The Myth of John McCain

There was a time in my life when I loved John McCain.

I saw him as the bulwark against the rise of the far right in the Republican Party. I cheered his every move. His stand against the Bush Tax Cuts. His participation in the so called "Gang of 14." His strong environmental record. He seemingly strong stand on gay rights.

And then, little by little, I started falling out of love with McCain. As 2008 drew near, he started changing his positions on issues. By 2008 he started to look like someone that had sold out for the GOP nomination.

I don't really know how many times, I've heard people talk about how John McCain has changed and how they have grown to hate the Senator from Arizona. The media, which really fell hard for McCain in 2000, has turned against him and can't wait for a moment to report the latest infraction. In the eyes of many, John McCain sold his soul and many of his former followers are saying "good riddance."

But did we really know who John McCain was? Did we see a few actions and imagined that he had to be "just like us" only find out that he wasn't? Did John McCain really change?

I'm offering a counter-argument to the one posed by many liberals and moderates (like myself). I think in a way what many people who claimed love of McCain were really in love with a myth, maybe partly stoked by McCain himself. I think we saw what we wanted to see in McCain. Like how many saw President Obama when he campaigned for the presidency in 2008, we made the John McCain into something bigger than life and were shocked when at the end of the day he was a politician.

We tend to forget that politicians are people-pleasers. They try hard to appeal to the electorate. Sarah Palin took advantage of the growing Tea Party movement and fashioned herself as its leader. Barack Obama spoke at times as a post-partisan moderate and at others an old-fashioned liberal during the 2008 campaign. They do what they can to win.

But in our modern political environment, where we view politics as a religion, we tend to view mere pols as gods that can do no wrong.

Writing in 2008 Edward McClelland notes that McCain was and is a politician that wants to win. He isn't God, or Ghandi or Martin Luther King, but a candidate that wanted to win. McClelland writes:

McCain has run for the presidency twice, as two completely different candidates. His campaigns and his image have been shaped by the nasty partisanship of the late 20th and early 21st century, an era that may be remembered as the Late Culture Wars. McCain has never seemed comfortable with that style of politics. Despite his identification as a conservative, he's been willing to reach across the aisle to work with Democrats who shared his concept of reform. In 2000, McCain tried to be a liberal's conservative, holding stream-of-consciousness press conferences on his bus, bashing right-wing preachers as "agents of intolerance" and opposing repeal of Roe v. Wade. Republicans were unimpressed, so when McCain finally won their nomination, he picked as his running mate a woman who had less than two years' experience as a governor -- a woman young enough to be his daughter, or his third wife, even -- but who belongs to a Pentecostal church, baits the Washington media and wouldn't allow any woman to have an abortion...

McCain and his journalistic entourage also had a common enemy: the Republican Establishment, personified by George W. Bush. It felt ennobling to travel with a candidate who whaled on Jerry Falwell, and whose underfunded campaign checked in every night at the Marriott. A lot has changed in eight years: By 2008, McCain had given a speech at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, had promised not to repeal Bush's tax cuts, had declared his opposition to Roe v. Wade, and was staunchly defending the war in Iraq. The anti-politician had learned that stiffing the Republican base was no way to win the party's nomination.

In his first run, McCain campaigned as a reformer who could win over independents. That was before anyone had heard the terms "red state" and "blue state." In 2008, there is no middle ground. There is a liberal America and a conservative America, each unable to acknowledge that the other side is intelligent, honorable or possessed of a reasonable opinion. To win his party's nomination, McCain had to campaign under the team colors. The man who had sworn he would never compromise his principles to win an election, had become ... a politician. That transformation helped McCain with Republican voters, but not reporters. Wait a minute, they seemed to say, we thought you were one of us. But you're nothing more than a, a ... conservative!

The thing is, McCain was and always has been a conservative. Yes, he strayed from the path from time to time, but he has been pretty consistently conservative. Don't believe me? Well, in a 2008 blog post, Jim Geraghty notes that McCain's lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union was... 82.1. That might not be perfect, but it's still pretty good to be considered on the right side of the political spectrum.

But what about all his flip-flopping on things like immigration reform or Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

McClelland notes that the electorate had changed mightily in the eight years between McCain's presidential runs. In 2000, he could fashion himself as a moderate because there still seemed to be a middle ground. That middle ground was eroded over the Bush years, and by 2008 McCain realized that to win the Republican nomination, he had to run as a loyal Republican. This meant changing his stance on immigration, somewhat slightly in 2008 and even moreso in his 2010 primary run.

I know there are some who think that McCain should have "stood his principles" and been willing to lose rather than sell out. But again, we forget these are politicians who have sacrificed a lot to win office. They are not going to give all up just for the good of the nation or what have you.

Which leads to another point. McCain's support from 2000 was a mile wide and an inch deep. Yes, there were a lot of people who said they liked him, but you never really heard these people going out and knocking doors for McCain. He said things we liked to hear, but we weren't going to much other nod our heads in agreement.

McCain, who wanted to win, knew he needed to get conservatives on board. They were the ones that were organized and would support him even if they really didn't think he was a "true conservative."

I'm not saying all this because I like what John McCain has done recently. I don't. But that said, I do understand why McCain does what he does. And I now see that McCain was and is a politician, not some kind of Moses leading us all to the promiseland.

There is a lesson for moderates and even liberals here. We need to stop falling in love with politicians and see them as they are: our represenatives that can work with us, or not. But that means getting away from our computers and getting organized in ways not unlike the Tea Party has.

In the end, I'm not mad with John McCain. He never was in love with me in the first place.

The Loneliness of a Minority Conservative

D.R. Tucker has a fascinating blog post about Glen Loury, a black conservative who left the conservative movement a decade ago over the movement's lack of interest in Urban America. What was telling in the blog post was learning of Loury's isolationism from African Americans and conservatives. Tucker shares a story:

A 1995 New Yorker profile of Loury noted that in 1988, “…while Loury was in New York for a Public Interest board meeting, he had a revelation. Touring the Metropolitan Museum with Lisa Schiffren (who later wrote Dan Quayle's ‘Murphy Brown’ speech), he lamented the fact that, despite his prominence, he was completely isolated from his colleagues-that, in short, he had no friends. ‘But, Glenn, we're your friends,” she reassured him. ‘You're a member of a historically liberal ethnic minority, who through your own intellectual evolution have come to dissent from its convictions pretty much down the line. You voted for Reagan, you're pro-life, for family values--you're one of us.’’

Evidently, Schriffen failed to grasp the extent to which Loury felt isolated because he was a member of a “historically liberal ethnic minority.” Loury was, in short, an outcast among his own kind—and in his mind, the right wasn’t doing enough to alleviate his isolation.

