Last week, former Utah governor and failed Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman published a piece in The American Conservative, arguing that it's time for the right to embrace marriage equality. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love," Huntsman wrote, adding, "The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans."
Any chance we might see other national Republican voices move in a similar direction? As we were reminded on "Meet the Press" yesterday, it's going to be a slow process.
For those who can't watch clips online, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), who appears to have national ambitions, explained his vision of a renewed Republican Party, "which is about growth, not austerity, it's not being the party of big government, big Wall Street, big banks." Host David Gregory responded with a good question: "Jon Huntsman says that it's truly conservative to allow gays and lesbians to marry. Is that a change you could support?"
The Louisiana Republican replied, "Look, I -- I believe in the traditional definition of marriage." Jindal then promptly changed the subject, arguing that his party can win on economic issues.
It's a dubious argument -- most of the public rejects Jindal's economic ideas, too -- but how (and whether) Republicans adapt to changing attitudes on the culture war may be more relevant electorally than Jindal is prepared to admit.
About a week ago, Robert Draper published a fascinating item on the possible "obsolescence" of Republicans in the near future, and while the thesis was fairly broad, the fact that so much of the GOP establishment still believes the government should, in some cases, stop two consenting adults from getting married is severely limiting the party's fortunes, most notably among younger voters.
Of particular interest was a focus group of young Ohio men, conducted last month, and led by Kristen Soltis Anderson, a 28-year-old Republican pollster. During the session, she discovered a group of voters who weren't necessarily enthralled with President Obama, but who used negative words -- "racist," "out of touch" "hateful" -- to describe the GOP. She asked the young men, "What could [Republicans] say or do to make you feel more positive about the Republican Party?"
"Be more pro-science," said a 22-year-old moderate named Jack. "Embrace technology and change."
"Stick to your strong suit," advised Nick, a 23-year-old African-American. "Clearly social issues aren't your strong suit. Stop trying to fight the battle that's already been fought and trying to bring back a movement. Get over it — you lost."
Later that evening at a hotel bar, Anderson pored over her notes. She seemed morbidly entranced, like a homicide detective gazing into a pool of freshly spilled blood. In the previous few days, the pollster interviewed Latino voters in San Diego and young entrepreneurs in Orlando. The findings were virtually unanimous. No one could understand the G.O.P.'s hot-blooded opposition to gay marriage or its perceived affinity for invading foreign countries. Every group believed that the first place to cut spending was the defense budget. During the whiteboard drill, every focus group described Democrats as "open-minded" and Republicans as "rigid."
"There is a brand," the 28-year-old pollster concluded of her party with clinical finality. "And it's that we're not in the 21st century."
The longer Jindal and his allies fight against marriage equality, the more this problem will persist.
Leave a Comment:
Push me into the water - but don't make me wet.
And if conservatives and republicans do ever accept or adopt a more progressive stance on social issues then the more difficult fight will begin: the fight over economics.
That's a fight we'd all benefit from, if it weren't contaminated with other partisan issues. The fight would be more contained, more technocratic, less sanctimonious, and more enlightening.
The party of conservatism became the party of old values, and slid into being the party of hyper-conventionality (remember Nixon's silent majority?) which provided a natural fit for religious conservatives. This gave them great numbers and great power in certain ares of the country, but they'll lose those numbers and that power if they purge the religious conservatives and extremists. They're now weakened by their own toxic success. Ironically, we all lose by having the economic fight/debate corrupted by partisanship and religious fanaticism.
Off by one: more like "20th century."
When you look at their policies they are off by almost exactly 100 years...
Think about America in 1913...
Labor and the progressive movement vs Trusts and Monopolies. You had massive income inequality and abuse of power by the wealthy. Debates on issues like voting rights public health were just as prominent then as they are now.
It was like the Bush administrations was the Roaring twenties and they decided to go backward from there...
Does anyone know how gun control was handled at the turn of the 20th century? I know that as the frontier period ended the idea of openly carrying firearms became seen as "Rustic" but I don't know anything about the law of the period
oops
Much, much stricter than now. Photographs from "wild West" towns like Dodge City clearly show large signs at the edge of town proclaiming that all firearms are to be turned into the Marshall's office. If you read Burt Mossman's autobiography you'll see that the same was true all over Arizona in the early 20th century.
Thanks DC
They are driven by an inherent need to obfuscate and divert attention away from who is driving the bus .
They have Faux Nooze craft the news to manipulate the stupids. I get subjected to it at the gym and I almost fell off the treadmill yesterday . A perfect example of Big Bidness calling the shots.
