IGF CultureWatch

updated Sept. 29

The never-ending presidential race has sucked the air out of every other issue, save for perhaps the credit crisis-thank you Barney Frank and Acorn-empowering Obama, who has the gall to blame Republicans for the mess caused when he and his fellow Democrats used government to pressure lenders to make subprime loans to lower-income families (i.e., "community activism"). Maybe voters are so ill-informed that they'll buy it; well see. But I digress. Below are more as-of-now political musings.

If McCain wins, I think it will show that the U.S. remains a center-right majority electorate, and that working singularly within the Democratic party in the hope of a leftwing ascendancy remains a failed strategy.

If Obama wins with a Democratic Congress (the likely outcome, given the nation's GOP-fatigue), we'll see how well the Democrats deliver on their promises -- and whether it's better than when Clinton had both houses of Congress and our rights went backwards because the party saw no need to spend political capital on gay voters. This under-reported back-tracking by Obama on "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Gay activist Wayne Besen, formerly of the Human Rights Campaign, recently penned a column in which he calls on the Log Cabin Republicans to disband. He's beside himself over LCR's endorsement of John McCain-heresy, heresy, HERESY. (Ok, that's a paraphrase). But his concern is that we don't quite have 100% of our eggs in just one basket, and everyone should be toeing the party line.

I'd counter that, with increasingly rare exceptions, LGBT liberal-left activists are no longer even trying to woo the center-right (where I believe most Americans reside). So if Besen would have Log Cabin disband, here's my own proposal: If more gay people joined their local GOP committees and supported GOP/conservative groups and pacs that are either gay supportive (LCR) or avoid social issues (Club for Growth), and worked within them (while being open about being gay), we'd begin to counter the influence that the religious right has exerted throughout the GOP. And that might do more to advance gay equality than partying with fellow liberal Democrats ever will.

More. Log Cabin's Patrick Sammon on why gay Republicans are standing with McCain. Sammon cites not only McCain's consistent opposition to the federal marriage amendment, but also his support for allowing people "to invest part of their Social Security taxes [into] private accounts that can be left to one's partner-something prohibited under the current system that Obama defends."

The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund says it's a nonpartisan organization that supports gay candidates of whichever party if it deems them sufficiently electable. But next week in Washington it's honoring comic Margaret Cho, a comic who is a rabid hater of the GOP, with its leadership award. Gee, doesn't that make gay Republicans feel welcome in their club.

"I think [Palin] is the worst thing to happen to America since 9-11," Cho recently told the Washington Blade. "Someone who has no thoughts about women's rights and who wants to send women back to the Stone Age? You might as well not let women vote." Cho, the Blade reports, also singled out Palin in part because, as it paraphrases Cho, "the Alaska governor's church has encouraged discredited reparative therapy techniques to help gay people become straight."

Reality check: Palin has been condemned for not staying home and raising her kids-by progressive liberal supposed feminists. But she's a setback for women's rights because....she has an [R] after her name and is personally pro-life. Also, she has never expressed any support for reparative therapy and her church is not leading a crusade against gays. One worship program at her church carried an ad for a Focus on the Family conference on overcoming homosexuality. If that makes Palin a homophobe, then Obama can be said to hate this nation based on his attendance at a church where his spiritual mentor preached "God Damn America."

Is honoring Cho likely to promote gay participation within the GOP, and thus advance gay equality by making inroads with both parties? Hardly. Gay Republican candidates who might accept Victory Fund money are going to have to explain to Republican voters why they're being supported by a gay Democratic group.

The Victory Fund ought to be shamed for honoring Cho with its leadership award and calling itself nonpartisan at the same time. To quote Obama, how stupid do they think we are?

Okay, if I were a betting man, I'd still wager that Obama takes it and the Democrats extend their gains in Congress. But that result isn't anywhere near as certain as before McCain's strategically brilliant (yes, politically speaking, brilliant) selection of Sarah Palin, which unleashed the unvarnished hatred and elitism of the angry left with the predicable result of prodding non-elite America to give the GOP another look.

Not only are some national polls now giving McCain a slight edge (and a slightly bigger lead among likely voters), but according to Gallup the battle for Congress suddenly looks competitive. Per Gallup, "If these numbers are sustained through Election Day-a big if-Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives."

Which is to say, the LGBT beltway activists' commitment to a one-party roll of the dice is looking like an even more high-risk proposition that it was a few weeks ago.

Further thoughts. Leaving aside the enthusiasm among African-Americans for the first major-party black presidential nominee, this race increasingly is about the urban/urbane/secular vs. those who aren't. Palin didn't have an abortion. She (like the president they detest) prays for God's guidance (the "religious nut" who proclaims, "I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side"). She doesn't have an Ivy League degree. She, in short, challenges the left's sense of entitlement to rule based on its perceived cultural superiority.