Tucker gets at the heart of the matter: that conservatives of historically liberal groups, be it African American or gay, tend to feel isolated. They are viewed as suspect by their own kind, as well as by conservatives. It leads to minority conservatives to have to choose between their community and their ideology. After a while the strain is way too great and they are more likely to go with their community.

It's not that white conservatives , contrary to liberal beliefs, are inherently racist, but it's that they don't feel the need to be hospitable to minority groups. When I say, hospitable, I mean that they don't try to come up with ideas that will attract and retain African Americans.

Part of that lack of interest in trying to attract those voters lies in modern conservative belief. The way that liberals have attracted those groups is through government programs and government jobs or through laws like Civil Rights and those regarding hate crimes. Conservatives offer...what? Because of a belief in not rely on government, conservatives don't have much to offer African Americans.

That's why idea of volunteerism as a conservative program won't work. This is not a knock against those efforts, but the fact is, most inner city folk see these kind of programs already and alone they won't do much.

Which is why conservatives have to work on ideas concerning Urban America. There has to ways to use government to help spur growth and entrepeneurship instead of just giving folks a check.

When conservatives actually start thinking and bringing ideas to the table, then maybe black conservatives won't feel so isolated.

Liberaltarians, Safety Nets and the GOP

While E.D. Kain and I no longer share the same ideological family (though I still think he is one of the best thinkers out there and will continue to read him), we do agree on one thing: the necessity of social safety nets.

I can already hear a few people screaming that this somehow disqualifies me as a true conservative. After all, humans were born to live free away from the grabby hands of government.

Snicker all you want, I do think we need to have a less dominating government, but I also see the importance of safety nets, like Medicaid or unemployment benefits.

I don't say these things because I'm so lover of all things government. I say this because I've experienced times when I've needed these programs. In 1996, I caught the flu which then went to pnuemonia and then to a bad bacterial infection. At the time, I didn't have health care; couldn't afford the insurance offered at the coffee chain I worked for. I ended up in the hospital and because of the efforts of a savvy nurse practitioner, Medicaid was able to pay most of the bill.

In 2005, I was let go from a job. I applied for unemployment insurance. It wasn't a lot, but it sure helped in the weeks I looked for work.

No doubt there are a lot of folks who are conservatives who see these programs as wasteful. And sometimes, they are correct that these programs can be run rather inefficiently. But that said, I've usually called for reform, not for their abolishment.

Which gets me to liberaltarianism. While I have some big problems with it, I do think it at least wants cares about "the least of these" and how best to take care of them. But like I said, I have my doubts about liberaltarianism. Maybe it's still nascent, but it's hard to see where it contrasts with American liberalism. I'm not that interested in making the return trip to liberalism.

That said, I am interested in a more generous conservatism, and I think that can be found in the old tradition of liberal conservatism.

The problem with modern conservatism (and modern libertarianism as well) is this love of a laizze faire past, a place and time free of government meddling. In a recent post, Dave Hart has this to say about that past and about safety nets :

Quite simply, that period's approach to laissez faire capitalism was unsustainable. It was precisely this model that millions of people revolted against, turning to communism or fascism as an escape. Modern day capitalism is softer (although the degree to which it is softer varies across Europe, North America, and Asia). By offsetting the harsh realities of capitalism with a stronger safety net and progressive redistribution, contemporary capitalism has succeeded in neutering many of the harshest criticisms against it.

To a certain extent, bigger governments are the product of greater wealth. Rich societies inevitably demand greater government involvement since, as wealth increases, so do expectations regarding standards of living. For examples, one need only look to capitalist Hong Kong, where welfare benefits far surpass those in communist mainland China. There is absolutely no good reason why wealthy countries should tolerate the levels of depravity suffered by those living in the glory days of laissez-faire.

But this is not a one-sided dynamic. The success of the social safety net is itself contingent upon the success of the capitalist model. It is not possible to continue to raise living standards without economic growth, and economic growth requires a free market. If government growth outpaces the economy, a painful re-adjustment will inevitably follow (viz. modern day United Kingdom).

I think that many of my side of the fence forget that the reason that communism became such a potent force around the world was because of laizze faire. We also forget that the lack of government intervention made life worse for people, not better.

Is this all a suggestion that we should all go and support the president's plan for more and more government? Or that we should leave Social Security alone? No. I think "Obamacare" should be look at again and not made so cumbersome. I think we need to consider some benefit cuts to Social Secruity. But I don't think getting rid of such programs will allow us to enter a libertarian paradise. If we didn't have Social Security, we would have a lot of old people without any resources dying miserable deaths. No food stamps, and we would see a lot of hunger issues. It's one thing to argue for womb to tomb are ala many European societies. It's another to say that we should get rid of basic programs that protect people from the ravages of poverty.

What saddens me these days is that the GOP has lost the drive to support a liberal conservatism that backs reform of government programs, not their abolition. Yes, there are people who still believe in this in the GOP, but their voices are barely heard above the dim of the Tea Party movement.

What is needed is an American version of liberal conservatism, something akin to David Cameron's Conservative party. As Niall Ferguson said in a 2006 article, it's time for the GOP to follow it's brothers and sisters accross the Atlantic towards a more pragmatic ideology.

Our Race, Our Selves

John McWhorter writes what might be the most honest and yet most depressing critique of the state of the black community , like ever.

In a review of a book by Amy Wax, he basically says that African Americans have spent too much time focusing on government programs and the legacy of racism than in trying to solve the problems that are plauging the community, such as poverty.

There is a belief among many African Americans as well as not a few liberals, that it is racism that hold us back. The belief continues that if only America spent more money on the black community through increased government spending, then the problems facing African Americans would be solved. McWhorter provides a living example of how simply more money won't work:

In 1987, a rich philanthropist in Philadelphia “adopted” 112 inner-city sixth-graders, most of them from broken homes. He guaranteed them a fully-funded education through college if the kids would refrain from drugs, unwed parenthood, and crime. He even provided tutors, workshops, after-school programs, summer programs, and counselors when trouble arose. Forty-five of the kids never made it through high school. Thirteen years later, of the sixty-seven boys, nineteen were felons; the forty-five girls had sixty-three total children, and more than half had their babies before the age of eighteen. Crucially, this was not surprising: The reason was culture. These children had been nurtured in communities with different norms than those that reign in Scarsdale.

