Republicans prepare to eat their own
This article
in Sunday's Times ("Foley Case Upsets Tough Balance of Capitol Hill’s Gay
Republicans") illustrates both the rot at the heart of the Republican party and
the delusional thinking on the part of both the press and some (in this case
gay) Republicans that has sustained
it.
The Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Had he been preying on female pages, it is unlikely that events would have played out much differently. The scandal is about the cover-up. To the Republican leadership protection of their own power for its own sake was far more important than doing the right thing, even though it meant risking only a single seat, which, ironically enough, they probably could have held if they had let Foley retire as he had wanted to do.
Now, as the leadership casts about for a scapegoat, it seems more and more likely that they will settle on the enemy within, the mostly closeted or semi-closeted gays (of whom I am reliably informed there are large numbers) who work in the offices of the very people who ingored Foley's predations, people who have made an electoral living out of fomenting bigotry generally, and against gays specifically.
The attempt to blame the Democrats ultimately won't do. It fails for a number of reasons. First, there is no evidentiary basis for it, because it's simply not true. Of course, that's never stopped them before, but their problem is that their accusation against the Democrats seems too contrived. It has no legs. More fundamentally, the primary threat posed to the Republicans from this scandal is not so much that voters will switch to the Republicans (though that is a real possibility) but that the Republican bigoted base won't vote at all. The Republicans need a plausible line with a plausible scapegoat that will energize that base. Democrats won't get those bigot juices flowing, but gays might. So what better target than the hapless gays who have worked so loyally for their homophobic party?
Many of us on the left have given up trying to understand how any gay person, no matter how self loathing, could support the Republican party. The Times reports:
When asked why he remains in the party, Mr. Bennett gave an answer common to gay Republicans: he said that he remained fundamentally in sync with the small government principles of the party and its approach to national security, and that he was committed to changing what he considers its antigay attitudes.
Let's put aside the fact that there is no evidence that the Republican party espouses "small government principles", except in the limited sense of paying lip service to them as it expands the role of government into every aspect of our lives. Let's ignore the fact that the Republican approach to national security has been proven to be a total failure. No matter how you look at it, this is delusional thinking.
Ever since Nixon introduced the Southern Strategy in 1968 the Republican party has been the party of bigotry. It has won elections by changing the subject to race (usually in a coded fashion), religion, or sexual orientation. The Republican party cannot win without appealing to bigotry. At this point, bigotry is the bedrock message of the Republican party. If anything it is becoming a more blatant part of the message. The shock troops, such as Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter have even begun re-legitimating overt racism. Mr. Bennett, and the other gay operatives (who never actually publicly advocate for a change in the party's position on gays, and who, as the article demonstrates, often stand by while their bosses spew anti-gay venom) are truly deluded if they think they can change this fact by meekly standing silent while their party trades on hate. Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Bennett, but the meek don't inherit the earth.
Is there any reason to think the Repubican party won't run true to form and sacrifice these people? How easy to portray them as a cancer within the party, undermining the otherwise value laden Party of God. It's what they do. Given their rhetoric, is there any question who they will throw overboard to prevent the ship sinking in the storm?
And that brings us to the other somewhat delusional thinking in this piece:
Even though the G.O.P. fashions itself as “the party of Lincoln” and a promoter of tolerance, it is perceived as hostile by many gay men and lesbians.
This is written without any apparent irony. This is the party that trades on intolerance and thinks only white men and fundamentalists are victims of discrimination.If the Democrats made the far more plausible claim that they are the party of Truman, Kennedy and Roosevelt, and a promoter of a strong but sane foreign policy, we would at least get a huge dose of snark. And why, pray tell, are the words "perceived as" inserted into that sentence. It's not a perception, it is simple fact.
The Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Had he been preying on female pages, it is unlikely that events would have played out much differently. The scandal is about the cover-up. To the Republican leadership protection of their own power for its own sake was far more important than doing the right thing, even though it meant risking only a single seat, which, ironically enough, they probably could have held if they had let Foley retire as he had wanted to do.
Now, as the leadership casts about for a scapegoat, it seems more and more likely that they will settle on the enemy within, the mostly closeted or semi-closeted gays (of whom I am reliably informed there are large numbers) who work in the offices of the very people who ingored Foley's predations, people who have made an electoral living out of fomenting bigotry generally, and against gays specifically.
The attempt to blame the Democrats ultimately won't do. It fails for a number of reasons. First, there is no evidentiary basis for it, because it's simply not true. Of course, that's never stopped them before, but their problem is that their accusation against the Democrats seems too contrived. It has no legs. More fundamentally, the primary threat posed to the Republicans from this scandal is not so much that voters will switch to the Republicans (though that is a real possibility) but that the Republican bigoted base won't vote at all. The Republicans need a plausible line with a plausible scapegoat that will energize that base. Democrats won't get those bigot juices flowing, but gays might. So what better target than the hapless gays who have worked so loyally for their homophobic party?
Many of us on the left have given up trying to understand how any gay person, no matter how self loathing, could support the Republican party. The Times reports:
When asked why he remains in the party, Mr. Bennett gave an answer common to gay Republicans: he said that he remained fundamentally in sync with the small government principles of the party and its approach to national security, and that he was committed to changing what he considers its antigay attitudes.
Let's put aside the fact that there is no evidence that the Republican party espouses "small government principles", except in the limited sense of paying lip service to them as it expands the role of government into every aspect of our lives. Let's ignore the fact that the Republican approach to national security has been proven to be a total failure. No matter how you look at it, this is delusional thinking.
Ever since Nixon introduced the Southern Strategy in 1968 the Republican party has been the party of bigotry. It has won elections by changing the subject to race (usually in a coded fashion), religion, or sexual orientation. The Republican party cannot win without appealing to bigotry. At this point, bigotry is the bedrock message of the Republican party. If anything it is becoming a more blatant part of the message. The shock troops, such as Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter have even begun re-legitimating overt racism. Mr. Bennett, and the other gay operatives (who never actually publicly advocate for a change in the party's position on gays, and who, as the article demonstrates, often stand by while their bosses spew anti-gay venom) are truly deluded if they think they can change this fact by meekly standing silent while their party trades on hate. Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Bennett, but the meek don't inherit the earth.
Is there any reason to think the Repubican party won't run true to form and sacrifice these people? How easy to portray them as a cancer within the party, undermining the otherwise value laden Party of God. It's what they do. Given their rhetoric, is there any question who they will throw overboard to prevent the ship sinking in the storm?
And that brings us to the other somewhat delusional thinking in this piece:
Even though the G.O.P. fashions itself as “the party of Lincoln” and a promoter of tolerance, it is perceived as hostile by many gay men and lesbians.
This is written without any apparent irony. This is the party that trades on intolerance and thinks only white men and fundamentalists are victims of discrimination.If the Democrats made the far more plausible claim that they are the party of Truman, Kennedy and Roosevelt, and a promoter of a strong but sane foreign policy, we would at least get a huge dose of snark. And why, pray tell, are the words "perceived as" inserted into that sentence. It's not a perception, it is simple fact.
Posted: Tuesday - October 10, 2006 at 08:23 PM
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:20 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:20 PM