![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
malasadas.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe New York Times' Frank Bruni published an op-ed piece this weekend on what might be a little noticed story in election year politics but what might also be historically significant: the founding and funding of the American Unity PAC which will provide money to Republican candidates who support same-sex marriage, promising to help them fend off challenges from religious conservatives. The leading financier of the PAC is billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, one of the most important Republican donors in the country. Singer, who is heterosexual, has a gay son and son-in-law married in Massachusetts, and he has been a major financial backer of marriage equality efforts, including providing financial support to key Republicans in the New York legislature who made marriage equality possible. Although Singer is also fully backing Mitt Romney in the Presidential election, his new super PAC promises to give conservative Republicans who see equality for gays and lesbians as proper and necessary room to maneuver in the often brutal primary system.
Republican support for marriage equality and gay rights is not new. Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld was notable for his support of equal treatment for gays and lesbians. President George W. Bush's solicitor general Ted Olson has been public in his campaign for marriage equality. Regardless of these vanguard efforts, however, the majority of Republican voters oppose or strongly oppose same sex marriage at a time when 73% of Americans between 18 and 34 years of age favor same-sex marriage. That support remains high among young conservatives as well. Bruni's piece quotes former RNC chair Ken Mehlman about the inevitable demographic reality: support for same sex marriage among young Americans means that Republican Party official opposition is both doomed and potentially alienating of voters otherwise well disposed to the Republican Party.
The significance of Singer's PAC will be in its ability to give pro-gay rights Republicans room to maneuver within a party whose religious constituency is adamantly opposed to same sex marriage and incredibly important to Republican electoral chances. The Republican "big tent" has narrowed in recent years with each of its constituents demanding a high degree of fidelity from prospective candidates. Religious conservatives will not back candidates who are pro-gay rights and in favor of legal abortion. Anti-tax conservatives demand that candidates sign Grover Norquist's pledge to never vote for higher taxes. Tea Party activists have demanded that candidates not "compromise" conservative principles and have successfully ousted Utah Senator Bob Bennett and Indiana Senator Richard Lugar for being insufficiently conservative. When Senators Bennett and Lugar, with lifetime ratings from the American Conservative Union of 84% and 77% respectively are "insufficiently" conservative, the message to potential GOP candidates is obvious: only narrowly conservative Republicans will enjoy sufficient support from vital Republican constituencies.
For the record, I am aware that similar charges can be made against Democrats. Howard Dean's "fifty state strategy" actually expanded the political range among nationally elected Democrats by heavily recruiting more so-called Blue Dog Democrats to serve in the caucus. I was routinely frustrated in 2009-2010 by progressives calling for the heads of Blue Dogs who would not support the public option in the health care bill without acknowledging that the only reason Democrats enjoyed such a wide margin in Congress was because of the 54 Blue Dogs in the caucus, and it was the Blue Dog coalition that took it on the chin in 2010, losing half their seats and leaving the remaining Democrats politically narrower.
If Singer's PAC allows younger Republicans or older Republicans who are less affiliated with religious conservatives to take office, it may be one of the most significant steps towards allowing same-sex marriage to move beyond the few states that have already passed it. It could allow candidates in states that are reliably conservative on issues like taxes and business friendliness but socially libertarian to elect governors and legislators who favor marriage equality. On the federal level, Republican representatives who favor same-sex marriage could influence House Republicans to drop their legal support of DOMA and possibly join a growing coalition to repeal DOMA and allow the federal government to recognize couples legally married in states with same-sex marriage to be properly recognized as demanded by the principle of equal protection of the law.
Some of the greatest acheivements in the modern era for Civil Rights in the United States of America were realized when broad coalitions formed across party lines to pass the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and Title IX. Partisan trends of the past few decades have severely punished statesmen and stateswomen who have tried to do the same by working with their colleagues on matters of agreement regardless of party affiliation. If gay rights are really to be realized broadly instead of in the enclaves that separate "Blue" and "Red" states from each other, Paul Singer's PAC will have to be successful.