Of course, no one wants to talk about culture. It's far easier to talk about race than it is about the cultural patterns that keep African Americans down. McWhorter gets right to the point that the best way for blacks to not be poor is not have babies before marriage:

One of the most sobering observations made by Wax comes in the form of a disarmingly simple calculus presented first by Isabel Sawhill and Christopher Jencks. If you finish high school and keep a job without having children before marriage, you will almost certainly not be poor. Period. I have repeatedly felt the air go out of the room upon putting this to black audiences. No one of any political stripe can deny it. It is human truth on view. In 2004, the poverty rate among blacks who followed that formula was less than 6 percent, as opposed to the overall rate of 24.7 percent. Even after hearing the earnest musings about employers who are less interested in people with names like Tomika, no one can gainsay the simple truth of that advice. Crucially, neither bigotry nor even structural racism can explain why an individual does not live up to it.

So, why are African Americans so afraid to talk about culture? Why are we more enamoured with the radical ala Jeremiah Wright?

I think the answers are many, but here are two points.

First, talk of culture seems like blaming the victim and ignoring racial prejudice, which does still occur. Second, culture tends to be associated with conservatives and most African Americans tend think that conservatives either are indifferent or hostile to the interests of blacks. White conservatives have not helped when they talk about culture and family in relation to African Americans, but then don't seem to do anything to help change the situation. The common refrain of conservatives is to talk about the evils of big government, but then do nothing to help with civil society.

So what can change the situation? Well, African Americans are going to have to talk culture more seriously and realize that government can do somethings, but it can't change people's hearts. As Wax notes:

The government cannot make people watch less television, talk to their children, or read more books. It cannot ordain domestic order, harmony, tranquility, stability, or other conditions conducive to academic success and the development of sound character. Nor can it determine how families structure their interactions and routines or how family resources—including time and money—are expended. Large-scale programs are especially ineffective in changing attitudes and values toward learning, work, and marriage.

I can remember my mother making poster boards of numbers and letters so that I would learn both before I entered kindergarten. That's the type of parenting that will help a kid succeed.

Government has to play some role in helping lift people out of poverty. I know some will chafe at that notion, but we do need to have some safety nets to protect people from the ravages of poverty. But to help someone thrive, we need more. Conservativism has always believed that society is made up of institutions: businesses, government, the church, the family. I think what is needed is a revival of black civic culture. Churches and other civic groups need step up and help shape and form individuals to learn how to respect each other and not be making babies when they are no more than babies themselves. Many black churches are already doing this, but there needs to be more. If White conservatives really believe in civil society, then they will put their money where their mouth is
and fund initiatives that will help the black family. If you want to see an example of conservatives trying to use a conservative approach to solve social issues, one might want to at the Big Society initiative from the Conservative Party in the UK.

At the end of the day, though, it is up to African Americans to do deal with our own issues. We have to be willing to want to reduce out-of-wedlock births, and the crushing poverty rate and not dilly-dally. It's time for us to heal ourselves.

Can Conservatism Be Reformed, Continued

A Reader responds:

I have faith in our political system that eventually the GOP or some other conservative party will be that reformed conservatism that you and I are looking for.

I always felt that 2008 wasn't enough to get rid of all the bad influences and extreme talking points on the right. I had hoped that it would reform but didn't think it would.

No(w) I feel that politics is cyclical, it will take a couple Mondale like thrashing(s) and wandering into the wilderness for sane conservatism to come back. Maybe like liberals will we come out with a new name, maybe ironically classical liberals (or just plain libertarians).

But whatever it is, I just can't see this country staying as it is, demographics and even ideologically the data says it won't. And no I don't believe in a permanent majority of any party. Eventually things change.

But that change might not be for decades and frankly that sucks for you and I.

All you can do is try to speak your views and vote for whoever you feel best represents them.

I think he has a point. At this point, the GOP losses in 2006 and 2008 were only seen as mere bumps in the road, instead of signs for reform. With the economy the way it is and with Obama presently in the doldrums, it seems like a chance for the Republicans and conservatism to strike back with no changes in their agenda.

In some way, I think the GOP is repeating the some of the same mistakes the Democrats made 30 years ago. After losing big time in 1980, the Democrats gained some seats in 1982- a year when the economy was still in the dumps and President Reagan was losing some of his popularity. These signs made them think that nothing had to be changed and former Vice President Mondale became the Democratic nominee in 1984. Mondale went on to be crushed by Reagan in November of that year, winning only 10 electoral votes.

In someways, it feels like history is repeating itself. I can see the Republicans gaining seats in November and feeling overconfident. Believe that nothing need be changed, I can see the GOP nominating someone like Sarah Palin and then going down to a devasting defeat.

Of course, history doesn't repeat as much as it rhymes. Things might change between now and 2012. But I do know that American Conservatism won't change until it enters the wilderness and ends the denial that it is currently in.

The Republican Agenda: Subpoena Everybody

For those of us that crave a real Republican agenda, one that deals with issues like, you know the economy, expect to be sadly dissapointed if the GOP takes the House come November. Congresswoman Michelle Bachman said recently that a Republican house would basically issue subpoenas and hold endless hearings:

“Oh, I think that’s all we should do,” Bachmann said. “I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another. And expose all the nonsense that is going on. And it’s very important when we come back that we have constitutional conservative leadership because the American people’s patience is about this big.”

On the one hand, I can't believe she is saying this. On the other hand, I've observed her long enough to know that she would say something this stupid.

Listen, I'm not a big fan of Obama, and I have some issues with the health care plan and some other legislation. But I really don't think it's necessary or wanted to hold basically hold a witch hunt at the people's expense while the economy is still perilously weak.

Ugh.

Can American Conservatism Be Reformed?

I've been reading the ongoing debate about where Libertarians belong with some interest. Folks like Brink Lindsey are aruging that the conservative-libertarian alliance must end, and that libertarians must make their own way. Bloggers like Tim Lee and Mark Thompson go even further, arguing for a left-libertarian alliance (the liberaltarian arugment that Lindsey was a part of until recently). The argument for leaving conservatives behind is the same in both camps: conservatism in America is made up of those who might talk a good game about freedom, but in reality are not interested in freedom when it comes to civil liberties or acceptance of various minorities. This is what Tim Lee says:

Conservatives care about “protecting individual liberty” for some people, but the conservative movement includes many people who are indifferent, if not hostile, to the liberty of foreigners, immigrants, drug users, gays and lesbians, women who want abortions, broadcasters, sex workers, criminal defendants, Muslims, publishers of pornography, atheists, and so forth. It’s true, of course, that you can compile a similar list (gun owners, business owners, etc) on the progressive side. But I see no reason to think the progressive list is longer, or that the people on that list are somehow more important, than the people on the conservative list.

This belief is shared not just by some libertarians, but conservatives and Republicans as well. More than once I've seen people come to the fore with the sunny hopes of presenting a more inclusive vision of conservatism and the GOP, only to give up months later when they encouter some of the darker sides of the American right.

This all leads me to wonder: can American conservatism every be reformed?