But the LGBT movement is, for all intents and purposes, an appendage of the cultural and political left (for many good historical reasons; primarily being homophobia fueled by religious intolerance and provincial conservatism). Yet, as I've argued, failure to make gaining inroads among conservative-minded independents a key strategy, and instead focusing on achieving victory by and through the hoped-for ascendancy of the political left, has rendered the gay movement deeply vulnerable to the reversals that result when the center-right majority expresses its antipathy toward elite left-progressive opinion (as when majorities vote to overturn the pro-gay decisions of liberal courts).

Two op-eds, worlds apart. B. Dan Blatt of GayPartiot.net on the lack of personal animosity toward gays at the Republican convention (Proud to be a Republican). And Joan Garry, former head of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), attacking gay Republicans (Chickens are voting for Colonel Sanders) and demonstrating why, under her tenure, GLAAD completely failed to reach out to the American center and instead devoted itself to honoring, ad nauseum, the cultural left.

Much nonsense has been flowing from left wing blogs about Sarah Palin, making it hard to distinguish her real strengths and weaknesses on social issues from paranoid caricature. Clearly, she is pro-life, supports 2nd amendment rights to gun ownership and is against same-sex marriage. Aside from that, there are a few worthy reports and commentaries online that shed some insight on her views and values, and they suggest that Palin represents a shift forward for the GOP. (This, in turn, has rattled Democrats and resurfaced some of the misogynistic tactics deployed against Hillary.)

The Los Angeles Times reports that "The Republican vice presidential candidate says students should be taught about condoms. Her running mate-and the party platform-disagree," revealing that Palin is more progressive on sexual matters than McCain:

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau.

Some LGBT Obama supporters are making much of a report that Palin's church, as activist Wayne Besen puts it, "appears to support so-called 'ex-gay' ministries." The source is Time magazine, which reported:

Churches proliferate in Wasilla today, and among the largest and most influential is the Wasilla Bible Church, where the Palins worship.

At the 11:15 a.m. Sunday service, hundreds sit in folding chairs, listening to a 20-minute sermon about the Book of Malachi and singing along to alt-rock praise songs. The only sign of culture warring in the whole production is an insert in the day's program advertising an upcoming Focus on the Family conference on homosexuality in Anchorage called Love Won Out. The group promises to teach attendees how to "respond to misinformation in our culture" and help them "overcome" homosexuality.

These programs are benighted and deeply damaging, but having an ad for Focus on the Family's conference in the worship program does not make your church worse than most any other evangelical house of worship. And Palin has apparently no record on the subject. In fact, Jim Lindgren at The Volokh Conspiracy shares that:

"[Palin] has basically ignored social issues, period," said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report.

[Added: On one gay issue in which Palin did weigh in, her first veto as governor was against a bill that would have barred benefits to the domestic partners of gay state employees. Her rationale: she said that she was advised the bill violated Alaska's constitution, but Palin would not have been the first governor to sign a constitutionally suspect bill and left it to the state courts to adjudicate. Palin supsequently did support a successful bill to put these benefits up to a non-binding vote of the people, but passions seem to have cooled and the matter appears moot, leaving the benefits in place.]

Over at Slate, Chistopher Hitchens advises "Don't Patronize Sarah Palin" and notes:

Was she in the Alaska Independence Party? Not really. Did she campaign for Pat Buchanan in 2000? The AP report from 1999 appears to be contradicted by her endorsement of Steve Forbes.

He also takes note of "the attempt to paint the Palin family as if it were Arkansas on ice or Tobacco Road with igloos and Inuit." It's a sentiment echoed by iconoclastic commentator Tammy Bruce, who describes herself on her website as "an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush progressive feminist." In her San Francisco Chronicle op-ed, A feminist's argument for McCain's VP, Bruce argues that "The [Democratic] party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women." She adds:

There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us-but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

Make no mistake-the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party's increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

And finally (for now), blogger Ann Althouse wonders:

Did the "belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers" just become right wing? If so, wow! That is perhaps the most amazing political flip I've seen in my life.

(Hat tip to Instapundit for many of the above links.)

More. IGF contributing author James Kirchick has a fine piece in the Sept. 9 Wall Street Journal, The GOP Should Kiss Gay-Bashing Goodbye. In the print edition, it dominates the top half of the opinion page.

