Creating God’s Anti-Gay Warriors »« Ryan’s Incredibly Dishonest Speech

LGBT Voters Up For Grabs?

Are LGBT voters up for grabs in the election? Well no, not quite. But Jonathan Capehart points to a recent poll that shows two things: first, the LGBT voters care about the same issues everyone else does; second, that if the Republican party wasn’t so virulently anti-gay, they might have a shot at their votes on election day.

According to the poll, the top three issues of concern to the 1,367 U.S. voters surveyed online by Harris Interactive were the same top three issues for the 1,190 self-identified LGBT voters surveyed. They were “economic issues” (24 percent to 18 percent), “unemployment/jobs” (15 percent to 14 percent) and “health care” (12 percent for both). But there was another eye-opening result in this poll that is good news for the GOP. Yet, it’s news the GOP will ignore…

As you might imagine, among the gays, Obama-Biden (67 percent) trounced Romney-Ryan (23 percent). But that lock on the gay vote for the president and the Democratic Party isn’t as firm as you might think.

“If Mitt Romney held the same positions on issues related to gay rights as President Obama,” respondents were asked, “what would be the impact on your attitude towards voting for Mitt Romney?” Twenty-two (22) percent of LGBT voters said they would be “more likely to vote for Romney.”

“If the Republican Party and the Democratic Party held the same position on gay rights,” respondents were asked, “how would that impact your attitude towards voting for Republican candidates?” Twenty-six (26) percent of LGBT voters indicated they would be “more likely to vote Republican.”

Basically, Obama-Biden would be fighting Romney-Ryan for the gay vote if the Republican ticket and its party were on the same progressive page as the president and the Democrats.

But if the GOP did change their positions, they would undoubtedly lose a good portion of the religious right base. And since there are a lot more religious right voters than there are gay voters, on balance they would probably end up on the losing end of the deal.

Comments

  1. jamessweet says

    Well of course. In fact, having hung out on prop8trialtracker.com, I’m somewhat amazed at how many LGBT people are Romney/GOP supporters, despite how virulently anti-gay they are. If the Republicans changed their tune, the gay vote would probably look exactly like the straight vote within a generation or so.

    I’m not sure anymore how much of the religious right they’d really lose. It’s hard to say.

  2. regexp says

    I don’t know about that. The GOP would not only gain votes from gay men and women – they would also gain votes from independent and more libertarian minded voters who are disgusted by the GOPs pandering to the religious right who are obsessed with social issues. And who would religious voters vote for? A DFL candidate? Doubtful.

    In a few weeks I’m moving to San Diego which has a Republican mayor who supports the rights of gay men and women to marry. He was easily reelected. Perhaps the the GOP can take a lesson from that.

  3. Hatchetfish says

    That phrasing seems significant, “would be more likely”. The hypothetical nature of it would put me in a frame of mind that makes the response almost meaningless: It reminds me of “Would you be more likely to buy Brand X if it was half off?” or “… if it was Strawberry instead of Puke flavored?” type questions in consumer surveys. Thing is, let’s say Brand X is carnuba wax based cat ear styling gel, and I don’t have a cat right now, and would never buy it, nor any of its competitors, even if I did have a cat. But sure, those things would make me more likely to buy it than otherwise.

    Which isn’t a true statement, because a 0 probability is a 0 probability, but these questions frequently get answered that way anyway. Our tendency is to equate ‘that’s a less disfavored case, but still unacceptable’ with ‘I favor that case more’, as a way to communicate our preference. Unfortunately that’s then coded by the pollsters as ‘More of the public will buy ear styling gel if we change the flavor and cut the price’. Which is sadly probably true of Brand X were it to exist, because cat owners will inflict any atrocity on their little rodenticidal maniacs, but I digress.

    I’m sure the republicans absolutely would pick up some LGBT votes if they dropped the bigotry, but I’m equally sure the effect I’m describing inflates the survey number. If they want a meaningful number on this, they need to ask ‘Would you vote for Romney if X?’, not ‘Would X make you more likely to vote for Romney?’.

