GOP Courting Homosexual Vote -- A 'Recipe for Disaster'

AgapePress ^ | April 21, 2003 | Bill Fancher and Jody Brown

[Polycarp]

GOP Courting Homosexual Vote -- A 'Recipe for Disaster'

By Bill Fancher and Jody Brown
April 21, 2003

(AgapePress) - When Republican National Committee Chairman Mark Racicot met with homosexual activists recently, it caused a chorus of criticism from the pro-family lobby across the country.

Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute says Racicot's address at a Human Rights Campaign meeting in early March is the latest in a series of apparent efforts by the Bush Administration to court the homosexual vote. Knight believes the GOP has been misguided about its pro-family Christian voter base.

"I think there is a view in the White House that somehow Christian conservatives will stay in the GOP camp no matter what they do on the homosexual issue -- and that if they promote homosexuality, that will give them a look of compassion among, say, suburban housewives," he says.

"Somebody is feeding them exactly the wrong advice: to move to the left on homosexual activism."

Knight calls this strategy "a recipe for disaster" and maintains the pro-family Christian voters will not accept this compromise. Saying it will not go unnoticed by conservatives in the GOP, he laments: "Some GOP leaders seem intent on cutting off their right arm in order to reach out with their left."

He suggests Christians start returning contribution requests with a note saying they will contribute only when the GOP changes its pro-homosexual policy.

© 2003 AgapePress all rights reserved.

[supercat]

So the desire to win at any price means the Republicans have to become Democrats?

No. The RINOs who take that route use the target-groups' "victim mentality" as a lever to political power, the same way as the Democrats do.

What Republicans need to do is work to break the victim mentality that the Democrats have so adeptly forged over the years. They also need to steer a narrow course between the left's outright promotion of homosexuality and the hard-right's efforts to use the fist of government to totally squash it.

Consider this: if asked whether schoolboys should be given explicit instruction in how to perform e.g. anal sodomy and should be encouraged to try it, the vast majority of Americans would say no.

If asked whether gays should be allowed to have open sex in a public park, the vast majority of Americans would say no.

On the other hand, if asked whether the government should have the authority to wiretap a motel room on the suspicion that two gay men might be "getting together" there, and to arrest the men for their private actions, the vast majority of Americans would say no to that as well. Note that even those Americans who would never dream of partaking in such rendez-vous themsleves may be bothered by the nosiness entailed in the government's actions.

In the first two cases, most Americans side with the Republican view. In the last case, they don't. While Republicans should stand for principles, they should also recognize when issues have multiple sub-issues which demand different treatment.

On a parting note, Republicans might do well to consider the bumper sticker, "Gays with guns don't get bashed." Encouraging homosexuals to arm themselves against people who would unlawfully batter them is apt to be a good way to throw liberals into a tiz. It attacks gays' "victim mentality" by offering them a solution to one of their problems which is far more effective than any "hate crime" statutes the Democrats can offer. Further, it puts Democrats on the defensive on RKBA issues; if they oppose letting gays arm themselves, then it exposes them as not being the frinds they claim to be.

[Plutarch]

If the Gays just wanted to be left alone, there is no reason the GOP couldn't welcome Gays into their big tent.

But the items on the Gay agenda-- gay marriage, gays in military, Scouts, are expressly antithetical to 80% of Republicans.

Racicot can't be trying to get lesbian votes, which have got to be 99% Democrat, and forever will be. That leaves gay men, which constitute roughly 2% of the male population. If the GOP were to embrace the gay male population what would it get? Maybe changing 10%, going from 90% to 80% Democrat. To try to get the votes of 0.1% of the population, the GOP must first stick the gay agenda thumb in the eye of 80% of their constituents.

Since that makes no sense, it is more likely that Racicot is trying to make the GOP appear more "inclusive" to the media, in a vain attempt to get them to hate Republicans less. Even more likely, Racicot is probably trying to make Racicot appear more inclusive, so he will get Strange New Respect from the media (e.g. a favorable piece in the "Style" section of the Washington Post). That way, he and the missus will get invited to better parties in Georgetown.

[Hoppean]

I'm looking forward to reading false statstics posted by the homophobe contingent of FR shortly.

The use of the term "homophobe" is an indicator of a larger problem--lots of conservatives seem to have adopted the language and values of the liberals. Calling someone who opposes the homosexual political agenda a "homophobe" is unproductive, because it seeks to shift the debate to what the person's emotions or motives are rather than the ideas at hand. I could just as easily assert that the pro-gay elements on FR are "Christophobes" or "heterophobes."

For the record, I have nothing against individual homosexuals. Before anyone laughs at my statement, consider that there is a difference between the political and the personal. I can oppose the political designs of a group, and still interact on a daily basis civilly and amicably with individuals from that group. I'm sure that by the luck of the draw I've worked alongside gays in the past, and that's never been a problem or an issue.