There really isn't a strong movement in the United States that is committed to a more moderate version of conservatism. There are a few groups, but there is not strong reformist presence within what makes up the American Right in the same way that there is in the United Kingdom. Across the pond, the Tory Reform Group has been around for 35 years representing a more moderate brand of conservatism and they can be credited for helping get the Conservative Party back in power.

But the impulse here in the States among those on the Right who are disatisfied with the state of things, is to simply walk away. Whether its Brink Lindsey now touting a "libertarian centrism" or Tim Lee flirting with the Left, the usual result of frustrated folks on the right is not to change things, but to leave and look for greener pastures.

Why is that? Why is there no impulse to change the Right?

I think I have a few reasons.

The first is the word "conservative." When someone uses that word it is almost always about the more negative aspects of human nature. If a community or person has issues with same-sex marriage we tend to say that they are "conservative." Conversely, the word "liberal" tends to have more positive connotations. All the philosphical meanings of conservatism that came from people like Edmund Burke or Russel Kirk are never thought of in common parlance. If being a conservative means being anti-gay or suspicious of immigrants, well, who would want to be a part of that, let alone try to reform it?

Related to that, is how we see conservatism. If conservatism is made up of bigots, whom we believe can't change, then why bother trying to reform anything?

Finally, I think there has been so little impulse for a renewed conservatism, because there has not been a keen vision of what a renewed conservatism would look like. While there has been some attempt to start this project,
for the most part there really has not been any strong desire to frame a new conservatism for the 21st century. There's a lot of talk about what conservatism was like in the 1980s under Reagan, or about the moderate Republicanism of the 1950s through 70s, but very few have said this is what conservatism should look like today.

If you are someone under say, 40 years old who believes in limited goverment, but sees a conservatism that is filled with bigots and with no one really crafting a more positive vision, then you would probably want to ignore the conservatives and leave them to their fate.

For me, the question is not can American conservatism reform, but should it reform and I believe wholeheartedly that it should. The reason I believe it has to reform has to do with the fact that unless something radical happens, we live in a two-party system. While many folks have left the conservative movement, there are still a fair number that remain and they are more radical than ever. It is less thoughtful and deeply suspicious of anyone that doesn't think or see things in the way they do. It is a movement that is built more on resentment than on the sunny conservatism that Ronald Reagan once espoused. On paper, a party like this should be on the margins, but because of our two party system, they are the alternative to Obama and the liberals. As the alternative, it means they have a greater shot at winning. As Jeffrey Goldberg has noted in his blog posts on Sarah Palin and the New York mosque controversy, a simple-minded conservatism is dangerous to the health of our democracy.

On Dave Weigel

For some reason, the whole dustup over now former Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel's rants on contemporpary conservatism to a liberal email list has been intriguing. I've been of various minds on this issue. First off, I have to agree with Ross Douthat that it seems rather unconscionable for someone to share what were considered private emails to the public. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's always available for everyone to see.

That said, there is another aspect of this whole issue that has bothered me. It can be summed up in something Andrew Sullivan said regarding Weigel's departure:

A sad day for journalism. Ben Smith claims Dave is a liberal. Not from where I sit. He's a sane libertarian, which means he understood just how completely nuts the conservative movement and Republican party now are.

Weigel more often than not, focused on the more crazier parts of the conservative movement and the Republican party. Of course, they are the more "interesting" parts of the today's GOP, but Weigel seemed to be guilty of something many journalists have done: focus exclusively on a small segment of the party.


Jim Geraghty at National Review says this about Weigel:

From where I sit, he spends too much time writing about fringe figures and trends that are largely irrelevant to national politics (Orly Taitz, Birthers, etc.), but perhaps that’s his genuine fascination and/or what his employers wanted. Righties suspected Dave wanted to spotlight the freakiest and least appealing self-proclaimed “conservatives”; I suspect that at least part of Dave’s mentality was simply, “You have got to hear what this lunatic is saying.”

But Weigel is not alone in this. Many pundits, including Sullivan, tend to focus almost exclusively on the crazies, and ignore anyone that presents a sane view- unless said politician or pundit is being pilloried by the far right.

Back in late May, Mike at the Big Stick wrote about how the wider society wanted to view conservatives. He wrote:

I’ve sparred with my friend Ames over at Submitted to a Candid World for a long time about the tone of voices from both sides. He usually prefers to link to articles at RedState or Fox News clips rather than any kind of reasoned or intelligent conservatives. This is of course by design because Ames is, if nothing else, a loyal soldier for the DNC. He is smart enough to know that if he persuades people that RedState and Glen Beck are the norm for the Right and the sum of all intelligent thought it advances the liberal cause i.e. election wins. He also knows that links to RedState generate the most traffic.
Whenever I’ve pointed out his affinity for bottom-of-the-barrel conservatives his counter-argument is that until the more intelligent conservatives have the audience of Fox News, they are irrelevant. Of course this is a catch-22 scenario because they can only get that kind of audience if smart people listen to them and recommend them to others. The problem is that there’s too much risk involved in that approach. While eventually liberals like Ames might be convinced to entertain well-reasoned conservative positions, the danger is that they might just be persuaded.

Of course, conservativism and the GOP have its share of crazies and they have seemingly grown over the last few years. Contrary to what Sully thinks the Republicans have had to deal with craziness for a long time. But I think that as long as writers like Weigel only focus on the Sarah Palins of the world and miss out on the reform minded folks like Republicans for Environmental Protection, the road to reform within the GOP and wider conservative movement will be damaged.

The Republican Party and conservatism are much more than the Tea Party.

Pity the Poor Gay Conservative

I really used to believe that if you present someone with the facts, they would be persuaded to see another person's viewpoint as valid.

Case in point: I used to believe that if I showed my liberal friends that one can be a gay Republican and be out and proud and also show that there are a number of conservatives out there that don't have an issue with gays, they would see gay and gay-friendly Republicans as their allies in the fight for gay eqaulity.

How silly of me to believe this.

What I've come to find out over time is that no matter how hard one tries, it makes no difference. Gay Republicans are still viewed as tragic figures or anomalies, no minds are changed.

I've been reminded of that after reading David Link's post today at Independent Gay Forum. Link is talking about the recent revelations of California State Senator Roy Ashburn, an anti-gay senator that turns out to be gay. He uses this post as a way to talk about the sad state of the GOP and how they oppress gays and lesbians. I don't have an argument with that, but then he makes this statement:

That is what his party not only demands of its followers, but seems to prefer – the willing (if not mandated) suspension of disbelief. No GOP candidates can ever be (openly) homosexual.