  4. MikeMa says

    Dumping the anti-gay rhetoric and policies would hurt the GOP mostly in the south where church and bible is revered far above country and constitution. Critical thinking skill are low.

    What would happen if the GOP suddenly found sanity and compassion? The fringe would scream and not vote. They might even push a 3rd (or 4th) party candidate. After 1 or 2 election cycles, either the 3rd party rises to prominence in a limited, southern way or the disenfranchised go back to their churches and return to praying for solutions like they have for most of the past 60 years.

  5. Michael Heath says

    I’m starting to hear some of the less insane though even more cynical Republicans implicitly concede how repugnant their party’s policy positions on women and GBLT are. Recently these expressions I observed came from Sen. John McCain, his wife Cindy McCain, and some of Mitt Romney’s immediate family members – that being his wife, sister, and his sons.

    Their argument was that they didn’t either agree with those positions or the most extreme aspects of the GOP platform on social issues; however they then argued that women and GBLTs did or should care more about economic matters than the social issues, where their presumption was that Republicans self-evidently have a better economic argument.

    The underlying root cause defect in this perspective is:
    1) They have failed to substantiate a compelling economic argument which can withstand even a whiff of scrutiny.
    2) The reason they can’t do #1 is the very same reason they have such defective positions on women and GBLTs. That reason is their positions are not based on any empirical evidence pointing to optimal outcomes or a defensible moral framework, but instead points towards their tribe’s bigotries or their cynically and dishonestly promoting the interests of a few at the country’s expense.

  6. Scientismist says

    Michael Heath @5: Exactly. My immediate thought about such a “what if” situation would have to be, well, if they’re showing some signs of sanity on that one issue, I’ll have to look at their positions on all the others.. No change, you say? They are still misogynistic, selfish, devil-take-the-hindmost, anti-science idiots? Sorry, ending up with the right answer for the wrong reasons one one isolated issue doesn’t make me want to vote for them.

  7. says

    I can’t wrap my brain around why a gay person would vote Republican (except for a very few candidates). I find the 23% figure shockingly high. The Republican party platforms of some states explicitly stated that they would like to re-criminalize gay sex. They would also ban gay adoption, civil unions, and gay marriage. And they would legalize job and housing discrimination in the name of religious freedom. Are these 23% of gay Romney supporters simply rich and wanting a tax cut? Or are they war mongers who want to invade Iran? Do they hate Obamacare but love Romneycare?

    Could a gay supporter of Romney please explain?

  8. says

    Most likely they’re just ignorant of what policies the state and national Republican parties advocate. Just like lots of straight voters are. A lot of people vote for a party simply because they’ve always voted for it, and don’t really have a clue what it actually advocates at any given time.

  9. Michael Heath says

    For those who can’t understand why some people would support a group who harms’ that persons’ self-interests, considering the following.

    We have a long history of certain groups who were denied equal protection and liberty who once they gained equality, happily joined the oppressors. Catholics were discriminated against for more time in this country’s history then they weren’t, and yet Catholic-run Fox News leads the effort to marginalize some Americans, including the promotion of religious discrimination.

    Being gay doesn’t necessarily make somebody a non-authoritarian. In addition some people are insulted by being categorized by only one of the attributes. So they minimize, avoid, or prioritize other factors as more important than others. Clarence Thomas and Ted Haggard provide vivid illustrations; where both also demonstrate self-hatred for those attributes which conservative Christians hate, respectively – being a non-subservient black and being either gay or bisexual.

    We can also extend the, “why would a gay person support a party whose virulently anti-gay” to why any working class person would support the current Republican party. A party who is increasingly overt in its contempt for those who care about anything beyond the short-term interests of the very richest plutocrats and the bigotries promoted by conservative Christians.

  10. harold says

    We can also extend the, “why would a gay person support a party whose virulently anti-gay” to why any working class person would support the current Republican party.

    In a sense, we could can also extend it to why any person would support the Republican party.

    It is hard for me to think of anyone who even has a true positive short term outcome via Republican policy.

