The LGBT community has grown accustomed to the tired tradition of anti-gay politicos scaring the bejesus out of straight America in order to turn out voters. But the conventional wisdom, before this past week anyway, was that the tactic had played itself out in presidential politics.
Now, longtime Washington pundit Fred Barnes has openly suggested that Sen. John McCain's best shot at winning the White House may be to ramp up fear of gay people to excite the Republican base. What's more is that McCain himself is said to have promised social conservative leaders that he'll ratchet up his rhetoric on issues important to them. He also recently promised his support of the California ballot initiative to roll back marriage rights for same sex couples.
So, here we go again?
McCain has enjoyed the loyalty and hard work of numerous gay people during his many years in Washington. They believed he was at least agnostic about their personal lives and that he actually meant it when he called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance." They thought it brave to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment and, although nobody considers him a champion of LGBT rights, many thought McCain found anti-gay politicking distasteful and disloyal to gay people who work for him and share his conservative views on taxes, spending, defense and other issues.
If McCain decides to take Barnes' advice, his campaign will no doubt be forceful in its effort to convince fair-minded Republicans and independents that ending marriage rights in California and barring gays from serving openly in the military are not anti-gay positions. McCain will say with a straight face that these are merely policy differences, and that he does not condone discrimination against anyone.
The targets of that twisted message, both inside and outside the campaign, will have to make a choice. Will they let themselves imagine McCain is cringing through such a speech, regretting what he knows he is doing to his friends and staff, and that later, in private, they'll get a wink and a nod and whispered assurances that he's only doing what he has to do to win?
Or will they stand up and walk out?
This is a defining moment for both the Republican Party and its many members who believe in fairness and equality for gay people. Will the GOP once again embrace the politics of division? Is it willing to sacrifice the dignity of faithful LGBT Republicans for political expediency? Most importantly, in 2008, will fair-minded Republicans, gay and straight, sign on to this strategy or will they stand up, speak out and condemn it?
Share
Like what you read? Subscribe to The Bilerico Project by Email.
Want others to read it too? Use the buttons and links here to share this entry with others. (Move your cursor over a button or link to learn more about it.)
6 Comments
« Obama's turn to the right leaves out poor LGBTQ Americans | Home | Pink cupcakes for everyone! »
As I mentioned on the Blend, McCain's gay bashing is relatively stealthy. He sends his message to values voters by assuring them that he will appoint conservative judges (think more Clarence and Scalia).
LCR simply agrees to disagree on DADT and California's amendment and then they are perfectly happy to go along with the program. LCR has already embraced the Supreme's 2nd Amendment decision.
What flavor is that Kool-Aid?
David Hart | July 9, 2008 4:48 PM
Reply to this comment
It is coming around to no candidate being able to clearly advocate for anything except glittering generalities while his opponent lies about him. McCain has promised a fair and above board campaign. I hope the public news media holds him to that standard.
Robert Ganshorn | July 9, 2008 8:31 PM
Reply to this comment
Of course they'll tolerate it. Even worse, they'll excuse it.
Bil Browning | July 10, 2008 3:47 PM
Reply to this comment
Yeah they'll tolerate it, to answer the title question. That's the only thing they do, really, is tolerate Republicans' abuses.
Alex Blaze | July 11, 2008 4:18 AM
Reply to this comment
And what is wrong with LCR supporting the Supreme Court's ruling on the Second Amendment? How is that an anti-gay position, that individuals have the right to possess firearms? Or is the proper position to consider ourselves merely wards of the State, to be protected by the police, who, as the Supreme Court earlier ruled, have no obligation to protect individuals?
ksu499 | July 11, 2008 9:16 AM
Reply to this comment
I didn't write that there was anything wrong with LCR supporting the Second Amendment. However, as long as you ask, I was seriously wounded when someone tried to murder me at close range with a .45. I'll spare you the details.
The Heller v. DC issue was really about whether or not DC (and the citizens of DC) should be able to regulate firearms, to the extent that they did, in their city.
Many on the right said "no" and many progressives said "yes." The Christian Right was EXTREMELY vocal in support of nullifying the DC law.
I found it strange that Chirstians did not complain about "defying the will of the people." Nor did they suggest that Scalia is an activist judge. I, for one, was shocked ;-)
I'll even grant you the fact that a gay group filed an amicus brief in support of Heller (the plaintiff). "Armed Queers" or something to that effect. Seriously.
Thus, this is probably NOT a GLBT issue except to the extent that we TEND to align with progressives. On a personal level, my beliefs are clearly in favor of strong gun regulation. I'll also spare you the Brady talking points. Your mileage may vary.
David Hart | July 11, 2008 3:19 PM
Reply to this comment