Yesterday, I did a segment on Pajamas TV with John Aravosis of Americablog. We pretty much agreed in our criticism of the gay establishment. After that, though, he did make a point which I, on further reflection, realized I addressed very poorly. I may well have made a good point in response, but I didn’t respond to his point. No wonder he said that he “didn’t understand your point.”
John had said:
Republicans have held us [gay people] hostage by not giving us a choice . . . . [They] have not offered a viable alternative. Gay people don’t have a choice and the worst thing is the [Democratic] Party knows that.
His last point gets at why the President has been slow to act on the promises he made to the gay community. The party elders are likely asking the same question (as they did in the Clinton era) which Moe Lane recently articulated: “I mean, really: what are you going to do about it? Vote Republican?”
Responding to the first part (of John’s comment above), I offered my standard line on how the lives of gay people have improved even in the George W. Bush era. Social conservatives have not been able to block the social changes which have made it easier for us to live our lives openly. And these social changes have continued apace, even with a supposedly hostile Administration in the White House.
Now, that may well be a good point, but in making it, I failed to address John’s point. And he’s right to a certain extent. Those who believe we need more government action to address the concerns of the gay community haven’t found a viable alternative in the GOP. Still, were the GOP to offer alternatives (on gay issues) suitable to liberals like John, I doubt all but a handful of them would vote Republican. Many (if not, most) already harbor a deep-seated animus to the party–which has more to do with their own prejudices than the GOP’s ideology. John McCain’s outreach to gay people last fall all but fell on deaf ears.
Unfortunately, the GOP doesn’t have much to gain by reaching out to gay people.
It does, however, have much to lose if it is perceived as an anti-gay party. That perception will cost (indeed, likely has cost) the GOP the support of socially liberal, but fiscally conservative voters (particularly in northeastern, midwestern and Pacific Coast suburbs). Should the party once again, as notably in 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1994 become the party of fiscal discipline (with social issues relegated to a far back burner), Republican candidates will win back those suburban votes–including many gay votes. Many of us don’t vote primarily on gay issues, but won’t vote for anti-gay candidates (with some not voting even for those perceived as anti-gay).
So, back to John’s point, could the GOP provide a viable alternative for gay people favoring aggressive action (i.e., state intervention) on certain issues? Probably not. So, that leaves gay activists in the bind they’re in, all but “trapped” into supporting the Democratic Party. And with the Democratic Party knowing it, it can afford to move slowly on gay issues. The gay voters aren’t going any\where.
All that said, gay people do have a choice. They can appreciate the social change that is happening in the private sector and support the party of smaller government, knowing that with more freedom, we will all have greater control over our own lives. And to get those votes, the GOP merely needs to return to its core principles.
And on that, more anon. Much more.
Re John McCain’s “outreach” to gays and lesbians: McCain said that he supported “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” As a Senator, he voted for the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and against ENDA. What, exactly, did he do to reach out to gays and lesbians?
[Yeah, but Clinton signed DOMA into law and retained HRC”s endorsement. And McCain did lead the charge against the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). It gets annoying having to answer questions such as yours. And it shows just how ignorant you are of McCain’s efforts, efforts we wrote about repeatedly on this blog, notably his interview with the Washington Blade. It’ a sad sign that you’re only familiar with (or only choose to remember) those aspects of the Republican’s record you don’t like. –Dan]
Um, first off, can you please explain how it is that social conservatives have even tried to block “the social changes which have made it easier for us to live our lives openly”?
Obviously you cant be talking about gay marriage, because the majority of Americans have blocked that almost everywhere it has been tried. And you cant be talking about gays serving openly in the military, cus thats been prevented too.
Im just sure what you mean by social conservatives trying to keep gays from “living their lives openly”
Other than that, I disagree with you on premise:
The GOP does provide an alternative to the Democrat party. (Didn’t something like 40% of gays vote for Bush?) Obviously not a majority but its also not the 95% of blacks that voted for Obama either.
Look, Democrats do with gays, what they do with all minorities. They corner them and Alinskyize them. Convincing them that they are victims.
And what is it that remains of the gay agenda?
The “right” to talk about your sex life at work in the military,
and the “right” to force other people to humor the psychotic delusion that homosexuality is by any stretch of the imagination as important, meaningful or consequential to society as is heterosexuality.
And then ….what? unisex bathrooms?
I really am beginning to think that the passion behind these issues is not because gays have a point — they dont — but because deep down, gays realize that they dont. They know they are at the end of the road… that there really are no more ways in which they can claim to be victims, and the day of reckoning is coming when they will actually have to look in the mirror and deal with being different….and that prospect scares them to death, so they invent hate where little to none exists.