The confines of that small parenthetical contain the entire culture war over gay rights. Of course some GOP candidates and elected officials are homosexual. Of course GOP voters are, as well. But that observable and unavoidable fact can’t be honestly and straightforwardly talked about in the party. Log Cabin and now GOProud keep trying, while the party leaders and voters put their fingers in their ears and shout “Lalalalala!” as loud as they can.

While there is some truth to all of this, he seems to ignore some changes that have been made. He didn't read a Christian Science Monitor article that talks about the openly gay Republican in Virginia that is running against a Democrat, or the openly gay Republican running for Lt. Governor in Massachusetts. He forgets the growing list of conservatives who are in favor of same sex marriage. He discounts groups like Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud, that work and support gay and gay friendly candidates and have made a difference in changing the minds of many a Republican.

Link then goes on to heap praise on the Democrats, showing how open-minded they are. Yea. The thing is, the reason the Democrats are where they are is because of political action. Gay Democrats got active and worked to change hearts and minds. Gay Republicans are taking a page from that book and are working to change hearts and minds in the GOP as well. It's a long road, but I see more progress than Link does.

In the end, all that a gay or gay-friendly Republican can do is keep to keep plugging away, working for social change and ignoring the David Links of the world who will never see the changes taking place.

Erick in Wonderland

If you want to know why conservatism is viewed as a joke by some people, one only has to look at bloggers like Erick Erikson of Red State. In response to a recent column by David Frum, where Frum talked about how Congress and Washington as a whole are getting little done in the way of legislation, Erikson had this to say:

Maybe, just maybe there is a different reason Congress has done little since the seventies. Maybe, just maybe it could be because conservatives largely took over in the 80’s through Republican controlled White Houses or Congresses and conservatives tend to think we don’t need sweeping legislation to solve all the ills of the American people.

Isn’t this the quintessential vanity piece of liberal drivel? Those elites back in the 50s to the 70s could get great things done because they didn’t have to interact with the people. But once they were forced to interact with those C-SPAN cameras, they couldn’t solve all the problems the American people never knew they had.

To which David Frum responds:

If it were possible for two paragraphs to sum up everything that is wrong with the American conservative movement, these are them.

The total indifference to policy and governance – the glib equation of ideological activists with “the people” – the assumption that conservatives just needed to “take over” and then all problems would spontaneously disappear …. it’s all on display.

The suggestion that conservatives don’t need to legislate – or anyway don’t need to legislate anything much – is ignorant of history, ignorant of policy, ignorant of government.

To their critics, the deregulation of oil and gas in the 1970s was “sweeping.” Ditto the deregulation of air, trucking and rail. Ditto the Reagan tax cuts. Ditto welfare reform.

The problems ahead for conservatives will require even bigger action still.

Do you want to balance the budget? You can’t do it without curbing the growth of Medicare and Medicaid, and that will take major reforms in both programs.

How about a shift from unskilled to more skilled immigration? Not a small project.

Concerned to protect the environment while enhancing U.S. energy security? That too will require legislation that some would call sweeping.

My beef with Erickson and his ilk is that they have no interest in governing, in trying to solve national problems with conservative ideas. No, instead, they are interested in frontin' , in striking a pose and yelling about the evils of big government, all the while doing nothing to actually shrink government. As Jonathan Rauch has said, this is all about George Wallace-style cultural resentment against the "elites" and nothing more. It might win a few elections here and there, but when things go bad, people want their government to do something, not just spout angry rhetoric.

Do I want some kind of Euro-style big government? No. I want a smaller goverment, but I also want it to be efficient. If I want it to take on entitlement reform or really deal with the deficit, then I want it to be competent and just.

Which reminds me: two of those sweeping laws that the "elites" passed in the 1960s were the Voting and Civil Rights Acts. The Voting Rights Act allowed my relatives in the American South to vote without being harrassed or subject to poll taxes and the like. The Civil Rights Act allows me to purchase a home or get a job without being discriminated against. Are these laws that Erickson would rather not have Congress do, because they are "big government?"

Instead of making "limited government" no more than a battle cry, we should be engaged in seeking ways for government to be efficient and limited in its influence.

But such an approach would require thinking, something very few conservatives seem interested in doing these days.

Crossposted at Republicans United

The Young Conservative Doth Protest too Much?

I find it interesting that every time that I want to think that American conservatism is going down the tubes, something happens that gives me a spot of hope.

There was a lot of news made when the Conservative Political Action Conference allowed the John Birch Society to have a presence at the event. But another group was also allowed that might make some heads turn. GOProud, a gay conservative group which happened to split off from Log Cabin Republicans about a year ago, was welcomed to CPAC as well. Of course, that didn't please some folks. Ryan Sorba, a young man with a big chip on his shoulder, spoke out against GOProud and against homosexuality in general. You might expect that there were would a lot of cheers from the crowd, but that wasn't really what happened:



It's nice to hear that there were people at CPAC who rose to GOProud's defense. It's a reminder that not all is lost with American conservatism.

You might also want to read openly gay conservative Alex Knepper's meeting with Ryan Sorba. It's a hoot.

On Mount Vernon: Forget About It!

David Frum is correct in criticizing the so-called "Mount Vernon Statement" of movement conservatives. He is correct that the document is just a rehashing of conservative nostrums and offers nothing to gays or minorities, let alone how to deal with the current economy.

But while he is correct in talking about this documents' shortcomings, I have a question to ask David:

Did you expect any different?

Ain't No Party Like a Conservative Party...Oh Wait

Michael Brendan Doughtery's take on what passes for conservatism is a worthwhile read. Having Aspergers, I'm not always aware what is totally being tongue in cheek and what is the stone cold truth, but I can tell that a goodly portion of it is pretty hilarious.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Tolerate Government

What has become de riguer among many conservatives and Republicans these days is to express hatred for government (save the military). We have taken what was to be a healthy skepticism of government and metastized it into this deep contempt.

Things of Heaven...Stuff of Earth

The whole sorry tale of Maurice Clemmons and his life of destruction has led me to think a lot about Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor is getting his share of blame for allowing Clemmons to walk free. Most of the political bloggers that I follow tend to view his road to the presidency as kaput.

Now I don't really like Huckabee's views on various issues. But right now, I feel sorry for man. Because while he made a big mistake in releasing an animal like Clemmons into the public, I think he did it for the right reasons.

What is interesting right now is how some tend think that relying on religious beliefs while in office is somehow dangerous. While one should rely on all aspects of knowledge, to say that a politician must not be informed by their faith is ludicrious. Christianity, and any other religion for that matter, is a worldview that informs all parts of an adherent's life. It is impossible to say that religious views be kept somewhere on the coat rack of life while we live our lives. For any adherent, it is the fabric of life.

Religion informs people's choices on all sorts of matters. Many of my liberal friends who support universal health care do so for religious reasons. Same goes for those who oppose abortion or war. The problem isn't that we have these views, the problem lies in how they are used.