I always treat the people I meet with respect, regardless of their political (or other) persuasions, because it's not personal. When it comes time to do my political thing at the ballot box, or in a letter to the editor, or an FR forum post, I'll do my thing, and they can do theirs.

[Dolphy]

These groups no more speak for all gays than the NRA speaks for all gun owners

You are right. But, for some, admitting this truth would be like Hillary Clinton acknowledging that her husband had an affair with Lewinsky. It was just easier to blame the VRWC and their secret agenda.

[supercat]

If a Republican were to suggest that a concealed-carry law will make it possible for gays to protect themselves against gay-bashers, what practical response would the Democrats have? I don't see any way they could avoid either supporting the Second Amendment or else showing their true intention of keeping gays as a "victim class".

One thing Democrats are very good at doing is building "victim classes" and convincing them that the Democrats are offering a sound means to achieve their claimed goals. What Republicans need to do is recognize the differences between claimed goals and real goals and, where the claimed goals are reasonable (as they often are) offer alternative and better means to achieve those same goals without the side-effects (which are in fact the Democrats' motivation).

[Hoppean]

To try to get the votes of 0.1% of the population, the GOP must first stick the gay agenda thumb in the eye of 80% of their constituents.

Recent history shows that this is exactly what the GOP plans to do to conservatives--stick us in the eye--because we're a captive audience. "Where are we going to go," they say, and then they hint that any third party attempts or sitting out an election will elect the "worse Democrat." Funny thing is the Democrat does pretty much the same stuff as our wonderfully "moderate" GOP, only the tempo changes a bit.

[alwaysconservative]

I find your belief that the GOP will "abandon" it's pro-life commitment to be really strange. We FINALLY have a President who is willing enough, brave enough, and yes, man enough not to care whether the tide of the press or the left (or even his wife) is against him; he affirms his pledge to pro-life as one of the first acts as President, despite the heat he takes, and you think he'll abandon that for the sake of politics? And what is so wrong with going to speak at the HRC? It's not like they were tax collectors or prostitutes, or anything. /sarcasm

What's wrong, exactly, with preaching to those who don't believe?

"People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered; Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives; Be kind anyway.
If you are successful you will win some false friends and true enemies; Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you; Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight; Build anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous; Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow; Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough; Give the world the best you've got anyway.
You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God; It was never between you and them anyway."
--Mother Teresa

[Hoppean]

If a Republican were to suggest that a concealed-carry law will make it possible for gays to protect themselves against gay-bashers, what practical response would the Democrats have? I don't see any way they could avoid either supporting the Second Amendment or else showing their true intention of keeping gays as a "victim class".

And Republicans could suggest that lower taxes are good for gays too, especially since their higher incomes put them in a higher tax bracket. And so on. All this does is show that conservative policies benefit all Americans. Going out of one's way to say "it benefits gays" specifically is making a "special class" out of them, and condones their behavior that most Americans still find unacceptable despite all the liberal brainwashing programs they have on TV and in the "publik scools." And that's what gay activists really want, is favorable public acknowledgement so that one day they can get marriage benefits and adoption rights and all that stuff. The GOP shouldn't give any of that to them.

[Kuksool]

The Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GSLEN) works closely with the NEA to promote pro-gay diversity training in government schools. GLSEN opposes education vouchers, while favoring gov't funding for diversity training and sex education. Both GSLEN & NEA have similiar agendas. In fact, Bob Chase, past president of the NEA, serves on GLSEN's Board of Directors.

[Polycarp]

If the GOP were to embrace the gay male population what would it get? To try to get the votes of 0.1% of the population, the GOP must first stick the gay agenda thumb in the eye of 80% of their constituents.

Good summary. Sure wish the GOP could figure out this simple equation.

[Brian S]

I think the 2004 platform fight on abortion itself could hold some surprises. For the "heart and soul", this battle is a coming!

[Desdemona]

Politically, this is a bad move. Somebody is not using their head somewhere. All it's going to do is fracture the conservative base where the "Christian" family people don't want to deal with people who don't fit their definition of family. They'll walk away from the party before bending.

Whether you or I believe that homosexual acts are amoral or that homosexual unions are not valid does not change that these people have money and they vote. They have a tendency to be flakes, but that's a product of the culture, IMO. It won't hurt at least to be nice to them all the way around. But courting crosses the line for some and that's going to hurt.

[supercat]

To try to get the votes of 0.1% of the population, the GOP must first stick the gay agenda thumb in the eye of 80% of their constituents.

One problem I've not seen addressed is that when the Democrats manage to paint a "victim group", not only do they capture the votes of that group, but they also usually capture the votes of a lot of "useful idiots" who are, or want to feel, sympathetic to the perceived hardships of that group.

Gays are not a terribly large portion of the voting populace, but people who are, to some measure, "gay sympathizers" are. One key thing to recognize, though, is that in many cases the sympathizers accept the stated agenda of some advocacy groups but would oppose the real agenda if they knew it.