Back to Palin. Camille Paglia, another iconoclast lesbian (albeit an Obama-supporting Democrat), weighs in:

Now that's the Sarah Palin brand of can-do, no-excuses, moose-hunting feminism-a world away from the whining, sniping, wearily ironic mode of the establishment feminism represented by Gloria Steinem, a Hillary Clinton supporter whose shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be. Sarah Palin, if her reputation survives the punishing next two months, may be breaking down those barriers. Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.

Sound like any other social movement for equal legal rights that's prone to partisan servitude?

Updated Sept. 5

The Log Cabin Republicans have now endorsed John McCain for president, having waited to see that his veep wasn't going to be a raging 'phobe (she isn't). The announcement notes that McCain broke ranks with the GOP to publically oppose and speak out against the anti-gay federal marriage amendment:

"On the most important issue that LGBT Americans faced in the last decade-the federal marriage amendment-Sen. John McCain stood with us. Now we stand with him," said Log Cabin Republicans President Patrick Sammon.

Of course, McCain does support state constitutional amendments to limit marriage to a man and a woman-that would be the Kerry/Edwards position of four years ago, for those with short memories. But in the GOP world, his opposition to the federal amendment sets him apart.

Chris Crain blogs that Log Cabin should not have endorsed McCain (just as four years ago, the group chose not to endorse Bush). Yes, we all realize that on matters of gay legal equality, Obama is better. Of course, Log Cabin could also simply turn itself into yet another beltway Democratic Party fundraising front group, but I don't see how that would advance gay issues in the GOP.

[Added: Crain, in supporting Obama and attacking McCain, also blogs of Palin's youngest that "this special-needs child is still an infant and requires far greater attention than Palin could give as vice president or president." Well, so much for nontraditional families with a working mom and stay-at-home dad-or working dad and stay-at-home dad!]

By endorsing McCain, Log Cabin has provided itself with access to McCain's White House. They won't get everything they want, but they'll be welcomed into the conversation. Snubbing McCain despite his historic (for the GOP) opposition to the federal amendment would have closed that door.

For the past four years, no gay group has had White House access. Should the worst nightmare of LGBT beltway activists come to pass and McCain actually win, what good would a marginalized Log Cabin be? LCR did the right thing.

Gays still a cheap date. Karen Ocamb blogs at The Belierico Project:

[D]id anyone notice that the bar Obama set for LGBT discrimination was hospital visitation? Was this wish for agreement the most respect our LGBT leaders could elicit from the Democratic Party's presidential nominee after all the fundraising, all the volunteering, all the hurt feelings over antigay errors, now tucked away in the name of unity? Was this a hint of what we can expect?

She goes on to note that an openly gay man, Bob Hattoy, addressed the Democrats' nominating convention in 1992, and sees a step back. (Yes, yes...Republicans are worse.)

More. On Reason magazine's website, Michael C. Moynihan takes on Andrew Sullivan's Palin bashing.

Furthermore. No mention of gay issues by McCain in his acceptance speech (though he did reference American Indians). On the plus side, the Advocate reports that at the convention "Senior McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt spoke to Log Cabin Republicans, calling them "an important part" of the Republican Party and sounding a personal note about his lesbian sister." This happened the day after Log Cabin's endorsement. (YouTube of the meeting is here.)

More still. It's been pointed out that no mention of gays, in a GOP context, is actually progress-the last Republican convention included Bush's call to pass the anti-gay federal marriage amendment. McCain did criticize judges who "legislate from the bench," which covers judically ordered marriage equality but has long been a conservative critique of the judiciary, pertaining to many areas of social policy and expansive goverment.

The Advocate strains mightly to give McCain horns:

His running mate had a "news flash" for the media Wednesday night, and John McCain had one for LGBT Americans on Thursday: "Education is the civil-rights issue of this century." It was the second thinly veiled dig at gays and lesbians the Arizona senator made as he accepted the GOP's nomination for president.

I guess you find what you're looking for.

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy site, IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter posts about a New York Times/CBS poll showing that 49% of the GOP delegates favor full recognition for gay unions either in the form of marriage (6%) or civil unions (43%). Only 46% of the delegates believe there should be no legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex couples. Writes Dale:

It's still the case, of course, that Democratic voters and delegates are far more likely than Republican voters and delegates to support legal recognition of gay families. The latest draft of the official platform of the national GOP contains no position-either for or against-civil unions, which is noteworthy all by itself and may signal that party leaders understand the changed dynamic on this issue even among Republicans. The platform does reiterate the party's opposition to same-sex marriage and support for a federal marriage amendment (which McCain himself opposes). But I consider this poll of party activists quite surprising, and for a supporter of same-sex marriage, quite encouraging.