The case of Clemmons poses hard questions because it strikes at the heart of something that both Huckabee and I strongly believe in: redemption. The belief that people can change their ways and live right, to turn away from wrong is at the heart of Christianity. We are taught of a loving God who cared for us even when we did wrong and compels us to live righteous lives. For a Christian, it is not enough that the we believe this, it is something that must be lived out, just as we believe Jesus did when on earth.

When Huckabee pardoned Clemmons, I have to believe he did it because he truly believed Clemmons' sob story of having changed. He wanted to live out his faith and he believed this man had been redeemed.

That's of course, the danger here. We try to live as followers of Christ in an imperfect world. We try to show love and mercy to a fellow human being and he in turn kills four cops who were just trying to get some paperwork done.

So what do we do? Some bloggers say simply that Huckabee should have simply thrown away the key. He should have known better. Once a skunk, always a skunk.

Maybe a future politician will do what many politicians do and ignore their religious beliefs and keep more felons in prison and maybe even execute a few to show the public he/she means business.

The citizen in me says just that: lock 'em up. But the pastor in me, the one who wants to try to live as Jesus did, wonders if doing that is the right thing. The pastor wonders if everyone that asks for mercy is a snake, or if some really are wanting to make a change for the better.

Joe Carter, in his excellent post about Huckabee muses that the governor was naieve. Maybe so, but isn't Christianity at its root somewhat naieve? It preaches love in a world filled with hate. It's hardly a rational faith.

The problem for all Christians, and maybe for everyone who has a faith is knowing when to as the Bible says, be wise as serpents and when to be innocent as doves. When can we allow for heaven to break through on earth, and when to realize that heaven is not here yet.

It's a problem I wish pastors dealt with more. Because while we want to have some heaven here on earth, we live in this world filled with grays. How do we strive to be a loving a forgiving people in a world of Maurice Clemmonses?

What has been frustrating to me is that few if any religious blogs are talking about this issue. I have searched and searched and found none at all. I find that amazing. Maybe we don't want to admit that this is hard issue. But it would be honest.

Mike Huckabee made the moral choice in wanting to give someone a second chance. But in this case, it was not the right choice and four dead police offers are the result.

Charles Johnson's Jaundiced View of the Right

Charles Johnson, who runs the blog known as Little Green Footballs, has written a major post on the blog where he breaks his ties with the Right. He shares 10 reasons for his break with the right:

1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)

Looking at this list, one could conclude that this is the end all and be all of conservatism in the United States. It's definitely what many on the American Left think of Repbublicans. And while I do think there are a lot of problems in the American Right that need to be addressed, I tend to think Johnson, along with many former Republicans, tend to have a jaundiced view of the Right. They look at the most extreme elements of the Right and think that it is sum of the entire movement. James Joyner took a look at Johnson's list and offers his own view which is a lot of nuanced than Johnson's.

It might help that Joyner explains that Johnson was a liberal until 9/11 and then shifted towards the far right. As 9/11 became more and more of a distant memory, he started to see things differently. So, in one case it should not be that surprising that his views changed back to what they might have been pre-9/11.

But his post raises larger questions. As moderate, I know that my brand of conservatism is not as much in fashion. The Right is dominated by the likes of people like Michelle Malkin and news outfits like World Net Daily. But that is hardly all of what makes up the GOP or conservatism. Take for example point 8 that talks about a hate filled right wing blogosphere. The funny thing is, there are a lot of conservative bloggers that are reasonable and well thought out. I like reading Frum Forum, American Scene, Outside the Beltway and the Big Stick. The League of Ordinary Gentlemen is not a conservative blog per se, but has several thoughtful conservative bloggers.

It has always flumoxed me that those who like me, have issues with certain parts of the Right, decide to take the most extreme elements of the movement use a wide paint brush to tar everything and everyone as a nut. But there are good and thoughtful people who take on the task of being a voice of reason amid the craziness.

No doubt, Johnson will be branded as a brave for parting ways with the Right by many on the Left or with those fellow angry former conservatives. But while it might serve to reinforce all the negative views that some on the left have on the right, it does nothing to change the right. Johnson's choice of bailing out at a time when the movement needs thoughtful reformers is not one of bravery, but opportunism.

What the American Right needs now are people who are willing to stand up to the Sarah Palin/Glen Beck crowd within the movement. Leaving the movement helps no one but Charles Johnson.

Conservatives and the Gates Affair

I work part time as a pastor at a church near downtown Minneapolis. A few months ago, I went to the church one Saturday evening to do some work. The church has an alarm system and I tried to disarm it with my code only to realize that the code did not work. After some time, I was able to use another person's code to shut the alarm off. Unfortunately, I was not able to prevent the police from coming to the church.

I came out of my office to see a white cop looking into the church. I came forward and explained the situation to him. He took my ID and went to his squad car for a few minutes. Everything checked out and he joked about not trying to set the alarm and went on his way.

In the back of my mind, I had feared such a situation because I am a black man. I don't know why I felt that way, but I did. I feared the police would assume that I was breaking into the building. The church has had a history of breakins and I was worried that the policeman would think I was another thief.

Fortunately, that did not happen. Maybe the cop noticed I casually came out of the office, or that I wasn't dressed like I was stealing something from a building. Whatever it was, he "profiled" me and judged that I wasn't a threat.

I share this experience because I think that every black man has had that fear running in the back of their head when they encounter a white policeman. I think it comes from a dark history between the police and the black community. The police have not always been a friend to black males and so I think our antennas go up.

It has been interesting to see how white conservatives have reacted to the whole affair with Henry Louis Gates. For many, he is just one more in a long line of liberal race baitters. Here is what Jules Crittenden had to say on the matter:

It’s getting a little awkward. It turns out Crowley might not be some lunkheaded Irish bigot cop after all. It’s looking like he might be the kind of white cop … if it is actually permissible for white men to be cops in post-racial America … that Gates, Obama, etal, might consider a paragon, an example for all.

I hate to moralize, but this is the kind of thing that happens when you make snap judgments and start busting heads and taking names based on nothing more that racial prejudice. Turns out that when you judge people by the color of their skin, great injustices can result.

Crittenden then goes into a long spiel about the struggles that white men must face because of affirmative action. He talks about the past history of racism, but like a lot of white conservatives, seems to think that it is just something in the past. If a black man complains about how they were treated, well they surely must be lying.

Now, I think what happened between Mr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley is not clear cut as I thought it once was. Crowley isn't some bigoted cop. But I also know that like Professor Gates, I would also be a bit apprehensive around a white cop because I don't know how things will transpire. It's an automatic reflex based on history. Yes, it might be the result of an overactive imagination, but it has it basis in a reality where black men have been mistreated simply because they were black.