    Virtually all extra money that goes to very rich people via Republican policy 1) has very low marginal utility at best for people who are already very rich, and 2) may have net negative utility, as it may come at the expense of lower exchange rate for all of their money, lower growth rate of their investments, or other ill effects of poor economic policy that outweigh short term changes in tax policy.

    As for everyone else, who actually benefits in a positive way from lower wages, lack of social safety net, limited access to health care, environmental degradation, anti-contraception legislation, failed drug prohibition policy, corrupt private prisons, constant attacks on public education, excessively expensive higher education, deliberately stoked atmosphere of ethnic/gender/orientation conflict, useless wars, excessive military spending, science denial at the highest levels of government, etc?

    People think that they do, but mainly it’s just the logic error of interpreting another person’s hardship as one’s own benefit. “Small business owners” are overall pounded by low wages and lack of universal health care, for example. Sure, they can try to hire some guy for $7.25/hr and no health care, but their business operates in the context of the broader economy. A far higher percentage of the people in Haiti are small business operators, than in the US, but it is better to operate a successful small business in the US.

    (I realize that the Democrats are guilty of much of what I have listed as well, but to a lesser degree.)

  11. brianl says

    Sigh. Okay, let’s vamp this one more time.

    A whole lot of gays are quite conservative.

    The most visible gays for the past few decades have tended to be liberal because by default being out was a political statement staked into liberal territory. That 23% figure is actually rather low.

    Twenty to thirty years ago, the entire structure of the gay community altered violently and irrevocably. Look back at the number of mid and high-level conservatives who died in their thirties or forties of “pneumonia” or “undisclosed illness” or “unexpectedly” or any of the other polite 80s/90s code words of AIDS. Roy Cohen is the most well-known example.

    The same thing that happened to American musical theatre happened to American politics. A generation of the people who made new things happen and should have had bright careers ahead of them died. The result on Broadway was the influx of British spectacle musicals.

    I remain convinced that the only reason that marriage equality became the top tier issue it has is because there was a dead generation of activists who weren’t there to tell the new ones that it was impossible. A lot of people still fail to understand that the driving force behind the marriage movement is legal protections.

    Please, spare me the tap dance about how many of the legal benefits can be duplicated without marriage. This is simply and demonstrably not true. If you can’t get married, there are legal rights that are unavailable to you and in the face of the law, you and your spouse are legal strangers. Family functionally always trumps strangers in matters of law.

    It’s less that the gay vote is up for grabs than being gay as a political identity is losing steam. Once that happens (and remember that gays are distributed across all populations), you find another peg to hang your political hat on.

    I’ve thought for years that the Republican plan was never to win the gay vote but to neutralize it. All that would be required to push the baseline into the 40% range is to stop the rhetorical gay bashing.

    Please feel free to continue believing that gays who vote Republican because they don’t understand their own self-interest, are self-destructive, are self-hating, or whatever reason fits with your preconceived notion of how people should think. You’re wrong.

    BTW, I think Romney is probably (and Ryan is certainly) a sociopath in the clinical sense & wouldn’t vote for them no matter what the alternative was. I also despise Obama and his piss-poor performance as an executive. If this were a normal year, he should be run out of town on a rail, but it’s not and he won’t be. I’m leaning towards writing in Norton the First, Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico, but I refuse to do the lesser evil thing anymore.

  12. Michael Heath says

    brianl writes:

    Sigh. Okay, let’s vamp this one more time.

    As a regular reader, I don’t recognize you ever having posted here, yet here you are expressing exasperation about having to repeat yourself? And exactly which posts are you sighing about? Good form in this forum requires you to attribute and quote that which you attempt to rebut.

    brianl writes:

    I remain convinced that the only reason that marriage equality became the top tier issue it has is because there was a dead generation of activists who weren’t there to tell the new ones that it was impossible.

    If your conviction is based on convincing evidence independently validated with multiple lines corroborating, which is the standard in this forum, you should be able to provide some cites, which I request. Especially after your complaints about some un-named others in this forum having it wrong.

    brianl writes:

    A lot of people still fail to understand that the driving force behind the marriage movement is legal protections.

