Conservatives for Gay Rights?
October 11th, 2009 
Politics 
Chris
Over at New Majority again (I’ve been following a few of the writers there lately, as I’m interested in what their notion of a ‘new conservativism’ would amount to), Zac Morgan takes Obama to task (surprisingly) for not doing more about gay rights (specifically, regarding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”). I agree with Morgan on this score — Obama has been heavy on talk, low on action. I don’t doubt that it’s political — the guy has his plate full, and there’s little political reason to drive up more furor against him from his opposition at this point. My guess is that when the health care issue is finished (one way or the other), we’ll see movement on these other social concerns. However, Morgan’s suggestion is not actually a call to action on the part of Obama — he really thinks that that Republicans should step in and basically steal the issue from Democrats, seeking to take the lead in overruling some gay-related policies such as DADT. That’s an interesting idea.
Morgan has a number of reasons that are valid; first, empirical reality gives no reason for DADT: military data itself shows little deleterious effects would result if it were repealed, and second, political reality: more and more Americans are becoming college educated, and this growing demographic tends to be sympathetic (more and more over time) to gay causes. Simply: the GOP can side with a shrinking demographic if they want, but it’s stupid politics to do so, and — at least in the case of DADT — the reasoning for anti-gay policies aren’t even supported by empirical data.
Personally, I think it would be a great idea for the GOP to steal the issue from Obama and the Democrats (for either of the two reasons or both). I say this as someone who is certainly more liberal than anything else, because I think it would be great from a larger perspective if issues such that this one ceased to be used to manipulate people, stoke anger and drive voter turnout for other purposes and GOP goals (as it was used by Rove and Co., in the presidential election in 2004). If we can all get behind gay rights (at least beginning with repeal of DADT), it ceases to be a political issue that causes people to choose ‘sides’. I’d prefer it if ‘being gay’ was not a predictor of whether a person was Republican or Democrat. Such an ideal might be a setback for short term liberal politics (perhaps), but it would be certainly be a long term plus for the country. In fact, it might even be a positive for liberal-oriented politics.
Unfortunately, I’d put the odds of the GOP taking the lead on gay rights — in the form of repealing DADT or anything else — at somewhere in the neighborhood of a gazillion to one. Morgan cites Reagan’s refusal (while governor of California) to kick gays out of schools as a precedent political situation where Republicans stood strong. Well, not exactly, Zac. Standing strong against kicking gays out of schools — in liberal California — is hardly the picture of political courage, about as politically gut-wrenching a move as Romney passing mandated health care laws in liberal Mass. We’ll have to wait and see — but I’m not going to hold my breath.
If these sorts of ideas continue to come out of the new movement to redefine the GOP, at the very least it should be interesting to watch and track over time.
No Comments
Comments RSS
TrackBack Identifier URI
No comments yet. Be the first!
Leave a comment