I may disagree with President Obama on many things, but I can understand why his first reaction concerning the whole incident was one of saying the policy "acted stupidly." He was responding from a visceral feeling that I think is in the hearts of many of black man: that some policeman is going go overboard on them because of their race.

Maybe it was the wrong thing to say. But I can understand why he said it.

BUt all that has been lost on some conservative and policemen. Here is what retired NYPD cop Bob Weir had to say:

If anyone is a racist in this confrontation, it is this obstreperous professor who evidently feels that his loft academic status and his friendship with Obama not only put him above the law, but give him a platform to inject "color" into every situation. Make no mistake about it, if Crowley were black and followed the same protocol, Gates would have recognized that there was no opportunity for a public spectacle, so he would have behaved properly.

Speaking of behavior, President Obama showed his own lack of class and judgment when he said the Cambridge PD "acted stupidly." To make such a sweeping statement of condemnation after admitting that he didn't "know all the facts," is beneath the dignity of his high office.

What is disturbing here is that not only is Gates tagged as a racist, but the President is accused of not having all the facts when in fact, Mr. Weir as well as Mr. Crittenden and others also don't have the facts. We have two stories about the incident and both sides rush to believe the their side is the true one.

But in reality we don't know the facts at all. That will come in time, but people are rushing to fill in the blanks.

I have long believed that liberals tend to be too sensitive on racial issues, to the point that no one can talk about them or they become excuses for people of color to indulge in victimhood. But I also think that conservatives tend to be to dull to the experience of blacks in America and the scars that we still carry with us concerning the legacy of racism. White conservatives want to believe that this was all done a long time ago and that we African Americans should just move on. But the fact is, those scars take a long time to heal.

In short white conservatives want us to "get over it." Maybe in time we will, but it isn't that easy. You can't just undo 400 years of history in a few decades.

My fellow conservatives might think I'm just whining when I share my fears concerning white cops, but they are real for me just as they might have been for Mr. Gates and millions of other African American men. I wish for a moment that they could understand that.

Empathy, Conservatives and Health Care Reform

There has been an interesting exchange between Freddie deBoer and Mark Thompson over at League of Ordinary Gentlemen on how conservatives approach health care reform. It's been fascinating because I think it explains why the conservative arguments against major change doesn't ring very true to the larger public.

I don't always agree with Freddie, but this has been on of the few times that he is very spot on. He notes:

...many conservative blogs, from all the various strata of the ideology, have been doing a very poor job of frankly acknowledging the enormous amount of human suffering our health care system causes.

There are very many people, in this country, who need health care and are unable to get it, because of their financial or employment situations. This is a fact, and it is unavoidable. The number of people so afflicted is a matter of great controversy. A great amount of virtual ink has flowed for the purpose of taking shots at the various quoted figures of the uninsured and the underinsured. And who can say, exactly. But it is a great many people. It is millions; even the most rabid partisan must acknowledge that millions of people in this country lack adequate health care coverage. Millions of people, in the country with the most powerful economy in the history of the world, cannot access desperately needed health care because they can’t afford to.

Our system leaves people suffering. Americans, today, don’t go to the doctor because they can’t afford to, though they are in pain, often debilitating pain. Our system leaves people in financial ruin. Those who are uninsured or underinsured and face major medical conditions are often left with bills that leave them destitute, bankrupt, or both. The numbers, again, are controversial. Whatever they are, they are again real, and again large. Our system also kills people. Prevention and early diagnosis are the foundations of Western medicine. People don’t go to the doctor, when they can’t afford it, and they don’t get early diagnosis, they don’t get early intervention, and they don’t get help until it is too late to avoid permanent injury or death.

When conservatives talk about health care, we tend to focus on the free market and fears of government control. Now these concerns do have some legitamacy to them, but they also lack something...empathy.

Empathy has caused a lot of snickers among conservatives lately, ever since President Obama said he wanted a Supreme Court justice that exhibited empathy. Many conservatives attacked the statement saying that one doesn't need empathy to be a good justice. Maybe, but that's another issue.

When it comes to health care, conservatives also seem to not see the importance of empathy in the same way that liberals do. Mark Thompson gives an example:

For years, whenever you see a Dem or liberal discussing the health care issue, they almost always begin with an acknowledgement of the problem – the “57 million Americans are uninsured” refrain, or perhaps a story of someone who died as a result of lack of treatment or because they couldn’t get their insurance company to pay for treatment. These stories and statistics tug at the heart strings, but more importantly they make people care about the issue because they make the issue relatable to those people, making them think “that could be me,” or in many cases “that is me.” As importantly, they give the listener the impression that what follows is a good faith proposal to solve that problem, not some half-assed proposal that’s really intended to advance a broader ideological agenda.

When you hear a conservative or libertarian speaking about the issue, though, you rarely get an acknowledgement of the problem. Instead, you may get a set of objections to the Dem proposal (usually including a rant about “socialized medicine”) or a statement that the free market solution is the better solution or some discussion of the areas of our health care system that are not the problem and that must be preserved and defended.

The liberal argument for health care reform is based on emotion and it works. I'm hardly rooting for a single-payer system, but I know what it means to be without healthcare, and as I've stated earlier, I know what it is to be sick and without health care. Democrats may have the wrong perscription to solve the issue, but at least the seem to care.

That's not what I find when I listen to fellow conservatives. There is no talk about what it might mean to not have health care or to have your benefits cut, or to deal with the rising cost of perscription drugs. As Mark notes, there is some talk about "socialized medicine" and how the US has the best health care system in the world and how we should focus on free market solutions.There is no talk about people's fears or concerns about this issue.


My own concerns for health care reform stem from my own life. I was a sickly kid growing up. I had asthma attacks on a regular basis, and have many allergies. Luckily, my parents had health insurance to pay for all the problems I had. As I grew into a young adult, I then dealt with clinical depression, which has me on antidepressants and a recent diagnosis of Aspergers Syndrome, a form of autism, which has me seeing a psychologist.

The long and the short of it, is that I've had some experience with the health care system. As an adult, I've gone through periods without health insurance. Just because I don't have health care doesn't mean those illnesses stop. I've gone though periods where I've had to decide to not take a certain drug because without insurance it was to damn expensive.

Health care reform for me isn't just an exercise in ideology; it is a real issue for me. Like any Republican, I have my druthers on having some kind of Canadian-style system, but that doesn't mean that I don't think this is an issue that the government has to have a role in. No parent should have to worry about whether they can take care of their kid who is having trouble breathing and wondering if they can pay for it.

