals, and mostly men, is that if only gay men could “keep quiet about it” everything would be OK.

“No homo” is risible in the hip-hop world because it is such a lame attempt to acknowledge that some relationships and interests of heterosexual men are non-sexual but can look a little iffy.  That “if” only matters when there is a stigma about being gay, a stigma that has historically been able to drive homosexuality into the netherworld of the closet.  As that stigma recedes (and it is), the feints and jabs at its fading shadow look more pathetic – and sillier.

DADT is not just some military policy based on that stigma, it is a piece of social engineering designed to hold up the eroding barricades of prejudice in that small part of the world where prejudice can actually be enforced every day.  But in the end it is just another limp cry of “no homo,” this time in a uniform.

We can laugh about that in the civilian world.  But in the military, DADT has real consequences, both for national security and for the lives of the men and women whom the law requires to lie, every day, every hour, every minute.  This not only undermines their lives, it makes the military look as duped and misfocused as the laughable character in this video.

There may still be vestiges of the stigma against homosexuals left among a number of younger military personnel.  We’ll see when the results of the military’s survey come out (and hopefully we’ll be able to discount for the biased structure of the questions; the survey looks like it was intended to goad the most anti-gay answers out of the respondents).  But at its worst, that survey would only show us that a lot of military folks believe some things most of the rest of us just find pretty funny.

Unlike “No homo,” DADT is a dead serious matter.  They are similar only in this: No one benefits, and problems arise when we urge or demand that people deny the truth about themselves.

I can recommend, sort of, that you read National Review’s recent cover editorial, “What Marriage Is For” (online, “The Case for Marriage“). It’s a good example of how not to make a case.

The article is a mass of non sequiturs. It assumes that if marriage is “for” something—regulating procreative sex—then using it for anything else must be “against” marriage, which is like saying that if mouths are “for” eating, we mustn’t use them for talking or breathing. It claims (conjecturally) that marriage would not have arisen if not for the fact that men and women make babies, from which it concludes that society has no stake in childless marriages.

It argues that marriage, and a culture of marriage, are good and important, a point on which thoughtful gay-marriage advocates enthusiastically agree. But, of course, our whole argument is that including gays won’t stop marriage from doing the good things it now does, and will probably strengthen marriage and the marriage culture. Maybe we’re wrong. But the editorial doesn’t even bother to engage. It proceeds as if “gay marriage is bad” follows obviously from “straight marriage is good.”

Confronted with the obvious fact that no society has ever excluded sterile heterosexual couples from marriage, and that excluding them would be absurd, the editorial simply baffles. “An infertile couple can mate even if it cannot procreate.” It can mate? If “mate” means “have heterosexual intercourse,” the argument merely assumes the conclusion, and “procreativity” has gone right out the window. The article notes that the inclusion of sterile straight couples does not prove that marriage “has nothing to do with” procreation. Right! But it also does not prove that marriage has only to do with procreation. In fact, it quite strongly suggests the contrary.

I could go on. The public, thank goodness, is thinking more seriously and clearly about marriage than are the editors of National Review, which is why the public is coming around.

Florida Gov. Crist shifts support on gay rights issues. I sometimes wonder if any politician believes in anything other than their own will to power, and organizing effective electoral coalitions to that end.

More. Republican John Dennis isn’t going to beat Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco, but his ad is fun.

To David Link’s eloquent plea to the U.S. Senate, below, I’ll add these thoughts. Regarding the district court ruling that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is unconstitutional, I agree that if barring openly gay people from serving in the military (that is, requiring that they lie and hide, subject to discharge if the truth about their orientation should be learned) is based on societal hostility and the presumed (or even real) prejudice of heterosexual troops, then the policy is in violation of constitutional protections ensuring due process, free speech, and (more generally) equality under the law.

But that’s a different question from whether it would be a better political course to reverse “don’t ask, don’t tell” via congressional action rather than by court ruling. A legislative death to the policy would be less likely to provoke a backlash by those claiming judicial overreach. (Of course, if the judiciary did not, in fact, so often overreach to advance a political agenda not grounded in ensuring constitutional protections for all, then such claims would be less effective, but that’s another story).

So here’s hoping that Log Cabin’s to-date successful lawsuit may light a fire under a recalcitrant Senate.