    Not in this forum, so why the strawman?

    brianl writes:

    Please, spare me the tap dance about how many of the legal benefits can be duplicated without marriage. This is simply and demonstrably not true.

    Who in this forum is making this argument? So again, why the strawman? You appear lost in the Internet and have ended up somewhere you’ve never been while thinking you’re somewhere else.

    brianl writes:

    Please feel free to continue believing that gays who vote Republican because they don’t understand their own self-interest, are self-destructive, are self-hating, or whatever reason fits with your preconceived notion of how people should think. You’re wrong.

    This is an empirical argument, please provide a citation on that breaks down motivations for gay political affiliations. And who exactly is promoting has a, “preconceived notion of how people should think” and is also “wrong”? It’s damn difficult critiquing your analysis here when you fail to reference what was previously written which you attempt to rebut here. We’re currently led to consider the opponents of your argument exist in your head.

  13. says

    “But if the GOP did change their positions, they would undoubtedly lose a good portion of the religious right base.”

    Lose them to whom? Not to the Dems, surely. Maybe a third party, but we’ve been hearing about that for decades without a serious one actually materializing. The leaders of the religious right have too much power within the Republican apparatus to walk away casually, and their followers are, of course, regarded simply as tools.

    I don’t think that the anti-gay position is a strategic one at all really, it’s just part of who they are. And this is why I cannot fathom why any LGBT person would ever consider voting Republican. The impulse that causes them to hate gays is the same one that causes them to hate the poor, blacks, immigrants, Muslims, women.. basically anyone who is non-conformist or traditionally powerless, the people who get put down so that the privileged and powerful can maintain their sense of superiority and status. And that’s never going to change. If conservatives stopped being assholes toward people not like themselves, they would cease being conservative in the contemporary American sense of the word. They will, at best, just change the targets of their assholery. Gays may one day find acceptance on the right, but that will happen only when they are no longer seen as different and vulnerable, not because conservatives start taking that Jesus guy seriously and decide that it’s morally wrong to pick on those who are at society’s fringe. And so I cannot understand how a gay person can find conservatism to be acceptable, after having been victimized by it for so long, and think that all the hating is perfectly fine as long as they’re no longer the ones being pissed upon.

  14. Michael Heath says

    Area Man writes:

    And this is why I cannot fathom why any LGBT person would ever consider voting Republican. The impulse that causes them to hate gays is the same one that causes them to hate the poor, blacks, immigrants, Muslims, women.. basically anyone who is non-conformist or traditionally powerless, the people who get put down so that the privileged and powerful can maintain their sense of superiority and status. And that’s never going to change.

    You seem to presume that to be LGBT is to be liberal. I don’t think that’s a safe presumption, especially as they becoming increasingly accepted and given how authoritarianism is learned rather than biologically inherited.

    The history of our country is one of sub-populations achieving more equal rights which has them subsequently allying with conservatives to continue to marginalize some other sub-population. The latest illustrative example being black Californians voting against the equal rights of GLBTs with the Prop 8 vote.

  15. says

    You seem to presume that to be LGBT is to be liberal.

    I presume that being a part of traditionally discriminated against group makes one liberal. Aside from having a personal interest in opposing conservatives, it makes one more sympathetic to other groups that have to endure the same shit.

    The history of our country is one of sub-populations achieving more equal rights which has them subsequently allying with conservatives to continue to marginalize some other sub-population.

    Yes, this happens. It doesn’t mean it’s not mind-blowingly hypocritical, especially when they haven’t even stopped marginalizing your own group yet.

  16. leonardschneider says

    First: brianl, it’s spelled ‘Roy Cohn.’ (Sorry, I’m not a grammar nazi, I’m a spelling fascist. Or something.)

    Who knows? Maybe Gary Johnson will end up being quite the spoiler this time around. I honestly see him pulling a ‘John Anderson’ on both parties, and wrangling up over 5% of the popular vote… And what a frightening idea that would be for both the Republicans and Democrats.

    My hunch is people will vote for candidate Johnson, and — just as I will — hold their noses when it comes to his current party affiliation. Hell, if pigs had gained the power of flight and Johnson had received the Republican nomination, I would be voting for him the same way, with my nostrils plugged.