What this comes down to is that conservatives and Republicans are going to have to let down their ideological blinders a bit and actually start to listen to people's concerns. Mind you, conservatives our not alone in allowing their ideology to cloud their vision. As Mark Thompson notes, liberals have similar blinders when it comes to public education, closing their eyes to charter schools and vouchers, even when schools are failing.

I don't know if conservatives are going to allow themselves a bit of empathy on this issue, but it might do them a bit of good.

The Coming Gay Republican Schism?

Before I go any further, I need to let you all know that I have been a part of Log Cabin Republicans since 2002. I've served in various positions with the local chapter including a stint as President.

Ben Smith over at Politico, revealed that there is a move a foot to create a rival organization for gay conservatives. The new group will be called GOProud and will launch next week.

So, why the need for another gay conservative group? Because some believe that Log Cabin has become "too liberal" leaving no true conservative voice. Christopher Barron, one of the founders of GOProud and a former staffer with Log Cabin notes that there isn't much difference between Log Cabin and many gay left organizations:

"It (Log Cabin) has simply moved way too far to the left and is basically indistinguishable from any other gay left organization."

Barron also noted that focusing on issues that other gay groups tackle, like marriage is not something real Republicans deal with:

"If your main issue is hate crimes or [federal anti-discrimination legislation] or marriage, you're probably not a Republican"

Huh. Since two of those issues Barron mentioned, marriage and anti-discrimination laws are important to me, I probably won't be getting an invite to join.

Bruce, over at Gay Patriot, seconds the notion of GOProud and is even more vocal about Log Cabin being nothing more than a center-left orgainzation:

I am thrilled to help announce the birth of a new national gay conservative organization, GOProud. As long-time readers know I have been very critical of the national Log Cabin Republicans for many years.

Their left-of-center positions on important issues have bothered me as LCR has continually sucked the teet of the Gay Leftist agenda. LCR’s silence and unwillingness to stand up and be vocal on true gay conservative issues (outing of Republican staffers, increasing threat of gays being selectively aborted, peril gays face by Islamic extremists) has been mind-boggling. And LCR’s continued obsession in trashing Republicans, yet letting Democrats get a pass on their gay-related hypocrisies, has been infruriating.

So, what do I think about all of this as a gay Republican? Well, it's hard to judge a group that has even formed yet, but if some of the comments are any indication, I don't think I will be sending any money to them anytime soon.

Does Log Cabin have problems? Yes. I disagree with the support for Hate Crimes legislation, which I disagree with on philosophical grounds. I also think they should have spoken more forcefully when gay GOP staffers were being outed. But that said, on the whole, this group has been a good organization showing that one can be gay and conservative.

As for all this talk about how Log Cabin has become "liberal?" Pure bunk. Please tell me, what is "liberal" about wanted the right to civil marriage, or the right to not be fired from your job because you are gay? What is "liberal" about wanting to serve in our military? The "liberal" term is used by those who are more interested in a "small tent" GOP, than in creating a movement and working to make the party that we love a more tolerant and welcoming party. Just because I believe in that doesn't make me accept single-payer health care.

As to the Gay Patriot's claim of trashing Republicans? Well, if someone is going around and saying bigoted things about gays, well it is the duty of a fellow Republican to call them on it. Anyways, Log Cabin has also praised Republicans who have stood up for inclusion. But probably for the Gay Patriot, they weren't the right kind of Republicans.

Again, I could be wrong since the group's purposes have not been released yet, but I fear that GOProud will be a group of gay Republicans not so interested in making society and our own party, more tolerant of gays, than it is about preserving the status quo. It's interested in rallying around the GOP as it currently is and adding a dash of gayness to it. So they will promote the current GOP agenda, but do very little to change it. If that is there agenda, they are welcome to it, but I will remain with Log Cabin, imperfect as it is. My African American heritage and my upbringing in the Black church remind me that one must fight for their rights and that is what Log Cabin does.

One of the reasons that I like Log Cabin is because it resembles what the GOP should be: a "Big Tent" kind of party. In my local group we have various stripes of conservatives, from pro-life to pro-choice, from Goldwater-style Republicans to Rockefeller Republicans. We are all different, but we come together under one roof. I don't know if GOProud is even interested in that kind of conservative diversity.

Several years ago, law professor Dale Carpenter wrote an essay about the rift among gay Republicans. It wasn't as much a rift as it was two different ways of seeing things: those who were gay first and Republicans second, and those who were Republicans first, and gay second. There has always been a natural tension between the two groups and for a long time, Log Cabin has housed both groups.

Come this week, one group will leave the Cabin. Will it make Log Cabin stronger? I don't know. But I do wonder what this will all mean down the road.

Wanted: An Anti-Limbaugh Big Mouth

This post over at Conventional Folly was a bit annoying at first blush, but then made sense:

I went and listened to the on-air debate between David Frum and Mark Levin at the urging of Massie and Sullivan, and I came away with the surprising conclusion that Levin definitely got the best of Frum (all use of the mute button aside). I think that’s because Frum is not acknowledging a sad fact: the dearth of charismatic political leaders on the right means that Levin’s incessant digs about relevance, as measured in “audience” for their respective work, actually matter. What good is the “idea leadership” espoused by Frum, Douthat/Salam, Brooks, et al. if it has little resonance with the mass of voters who make up the core of the Republican electorate?

The retort that Frum was unsuccessfully trying to make is that demagoguery, which is what Rush Limbaugh, Levin, and their ilk regularly engage in, is a sorry substitute for leadership. And, while that may very well be true, wonkery is an even more sorry substitute for leadership. The people don’t want nuance, substance, or even good ideas. They want something they can easily understand in sound-byte form, something that resonates with their simple, innate notions of justice, something they can repeat around the water cooler and feel good about. That’s something that writerly, intellectual types all too frequently miss. And, I hasten to add, it’s exactly what Barack Obama has been able to provide for the Democrats. (Emaphasis mine.)

I think he has a point. Frum, et al. are good writers, but in the world of politics, there needs to be someone that can take all this wonkery and distill it down to something that can be placed in a soundbite. As Marusic notes, Obama had a good way of taking all the Democratic wonk and distill into a wonderful speech. Bill Clinton could do that. So did Ronald Reagan. The thing is, someone like a Ross Douthat is not something that the average joe is going to get excited about. Which is why so many among the base like Rush: he can take "conservative" notions and make them easy to digest.

What the GOP needs is somewhat that can be "wonky" and accesible at the same time.It might be that someone like a Utah Governor Jon Huntsman could be the guy that takes thoughts from Frum, Douthat, Salam and others make then ready for mass consumption.

In the end, to reach out beyond the base that people like Frum (including myself) want to do, they need to find people who can translate that and make it presentable to the a water cooler conversation. Until that happens, the reform-minded conservatives will be on the losing end of the battle.