But the point is, Democrats fuel that victimhood because it serves them. That victimhood gets them control of everyones health care. That victimhood allowed them to nationalize the auto industry, and the banking industry, and the student loan industry.
Get gays and other minorities whipped up about bogey men trying to take their “rights” away, and Democrats have learned they really can take all sorts of rights away. Making people into victims, so they can make them dependent.
The alternative to that is not to provide other phony “rights” but to convince these people that they are not victims. That they dont have a right to enter into an institution that by definition is heterosexual with a person of the same sex any more than you have a right to a tax refund when you didnt pay any taxes.
the alternative is to argue that what is important in the military is not how everybody feels about how much they are able to talk about their sex lives at work, but how well the military works together in protecting American lives from those who are trying to kill us.
The alternative to a false premise is rejecting it.
The alternative to victimhood is rugged individualism and liberty, not government entitlements and regulations forcing everyone to accept your false premise.
Er, that should read: “Im just NOT sure what you mean by social conservatives trying to keep gays from “living their lives openly.”
As I recall during the campaign, he said that he supported it because the DoD did. I believe that was because the DoD didn’t want to change it while we’re in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And liberals gave it to us. Even bragged about it in campaign ads. Would you say, then, that they’re not sincere?
A good idea. Government runs businesses WAYYYY too much as it is.
As I recall, without looking it up, it was around 20-ish% and McCain got 30-ish%. However, the number increased with each of the last three presidential cycles, at least. I wanna say that Bush got 19% in 2000 and like 23% in 2004. Dunno why, but that sounds about right to me.
AE, read carefully the line, “Those who believe we need more government action to address the concerns of the gay community haven’t found a viable alternative in the GOP.” And consider it in light of my oft-expressed skepticism about government solutions to social problems.
And realize that part of the point of my post is that the GOP does present a viable alternative.
Dan,
I’m sorry, I started out disagreeing with you and then ended up arguing with Aravosis and liberalism in general instead. I freely admit I can be a very sloppy commenter — especially late at night! Sorry.
My disagreement with you is simple:
The GOP is not losing because it is perceived as the antigay party.
1. In 2004 when gay marriage was on the ballot all across the country and was a major campaign issue, George Bush won his biggest victory (and Republicans in general did very well).
2. In 2008, when gay marriage was NOT a national issue, and John McCain would not support a gay marriage amendment. He lost fairly badly. More than that, the one place where gay marriage WAS on the ballot, in California, it lost by a healthy majority even though Obama won that state by 24 points.
3. And finally, gay rights are at the bottom of just about everyone but gays agenda. Check out the archives at Real Clear politics. Poll after poll shows this.
You really dont seem to get, despite the staggering numbers in California, that socially conservative issues ATTRACT more votes than they drive away. Republicans need to win more black and minority votes to win, and social issues are what Republicans and minorities have most in common.
I dont understand how you can look at a deep blue state that Obama won by a whopping 24 points and yet LOST the major social issue by six points and still think it is social issues that are hurting the GOP.
Let me repeat…social conservative issue wins DEEP BLUE STATE, while moderate pro-gay Republican gets his ass handed to him worse than in almost any other state!
It further boggles the mind because on one hand you say you understand that gays will reflexively vote for Democrats no matter what Republicans do, but then you seem to think there is this other swath of suburban voters who are withholding their votes from the GOP over gay issues who would otherwise be voting for Republicans. Which simply isn’t backed up by reality.
Anyone who thinks being pro-marriage is equivalent to being anti-gay is someone who is ALSO reflexively going to vote for the Democrats no matter what Republicans do.
We will not win elections by dropping the majority of Californians who support traditional marriage for some non-existant majority of suburban voters who are hiding out in secret somewhere, waiting to vote GOP if only we would abandon opposition to gay marriage.
You keep making this argument, it doesn’t reflect reality, and you have yet to offer any evidence to back it up. I have offered electoral evidence several times that flatly refutes your position, and you simply ignore it. And so I guess I’m calling you on it.
If being anti gay is causing Republicans to lose, then why did prop 8 win in California the same election which Obama won by 24 points, and why did Bush and Republicans have huge victories when they ran in defense of traditional marriage, and why did Republicans lose in both 2006 and 2008 when they avoided the gay marriage issue?
It seems to me that furthering the “gay agenda” is an inherently liberal cause. It is championed by a small number of voters who are gay, but it is a useful cause for significantly larger number of not gay liberals who are always in search of downtrodden victims to add to the plantation.
When aspects of the “gay agenda” rise to common political discourse, the liberals are right there to paint those who object as homophobes who want to treat gays like second class citizens and force them to cower in their basements.