    Just as Nader was a spoiler for the Dems in 2000 (as was Anderson in 1980), Johnson is going to gank a lot of votes from the Reps… Way more than their counting on. Having used treachery to get rid of Ron Paul, the RNC are forcing the Paulite faithful into three choices: write in Ron Paul, ignore their own consciences and vote Romney, or vote for Gary Johnson.

    Even their most blindly faithful are lukewarm about Romney, and the minority of socially progressive Republicans still out there are fed up with the Bible-whackers. It takes about three minutes to convince economic conservatives that, holy shit, this Johnson feller isn’t kidding.

    The numbers will be smaller among the Democratic faithful, but I personally know too many Dems who scraped the “Obama/Biden 2008″ stickers off their cars over the last twenty months out of sheer disgust with the administration. Too many broken promises, and too many behavioral similarities with the previous administration. I teased them in ’08 with my own rationale for not voting for Obama: “He’s a career politician from the Chicago area; how honest of a man are you expecting?” (A couple have sheepishly admitted I was right.) Now they have no one at all to vote for. The Greens are running (BWA-HAHAHAHA!) (pardon me) Roseanne Barr, the Peace & Freedom party is as moribund as always, and far too many on the left have an allergic, knee-jerk reaction to the very word “libertarian” to consider voting for Johnson. I can’t entirely blame them; the LP ran that carpetbagger dipshit Bob “Captain Moustache” Barr last time around.

    Undecideds on the right are in the same pickle, although Johnson is a much easier pill to swallow. As I said above, the alternatives are to either write in Ron Paul, or… Ahh… Well, there’s the American Independent party or the Constitution party, I suppose. Both are as moribund as P&F, and draw voters who consider wearing armbands an acceptable fashion statement.

    Me, I have zero taste for the LP. Someday I’ll meet a capital-L libertarian who doesn’t fit the stereotype of an Objectivist with bong-breath, but I think I’ll have a long wait.

    In 1980, Anderson’s run as an independent was such a novelty the press couldn’t not pay attention. Johnson doesn’t have that luxury: he needed the backing of any party to get on the ballot, and the Libertarians were the most sensible choice. If anything, hardcore LP members are unsure about Johnson since he’s not quite the Randian they’d like… But he’ll do.

    On November 6th, I will punch a small hole in a piece of cardboard for a Presidential candidate who doesn’t have a hope in hell of actually winning, and who’s associated with a political party I find repugnant. And I’ll sleep well that night, having voted with my conscience and intellect.

    In fact, this will be the first time in my life I’ll have voted for a candidate who is actually on the ballot.

  17. slc1 says

    Re Michael Heath @ #15

    The latest illustrative example being black Californians voting against the equal rights of GLBTs with the Prop 8 vote

    It appears that President Obama’s support of same sex marriage has alleviated to some extent the opposition of the Afro-American community in Prince Georges Co., Maryland, which was responsible for the bill legalizing same sex marriage in that state barely passing the lower house (require an assist from Dick Cheney). It appears that the referendum on overturning the act is headed for defeat.

  18. harold says

    People, please. Don’t read too much into it. All it means is that 22% of gay people are greedy, bigoted assholes.

    Actually, it means that at least 22% of gay people are greedy, bigoted assholes. A bunch of them could be greedy bigoted assholes who vote Democratic.

    (Gay people are exactly as likely to be greedy bigoted assholes as straight people.)

    Greedy, bigoted assholes are pretty common. Hell, I’m a bleeding heart pinko progressive and you could make a pretty good case that in some ways I am a greedy bigoted asshole myself. Just not as much as the clowns at the Republican convention.

    I presume that being a part of traditionally discriminated against group makes one liberal.

    That is most certainly not the case.

  19. M Groesbeck says

    Please feel free to continue believing that gays who vote Republican because they don’t understand their own self-interest, are self-destructive, are self-hating, or whatever reason fits with your preconceived notion of how people should think. You’re wrong.