Despite my opposition to most of his politics, I wish him well. Marriage equality in the U.S. will not come from my party "destroying" the Republicans -- it will come from Democrats and Republicans working together for simple justice.
Republican support for marriage equality and gay rights is not new. Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld was notable for his support of equal treatment for gays and lesbians. President George W. Bush's solicitor general Ted Olson has been public in his campaign for marriage equality. Regardless of these vanguard efforts, however, the majority of Republican voters oppose or strongly oppose same sex marriage at a time when 73% of Americans between 18 and 34 years of age favor same-sex marriage. That support remains high among young conservatives as well. Bruni's piece quotes former RNC chair Ken Mehlman about the inevitable demographic reality: support for same sex marriage among young Americans means that Republican Party official opposition is both doomed and potentially alienating of voters otherwise well disposed to the Republican Party.
The significance of Singer's PAC will be in its ability to give pro-gay rights Republicans room to maneuver within a party whose religious constituency is adamantly opposed to same sex marriage and incredibly important to Republican electoral chances. The Republican "big tent" has narrowed in recent years with each of its constituents demanding a high degree of fidelity from prospective candidates. Religious conservatives will not back candidates who are pro-gay rights and in favor of legal abortion. Anti-tax conservatives demand that candidates sign Grover Norquist's pledge to never vote for higher taxes. Tea Party activists have demanded that candidates not "compromise" conservative principles and have successfully ousted Utah Senator Bob Bennett and Indiana Senator Richard Lugar for being insufficiently conservative. When Senators Bennett and Lugar, with lifetime ratings from the American Conservative Union of 84% and 77% respectively are "insufficiently" conservative, the message to potential GOP candidates is obvious: only narrowly conservative Republicans will enjoy sufficient support from vital Republican constituencies.
For the record, I am aware that similar charges can be made against Democrats. Howard Dean's "fifty state strategy" actually expanded the political range among nationally elected Democrats by heavily recruiting more so-called Blue Dog Democrats to serve in the caucus. I was routinely frustrated in 2009-2010 by progressives calling for the heads of Blue Dogs who would not support the public option in the health care bill without acknowledging that the only reason Democrats enjoyed such a wide margin in Congress was because of the 54 Blue Dogs in the caucus, and it was the Blue Dog coalition that took it on the chin in 2010, losing half their seats and leaving the remaining Democrats politically narrower.
If Singer's PAC allows younger Republicans or older Republicans who are less affiliated with religious conservatives to take office, it may be one of the most significant steps towards allowing same-sex marriage to move beyond the few states that have already passed it. It could allow candidates in states that are reliably conservative on issues like taxes and business friendliness but socially libertarian to elect governors and legislators who favor marriage equality. On the federal level, Republican representatives who favor same-sex marriage could influence House Republicans to drop their legal support of DOMA and possibly join a growing coalition to repeal DOMA and allow the federal government to recognize couples legally married in states with same-sex marriage to be properly recognized as demanded by the principle of equal protection of the law.
Some of the greatest acheivements in the modern era for Civil Rights in the United States of America were realized when broad coalitions formed across party lines to pass the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and Title IX. Partisan trends of the past few decades have severely punished statesmen and stateswomen who have tried to do the same by working with their colleagues on matters of agreement regardless of party affiliation. If gay rights are really to be realized broadly instead of in the enclaves that separate "Blue" and "Red" states from each other, Paul Singer's PAC will have to be successful.
Despite my opposition to most of his politics, I wish him well. Marriage equality in the U.S. will not come from my party "destroying" the Republicans -- it will come from Democrats and Republicans working together for simple justice.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 15:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 16:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 16:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 17:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 01:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 06:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 14:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 16:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 16:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 16:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 17:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 02:48 (UTC)In this case, maybe. We've been getting played for some time now, and a change in that policy to show that we're not just sitting back and taking it, and that we actually realize it? Probably a good move.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 16:29 (UTC)CockKoch brothers? Because if he can't, while I'll enjoy the continued death throes of the GOP while it eat's its own brain, I don't expect we'll see more ideologically impure candidates.(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 17:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 17:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 17:10 (UTC)And he bankrolls social conservatives because there is very little room for an anti regulation conservative to also be socially libertarian and get a Republican nomination for office. So he goes for his money interests first.