The meme du Jour was that there is a new type of employee who can only work 29hrs because of Obamacare. They had some shlump in front of the camera whining how his hrs had been cut
They told me the owner had been "forced" to cut the hours by Obamacare .
The crhyon below stated the same bolding the "Forced"
No You a$$hole, your boss doesn't want to provide health insurance so he cut you hours to improve his bottom line at your expense.
People to stupid to know who's screwing them aided and abetted by Faux Nooze.
There seriously is no hope for the country now that critical thinking skills for a majority of the population have been disabled.
They are not the party of Lincoln. They lost that designation when they happily accepted the Dixiecrats and their fellow travelers with open arms.
" With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan"
Can anyone possibly imagine the present day republican party advocating that?
Much mirth was made by many as we watched the Clown Parade in 2012. Herman Cain. Newt. Perry. The Gal with the Faraway Eyes. And many, many more.
Oh, how we look forward to the new crop of up and coming comics when Open Mike Nite starts in 1016!
"For the benefit of Mr Kite there will be a show tonight on trampoline..."
"which is about growth, not austerity"
Is the an acknowledgment about deficit spending during a recession or simply two clauses back to back? My hunch is the latter.
But really, it looks like Jindal got the memo: it's not really about substantive change but about a change in marketing.
Jindal is all for change from a self-promotion angle only.
Please keep the Jindal stuff coming. It's bad enough that he is killing Louisiana (where I happen to live & own a home that probably would not sell in this market), but we don't need him killing the rest of the country as well. I am very thankful that my children graduated from high school before he destroyed the educational system. My daughter was affected by the massive cuts at LSU and managed to graduate before they fully took effect.
Why Jindal continues to persist in the self delusion that he can be a national candidate for the repuknican party is beyond me. To the repuke base, an Indian n!gger ain't different than an African n!gger.
At least Cruz & the Cuban from Florida can be convincing to the repuke base as not being really 'brown' because they are not from Mexico or Central America. Fortunately for the rest of us, Hispanics other than of Cuban descent will look at their policies and believe the same thing.
At least Cruz & the Cuban from Florida
It's interesting that Ted Cruz was born in Calgary Canada and his father is a Cuban who actually fought with Castro's rebels.
Do people not understand what the word "Conservative" really mean? It means to "preserve the old order" and in this case the "old order" is that of old, white men ruling and doing what they want and doing those things that help to enrich them - it has nothing to do with "regular working Americans". Edmund Burke wrote about "conservatism" during the French Revolution - and while he thought that the "revolution" was fine for the French, he championed against it for England believing that the English should "preserve the old order" of Monarchy and authority of Knights. This is what conservatism is all about, and the proof is on display daily by the GOTP that wish to take this nation back to a Fascist controlled government run by old, white politicians with "other" living and working in basic servitude to their whims!
The whole concept undermines democracy and is an anathema to the principals that we say we believe in.
All true, although what exactly the 'old order' is depends somewhat on how old any given person is.
I was pretty bummed about John Kerry becoming Secretary of State. We're now on our 68th SoS, and just four of them have not been white males. I was hoping that the run of anyone-but would continue for a while. But then I thought of something.
The next presidential election will see a new cohort of 18-year-old voters for whom John Kerry will be the first white male SoS that they can personally remember. Sure, they will know as a matter of historical fact that he represents the rule rather than the exception, but he will be the exception as far as their subjective experience is concerned.
So, what does that imply for that generation's ideas about what 'old order' needs to be preserved? And what does it imply for the GOP's future prospects if (when) they fail to adapt?
I went to one of my wingnut congressman's town halls a couple of summers ago (while he was still holding them). All of my wingnut neighbors agreed enthusiastically when someone suggested that we close down overseas bases. That was a military budget cut that even the Pox News viewers could support.
Close down overseas bases but not the one in my state/district. Cut foreign aid but not to Isreal. No matter that the ulta-orthodox Jews are exempt from military service and are being supported by the state, which is irritating a lot of Isrealies. It might irritate them more if the Americans stopped paying to support the Isreali military industrial complex.
Buerre Says:
"Marriage" is a legal contract that establishes very few rights in a relationship, unless you count the right to enjoy a Judy Garland Film Festival in peace and quiet a right. "Marriage," in the context of law, is nothing more than a way to measure assets; that is, what was brought into the marriage by both parties, what was acquired during the marriage by both parties, and what is leaving the marriage with each of the parties. "Marriage" is a privelege, and similar to driving skill, some of us are a lot better than others at navigating the intricate twists and turns that marriage entails. In a country in which over 50% of the heterosexual marriages fail miserably, I find it fascinating that people become absolutely apoplectic over the notion of a same-sex marriage. For example, "Hank" watched his marriage crumble faster than a well-veined Gorgonzola in less than three (3) years, and his wife took him for everything that wasn't nailed down. Maybe if "Hank" would have married "Frank," instead of getting the "shank" in divorce court, the two fellas could have settled their differences like real men; that is, by pouting in the garage for a weekend and eventually asking, "I'm going to the store. Do you need anything?"