And yet in this election cycle the big beltway LGBT political lobbies are more than ever committed to the one-party strategy, betting everything on an Obama victory (and that, although they've pledged their support unconditionally, his administer will-somehow unlike Bill Clinton's-spend its political capital on our behalf).

More. Roger Simon blogs on why he supports same-sex marriage. Simon is the co-founder and CEO of Pajamas Media, which aggregates a number of conservative, pro-Republican and/or conservative/libertarian-leaning blogs for advertising purposes (it's despised by leftwing bloggers).

IGF contributing author James Kirchick has a strong op-ed in the L.A. Times (also posted here) about the uproar that ensued when Jonathan Crutchley, co-founder of the website Manhunt, was discovered to have contributed to McCain's presidential campaign, leading to his dismissal by the board. Writes Kirchick:

The hue and cry over Crutchley's politics is all too familiar. Why can't gay activists countenance the idea of a "Massachusetts Republican"? Liberal intolerance. In the minds of too many on the left, gay people (like women and ethnic minorities) have to be liberal and support Democratic candidates. To do otherwise-that is, to have opinions on issues (even issues utterly unrelated to gay rights) that don't follow the left-wing line-is to be a traitor to the gay "community."

For too long, many gay-rights activists have acted as if throwing temper tantrums will magically bring about their political agenda. But labeling everyone with whom they don't agree a "bigot" does not help the worthy cause of gay equality.

The truth of the matter is that civil rights for gays can't come about without the help of Republicans. And this means that gay people-and straight supporters of gay equality-need to stand with, not silence, people like Crutchley who are working to change the GOP from within.

But did he not commit heresy against the one true party? And shall we suffer heretics? Nay!

Editors' reminder: Comments that contain name-calling directed at other commenters (i.e., "idiot," "liar," etc.) are subject to deletion.

In accepting the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday night, Barack Obama endorsed every form of big government interventionism and bureaucratic social engineering known to man ("now is not the time for small plans"), along with a forceful statement of his commitment that "our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters" deserve to "live lives free of discrimination" (except as regards marriage).

Leftists will celebrate him on both counts, while rightists will equally denounce him. Gays of a libertarian bent will have to weigh the whole package in making their decision.

McCain's Choice
I don't know much about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's veep pick. She's pro-life but apparently no 'phobe. She vetoed an anti-gay bill passed by the legislature that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees, and has met with gay groups and spoken publicly about gay friends and relatives. Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon issued a statement calling her "an inclusive Republican who will help Sen. McCain appeal to gay and lesbian voters." Andrew Sullivan, no friend of the GOP, sums it up.

But obviously, if your vote is determined by gay issues, it's going to go to Obama/Biden. If you think Obama is better for gays but worse (or even dangerously worse) for the country, than voting for McCain/Palin does not make you a self-loather (though Obama's LGBT devotees will certainly tar you, endlessly, with that brush).

More. Let's see, the relatively unknown GOP governor of Alaska is unqualified to be veep because she has no foreign policy experience, but Bill Clinton, when the relatively unknown governor of Arkansas, was fit to lead. And Barack Obama, just a few years out of the Illinois legislature and with no substantive accomplishments since as a first-term U.S. senator, is also fit to lead. Can you spell m-i-s-o-g-y-n-y? (Oh, I forgot, liberals can't be misogynists, just like they can't be racists (cough, Clarence Thomas, cough) or homophobes.

Along with the Governator, Republicans working to defeat California's anti-gay marriage initiative (Proposition 8) include African-American affirmative action foe Ward Connelly, comedian turned conservative radio host Dennis Miller, and "Desperate Housewives" creator Marc Cherry. And Mary Cheney, too. The RepublicansAgainst8 website makes the limited government case that:

Proposition 8 will give big government unprecedented control over the lives of private citizens by usurping their Constitutionally guaranteed rights and fundamental freedoms. ... In California, we are already over-taxed and over-regulated fiscally- the kind of social regulation put forth in Proposition 8 only makes a bad situation worse.

That argument is more likely to reach tolerant-minded conservatives than the "let's unite and roll back the right" rhetoric of some left-leaning activists.

One of the best moments at the Democrats' convention this week was Hillary Clinton's moving observation: "My mother was born before women could vote. But in this election my daughter got to vote for her mother for President."

Del Martin, who died Wednesday at age 87, could top even that story. In 1955 she co-founded the first lesbian organization. She was a pariah. What a miracle it is that this same brave woman lived long enough to marry her same-sex partner, with the mayor of San Francisco presiding.

And what marvelous testimony to the fact that the work of the Founders continues. Few have done more than Del Martin to make our country a more perfect union.