That is, after all, how a majority of liberals (gay or not) who come onto this site behave.
Fighting promises of candy for children and unicorns in the garage is rarely a winning cause.
Fiscally conservative gay people could be libertarian. If gays are choosing the democrat party only because of gay marriage then they are a one issue voter. And they don’t care about this country as a whole. I think gays are held hostage by the democrat party because Democrat politicians make them think their are no other options.
And Dan,
Please know that even if the comments above read horribly, they were meant as entirely respectful disagreement, I’m just up far later that I would like to be and writing even more poorly than usual. forgive me.
Dick Cheney is the most important pro-gay voice there’s been in American politics. The Log Cabin Republicans still didn’t endorse Bush in 2004, when the Democrats, both presidential and vice-presidential candidates, were going after Mary Cheney as his lesbian daughter.
Any conservative politician would have to be out of his mind to imagine that if he stands by gays they will stand by him or her.
On the other hand, if you stand up for groups that gays attack, such as the Mormons, attacked by gays in the 8/Hate fight in California, they might reciprocate your goodwill. It makes sense for conservatives to choose their friends, issues and priorities accordingly.
“Unfortunately, the GOP doesn’t have much to gain by reaching out to gay people.”
Right.
“It does, however, have much to lose if it is perceived as an anti-gay party.”
So what? Conservatives will be smeared like this whatever they do, they same as they are smeared as would be slave-owners, “house negroes” and so on regardless of their real character.
It makes no sense to ignore real potential or actual allies and their concerns – such as the defense of a traditional understanding of marriage, and such as denying gays the legal weapons to inflict social engineering by lawsuit – in order to be marginally less offensive to hostile groups that can’t be won over. Activists, funds and voters lost from socially conservative demographics because their loyalty was not rewarded will not be made up by happy gays.
I think John Aravosis is expecting that in order to gain gay votes the Republicans will come out with some pro-gay pronouncements – similar to the meaningless ones the Prez came out with on Sat. night. Empty campaign promises.
What the Republicans need to do better is to champion liberty and freedom, so that without any specific law, gays will be gaining more rights.
There are areas, where with less government control and regulation, gays will benefit.
I think John Aravosis is expecting that in order to gain gay votes the Republicans will come out with some pro-gay pronouncements – similar to the meaningless ones the Prez came out with on Sat. night. Empty campaign promises.
I think Leah nailed it.
Aravosis wants the Republican Party to pander to him in the same way that the Obama Party does. He wants to be treated specially because of his minority status.
That is completely antithetical to the whole point of Republicanism and conservativism, and is a large reason, in my opinion, why both sides of the debate see each other as incompatible.
Of course and gays get the Stockholm Syndrome to go with it. They stop thinking for themselves and only believe what their captors tell them. Well gays and any other liberal, for that matter.
It’s not a uniquely gay thing. The same psychology can be seen in the disinviting of Sarah Palin from an anti-Ahmedinejad rally in New York. Jews wanted support for Israel, but not from – eeew! – a conservative.
I can’t say gays are “held hostage” in the Democratic party. But I do agree with the general point. The GOP is not a viable alternative at this moment. Sure, there are Republicans who deviate from the rest of the party on gay issues. I’ll admit that if the GOP embraced core principles as you see them, then the party would be much more tempting for me.
The heart of the problem for me, though, is that voting should never be for a party. It should be for an individual.
No, the GOP is losing because their 40 year experiment proved to be a disaster and because using gay people as a wedge issue doesn’t work in the face of economic collapse.
Aren’t you tired of the conservatives: the GOP, foxnews, AFA, Pat Robertson and all the rest using gays to make people afraid? And you know damn well that they do.
You have to look no further than the Yes on 8 ads in CA last year and the Yes on 1 ads in Maine this year.
Fear fear fear.
Fear fear Fear sounds like what you feel about the GOP, Mr (or is it Miss) Biscuits.
If you’re going to comment to our posts, why don’t you at least address our points instead of pulling out my quote and ranting and revealing your ignorance of those whom you relish to revile.
I was commenting on another comment, which is de rigueur around here….maybe only for those who are pro-conservative?
Are you saying that what you said was pointless?
Aren’t you tired of the conservatives: the GOP, foxnews, AFA, Pat Robertson and all the rest using gays to make people afraid?
You mean by simply reporting that gays dress children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs for an “educational experience”, demand that gay sex be taught to five-year-olds, and insist that age-of-consent laws are homophobic and that sex with children seventeen years your junior is common in the gay community?
Ooops, that’s right; none of those sources quoted are GOP, Fox, AFA, Pat Robertson, or anyone else. Why don’t you go ahead and call those sources antigay too?