    The ones who aren’t rich white male Christians are self-destructively voting against their own self-interest (and interest in self-preservation!). Unless you’re claiming that gay people are disproportionately rich white male theocrats?

  20. harold says

    The ones who aren’t rich white male Christians are self-destructively voting against their own self-interest

    I disagree with your presumption that Republican policies are good for rich white male Christians.

  21. says

    The Greens are running (BWA-HAHAHAHA!) (pardon me) Roseanne Barr

    The Green Party nominee is Dr. Jill Stein, not Roseanne Barr. I’m actually seriously considering a vote for her, since I live in a safely blue state (Illinois).

  22. brianl says

    @Michael Heath

    Good form in this forum requires you to attribute and quote that which you attempt to rebut.

    I generally enjoy your comments, but not when you’re being pedantic for the sake of it. The reply was in response to the tired trope of “x% of gays and lesbians vote Republican and this is shocking to me.”

    We’re currently led to consider the opponents of your argument exist in your head.

    No, they exist in virtually every thread where the topic of “x% of gays and lesbians vote Republican and this is shocking to me” comes up. See @7:

    Are these 23% of gay Romney supporters simply rich and wanting a tax cut? Or are they war mongers who want to invade Iran? Do they hate Obamacare but love Romneycare?

    @11

    All it means is that 22% of gay people are greedy, bigoted assholes.

    @14

    And so I cannot understand how a gay person can find conservatism to be acceptable, after having been victimized by it for so long, and think that all the hating is perfectly fine as long as they’re no longer the ones being pissed upon.

    You agreed with the primary point I intended to make in @15:

    You seem to presume that to be LGBT is to be liberal. I don’t think that’s a safe presumption…

    You’re correct. Gay voters are not and never have been a monolithic block. Some of the most vociferous opponents of gay liberation in the early days were closet cases who liked their little world exactly the way it was, thank you very much. The echo of that struggle continues to this day. The notion (and it is pervasive in most Internet forums, including this one) that gay=liberal is simply incorrect.

    And who exactly is promoting has a, “preconceived notion of how people should think” and is also “wrong”?

    See @7, @11, & @14 above. A Republican voter must be: rich, greedy, looking for a tax cut, bigoted, a warmonger. There are a number of other possibilities, but those are the ones that appeal to whatever sense it is that makes the writers want to vote for the pro-baby-killing, anti-gun, Christ-hating Democrats (BTW, I know none of those attributes are necessarily true either, and I see them expressed all the time in online forums).

    @17 leonardschneider: Thanks for the correction. I should have double checked that in Google.

  23. says

    I presume that being a part of traditionally discriminated against group makes one liberal.

    “That is most certainly not the case.

    Well, I guess that explains why gays, atheists, blacks, Jews, women, Muslims, Latinos, Asians, immigrants, etc. all lean Republican.

    Or, wait…

  24. dingojack says

    brianl –
    #7 Subjunctive voice, learn what it means.
    %11 Since you not been here before you’ll be unfamiliar with MO. It’s a joke, Joyce – a joke.
    #14 Now this one baffles me. No mention of the ‘meme’ you’re complaining about. Perhaps you misnumbered.
    Dingo
    —–
    PS: LGBT voters are significantly less worried about the economy and employment (>> 99.92% confidence) and slightly less so about healthcare (>90.027%) than their straight counterparts. Which leaves us with the questions:
    a) What lesser issue(s) might they be worried about?
    b) Why are they significantly less worried about the three major issues troubling straight voters?

  25. says

    Michael Heath “You seem to presume that to be LGBT is to be liberal.”
    That’s what the “L” stands for. Duh.

    Area Man “I presume that being a part of traditionally discriminated against group makes one liberal. Aside from having a personal interest in opposing conservatives, it makes one more sympathetic to other groups that have to endure the same shit.”
    See: American Roman Catholics. And Mormons.

    harold “Actually, it means that at least 22% of gay people are greedy, bigoted assholes.”
    Maybe more. Plotting their intolerant homocracy, probably.