What about two (2) lesbuns? Sure, they get a little cranky when "Aunti Flo" pays a visit every month, but at least their in-sync with each other. IF they can avoid the fisticuffs at the bar after the big softball tournament, a lesbian marriage has a better chance of surviving than a heterosexual marriage, and there are statistics to prove that statement. I wish I were the child of a lesbian couple; we could've played running bases all summer long and probably shared the same dungarees!
Sadly, with the way our economy is right now, the last thing we need to worry about is discriminating against same-sex marriages. Instead, we should concentrate on a cohesive foreign-policy in terms of Afghanistan and Iraq, safeguard the future of our Nation by insisting upon excellent schools for our children, and encourage Senior Citizens, our most valuable asset, to learn how to use Microsoft and Apple computers to communicate with their kids, make their lives a lot more meaningful, and provide access to online gambling and casinos. If the children of Senior Citizens want to warehouse them in a nursing home, at least give Grandma the option of a reverse-mortgage and an inpulsive annuity drain on the internet. Granny needs a new set of Dr. Scholl's Comfort Fit Slippers, and she's hitting on 18. Back off, Buster, before she pumps you full of lead!
In regard to shutting down Social Security, which is not in deficit and by law can not run a deficit and therefore not a threat of anything-see the chained cpi President Obama agress w/ Gov Bobby I'm not Hindu Jindal.
I'm 56 years old.
I am a former Democrat turned Independent.
These "Young Voices" do not speak for me.
They have no idea what they are saying, they don't know what they are doing, they have no sense of history and no nothing about our country or it's founders.
I do.
I majored in Poltical Science in College and served in local govt BEFORE I even got a BA.
I have been elected. They have not.
Same sex marriage is not a progressive idea.
It cannot be simply because it denies true diversity of linking both man and woman together.
It seems that many have forgotten that no one comes from a same sex pairing and that the nuclear family is the organizing principle of human civilization.
Same sex marriage never existed until a few years ago.
It's very interesting to note that those who are in favor are powerful.
Gay activists individually have won office and gay marriage has won in a number of states.
Gays have money, and jobs and power.
They don't need anything else.
The "means test" at the Supreme Court will be the following:
Gays must prove that they are powerless and need the help of govt.
If gays are powerless than I am an heir to the crown of St. Edward behind Prince Charles and William!
Mr. Murray, you seem to have forgotten that marriage is not solely a matter of procreative ability. Many heterosexual marriages do not produce children either due to natural factors or choice. As for the idea that the "nuclear family" is the "organizing principle of human civilization", surely you realize that the term is of 20th Century origin. The concept of a husband/wife/children/single home arrangement is older, but not as old as the concept of an extended family or the pairings of early humans.
Furthermore, suggesting that a group of people do not "need anything else" based upon your assessment is arrogance of the highest order. I didn't realize that equality meant giving anyone superior rights, as you seem to suggest.
So? Who cares how old you are? How is that relevant to anything? If you think that you're the only one around here over the age of 21, you're nuts.
And I presume by "independent" you mean a far-right reactionary. We're all familiar with that little word game.
Again, so what? Clearly, you think you are speaking from some privileged position. However, it doesn't really matter what you think, not really, since your not-so advanced age only means that you are closer to the grave than the kiddie-winks are; and they'll be running the show while the rest of us are all crazy dead. So what does your snootiness ultimately matter?
My, aren't we impressed with ourselves! Can you pat your head and rub your tummy at the same time?
I've got news for you, Archie: you're just another self-righteously privileged straight cis guy, and nobody but you thinks you're all that.
Only a truly, completely ignorant person can be so totally convinced he knows it all the way you do.
What the hell does that even mean? You seem to be assuming that if same-sex couples can legally wed, then somehow straight people will no longer be able to. That is just absurd, and factually incorrect.
More meaningless blather, as the existence of same-sex couples does not stop anyone (including same-sex couples themselves) from reproducing.
Neither did you. So what business do you have in being? I insist you fall over dead this instant.
Oh, right. Gay people are all rich and the true masters of the cosmos.
All you've got are a bunch of stale, right-wing smears that haven't had a good dusting since Stonewall.
But, again, so what? Nothing you say matters, nothing you think matters, and nothing you do matters. The world is changing in blithe disregard of you and everything you stand for. So, prepare for a soaking, kid, because you'll never hold back the tide.