Didn't say it was pleasant, mind you.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 17:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/6/12 15:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/6/12 18:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 05:14 (UTC)http://nymag.com/news/features/67285/
Reading this and some of the comments he made about Obama, i would say long with the previously stated caring more about money first, he has is as or almost as paranoid about Socialism as his father was about Communism.
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 14:39 (UTC)Aaaaaand THAT's where I stopped. Asshole.
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 06:07 (UTC)I see what you did there ;)
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 10:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 17:00 (UTC)What the anti-gay/"pro-family" wing of the GOP fails to see is that it is basically in the same position as conservative Democrats in the 1960s WRT civil rights: the most vocal wing of the party harbors an irrational and virulent hatred towards a subgroup (then, African-Americans; now, GLBT folks), papered over by a thin veneer of "community sensibilities," "family values," and cherry-picked verses from the Holy Bible taken out of context to support their beliefs (I certainly don't see various anti-gay Republicans abstaining from shrimp, for instance).
They're going to lose, too, it's just a matter of time. Republicans like Singer are starting to see the truth: that all the "limited government" rhetoric in the world is nothing more than pure hypocrisy when paired with a desire to use the government to deny civil rights to a minority group.
Maybe in fifty years, we'll have a gay president.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 17:07 (UTC)Which means they will probably fight tooth and nail for the Rupublican Party to stay antigay. If it even moderates substantially, they've completely lost.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 17:25 (UTC)This is why the rise of the Tea Party is so important to the GOP - it's introduced more libertarian ideas to the Republican Party, and has shifted the focus largely away from social issues in favor of a broader platform that, generally speaking, most Republicans can get on board with.
Abortion is really the key remaining battleground - polling at least suggests that gay marriage is more an issue of concerns that churches will be forced to go along with it more than outright bigotry, and it's secondary on a federal level anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 19:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 19:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 19:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 22:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 22:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 23:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 04:41 (UTC)For the what it's worth dept, that Captain and his partner were recently married in Washington, D.C. and have posted videos online to get gay marriage recognized in the military.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 22:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 08:47 (UTC)The Tea Party's really just a jumble of Republicans' furthest-right impulses.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/12 23:15 (UTC)The beliefs are dying. But there's still a lot of political mileage out there. Since they are unlikely to be the marginal vote on gay rights, there's no difference between being rabidly anti-gay and gay friendly. But they won't be getting the gay friendly vote, so they might as well do their best to appeal to the other side.
It's every bit as awkward as the double-talk of the Southern Strategy where the Republican Party has basically pitched itself as the party for racists without really doing much to turn back the Civil Right's Act. But racists and homophobes have money, and they don't actually police the results that much.
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 08:54 (UTC)Eventually the electorate would really come around and Republicans could get back in the game, leaving the antigay wing totally marginalized - but given how regional the Republican Party really is, I can't picture them doing that anytime soon. I think it's more likely that they use gay marriage as a wedge issue to pick up black and Hispanic voters that tend to be more socially conservative than the national Democratic Party.
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 19:09 (UTC)I mean, I know lots of Hispanic voters believe they (or their parents/grandparents/greatgrandparents) jumped through hoops like civilized folks and resent people who appear to avoid them. So the votes are there to get got. But Republicans can't market it without it sounding like they're bitter that the help won't learn English.
(But yes. Giving up the racist innuendo and instead pumping the Moral Majority would be a smart move for Republicans. It's where Bush wanted his presidency to go, before it got waylaid by international issues.)
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 04:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 06:14 (UTC)With cell phones
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 16:45 (UTC)I meant the part about it that involved naked men and statues of naked men everywhere, and an impeccable eye for design :)
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 16:49 (UTC)^
|
|
Behold, the army of the Gay Empire
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 17:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/12 10:31 (UTC)