    “I disagree with your presumption that Republican policies are good for rich white male Christians.”
    Between all of a smaller pie or most of a larger one, some choose the former. So they they can lord it over the rest, probably.

    brianl “Gay voters are not and never have been a monolithic block.”
    They form more of a monolithic pyramid. It’s pretty good, actually. You have to be in shape to make one that large.

    “A Republican voter must be: rich, greedy, looking for a tax cut, bigoted, a warmonger.”
    You’re right. A bunch of them seem to vote for them for the characteristics they think the modern GOP has (“small government”, “pro-business”, “careful with taxpayer money”, “party of ideas/Lincoln/Reagan” etc) that it doesn’t.

    “…the pro-baby-killing, anti-gun, Christ-hating Democrats…”
    To be fair, all of those are bedrocks of Obamacare. True story.

  26. says

    “See: American Roman Catholics. And Mormons.”

    Catholics still lean to the left, even though calling them a “traditionally discriminated against group” is clearly an anachronism. As for Mormons, congratulations, you’ve found the one exception! I’ll leave it to you to ponder what makes them different from other religious/ethnic/conforming minorities.

  27. says

    Area Man “Catholics still lean to the left…”
    They also dress left. True story.

    “…even though calling them a ‘traditionally discriminated against group’ is clearly an anachronism.”
    Since the late 70s, when their leaders started to sell out on social justice in exchange for the culture war, yes.

    “I’ll leave it to you to ponder what makes them different from other religious/ethnic/conforming minorities.”
    Is it the short-sleeved dress shirts, black ties and messenger bags? It’s the short-sleeved dress shirts, black ties and messenger bags, isn’t it?

  28. slc1 says

    Re brian1 @ #12

    Roy Cohn is an interesting case. He denied being gay and denied that he had AIDS until the day he died.

    It is interesting to note that the right’s hero, Joe McCarthy’s 2 closest confidants, Cohn and David Shine, were both closeted gay men, which has fueled speculation that McCarthy, like J. Edgar Himmler, was also a closeted gay man.

  29. slc1 says

    Re slc1 @ 329

    So as not to be the subject of criticism from the spelling Nazis, the correct spelling is David Schine.

  30. harold says

    brianl –

    A Republican voter must be: rich, greedy, looking for a tax cut, bigoted, a warmonger. There are a number of other possibilities,

    Name one. Seriously. I’m blanking. Name one.

    (Prediction: You may produce a bunch of euphemistic propaganda code that actually represents the above. Feel free to falsify this prediction.)

    Catholics still lean to the left

    That’s not what your link shows. Your link shows a moderate majority preference for the Democratic party. What is the value of using propaganda terminology that implies false equivalence between the Democratic party and left wing extremism, when, no matter how one feels about either, they are very different?

    Why can’t you just say “A moderate majority of US Catholics still prefer the Democratic party”?

  31. says

    What is the value of using propaganda terminology that implies false equivalence between the Democratic party and left wing extremism…

    Uh, what? I never said anything about left-wing extremism. I said, “lean to the left”, which simply means left of center. Voting patterns are a good, if imperfect, proxy for that.

    Why can’t you just say “A moderate majority of US Catholics still prefer the Democratic party”?

    I guess I underestimated the degree of pedantry I would face.

  32. harold says

    I guess I underestimated the degree of pedantry I would face.

    I don’t think it’s pedantry.

    I didn’t intend to be excessively critical of you, personally.

    I agree that, unfortunately, here in the US, it is accepted usage to refer to everyone who isn’t a Republican as “the left”.

    I strongly oppose that oversimplification, and for valid, not pedantic reasons.

    At a minimum, there should be a “two axis” recognition. I don’t support libertarian economic ideas, but I support libertarians far more than I support communist totalitarians. I care as much about human rights as I do about macroeconomic policy. At a minimum, it should be recognized that views on individual rights are largely independent of views on macroeconomic policy.

    However, even a “two axis” model is oversimplified.

    I didn’t mean to give you, personally, a hard time, but there is simply no reason to refer to the corporatist, centrist, Democratic party as “the left”, even though it does tolerate some true progressives.

Leave a Reply