To use a Second-Amendment analogy:

in many places, the Democrats could reasonably argue that there are too many shootings by criminals.

Claimed goal: reduce number of shootings by criminals [quite reasonable]
Real goal: disarm the populace
Super-secret subgoal: increase crime
Proposed action: Introduce more restrictive gun legislation

The proper Republican response to the Democrats' complaints about crime is not to ignore them, but rather to come up with an alternative method for reducing crime. Likewise, the Republicans should figure out ways to satisfy those claimed goals of gay activists that happen to be reasonable. For example, allowing gays (and everyone else) to carry concealed weapons will almost certainly discourage gay-bashing much more effectively than "hate-crime" laws. It thus offers a solution to a claimed (and in many cases exaggerated) problem which, unlike the Democrats' "solutions", does not favor the liberal agenda.

Republicans have a tricky course to navigate. I think if they can do it well, though, it could really pay off.

[Sonny M]

Part of this may involve doing some analysis. People who are jewish, are excluded from being in the "victim" category, as the left now openly demises them, however, the left still manages to get the chunk of the jewish vote, one category that falls under the "oppressor" category, because they refuse to fall into the victim category is asians. I think there is alot of room for the GOP to grab this group, since philospocially, they fit right in.

[Polycarp]

I find your belief that the GOP will "abandon" it's pro-life commitment to be really strange. We FINALLY have a President who is willing enough, brave enough, and yes, man enough not to care whether the tide of the press or the left (or even his wife) is against him; he affirms his pledge to pro-life as one of the first acts as President,

I find it to be based in hard cold reality.

Bush's first pick for VP was Ridge, but pro-life activists help stop that train wreck.

Nonetheless, Ridge was Bush's front runner, and in 1996, Governor Ridge joined other several pro-abortion republican Governors in calling for removal of the pro-life plank from the Republican National Platform.

Only political expediency prevented this RINO from being Bush's VP. Bush had no problem with the fact that Ridge joined lead the call for removal of the pro-life plank from the Republican National Platform.

[Polycarp]

"Where are we going to go," they say, and then they hint that any third party attempts or sitting out an election will elect the "worse Democrat."

Interesting to note that this same mantra is repeated and enforced here every election.

[supercat]

If a Republican were to suggest that a concealed-carry law will make it possible for gays to protect themselves against gay-bashers, what practical response would the Democrats have? I don't see any way they could avoid either supporting the Second Amendment or else showing their true intention of keeping gays as a "victim class".

And Republicans could suggest that lower taxes are good for gays too, especially since their higher incomes put them in a higher tax bracket. And so on. All this does is show that conservative policies benefit all Americans.

And what's wrong with showing that conservative policies benefit all Americans?

Suppose the government is considering Policy X. This policy will harm nobody, and make everybody's life better. Consider the following three ways of describing this policy:

1. It will benefit everybody.
2. It will benefit all straight white males, and everyone else too.
3. It will benefit all battered black women who are really latent lesbians but were forced to conform to the expectations of a cruel, hetero-centric world [and everyone else too].

To you or I, (1) would be the biggest selling point. To a distressingly-large number of useful idiots, however, (3) would be the largest selling point. If the Republicans try to push (1), the liberal media will counter with (2), thereby ensuring the useful idiots will oppose it.

Liberals lie. RINOs join in the lies. Hard right-wing conservatives often oppose the lies, but seldom do anything to expose them. I would argue that exposing the lies should be the Republicans' focus.

[supercat]

If a Republican were to suggest that a concealed-carry law will make it possible for gays to protect themselves against gay-bashers, what practical response would the Democrats have? I don't see any way they could avoid either supporting the Second Amendment or else showing their true intention of keeping gays as a "victim class".

And Republicans could suggest that lower taxes are good for gays too, especially since their higher incomes put them in a higher tax bracket. And so on. All this does is show that conservative policies benefit all Americans.

And what's wrong with showing that conservative policies benefit all Americans?

Suppose the government is considering Policy X. This policy will harm nobody, and make everybody's life better. Consider the following three ways of describing this policy:

1. It will benefit everybody.
2. It will benefit all straight white males, and everyone else too.
3. It will benefit all battered black women who are really latent lesbians but were forced to conform to the expectations of a cruel, hetero-centric world [and everyone else too].

To you or I, (1) would be the biggest selling point. To a distressingly-large number of useful idiots, however, (3) would be the largest selling point. If the Republicans try to push (1), the liberal media will counter with (2), thereby ensuring the useful idiots will oppose it.

Liberals lie. RINOs join in the lies. Hard right-wing conservatives often oppose the lies, but seldom do anything to expose them. I would argue that exposing the lies should be the Republicans' focus.

[Polycarp]

I think the 2004 platform fight on abortion itself could hold some surprises.

I agree, but I was trying to be optimistic by saying 2008.

[bribriagain]

Contrary to popular opinion, MA is not a pro Homo state. It's the legislature and courts that are corrupted by homos.