Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Speaking of National News | From the Forums »

Tuesday, August 2, 2005

Norquist

Posted by on August 2 at 13:38 PM

It’s not often that I’m on exactly the same page as Josh, but last night, apparently, I was right there with him, reading The New Yorker’s Norquist profile (although several blocks away in my own apartment). At the risk of validating Dan’s theory that the slog is becoming a NYT/NYer discussion group…

I disagree with Josh when he says that Norquist’s description of the religious right as a “parents-rights” movement is “brilliance.” This description smacks of bone-headedness, not brilliance, as the author of the NYer piece, John Cassidy, points out, right after Norquist’s “parents-rights” quote:

This analysis would be more convincing if conservative evangelicals couched their case in libertarian terms, but they don’t. Instead, they call for the whole United States to return to its pious Christian roots…

Not exactly the hallmark of a “parents-rights” movement. And as for why this piece is a must-read, it’s not because Norquist is more “sassy” and “cosmopolitan” than many of the Republican faithful, especially those in the religious right. This contradiction between the Republican leadership and those they lead is old news. What’s big news is that Norquist, a top Republican, seems embarrassed for how Republicans crassly exploited homophobia during the last election in order to get out the religious/bigot vote.

A woman named Laura Sennett, who described herself as a housewife, confronted [Norquist] about last year’s election, when the Republican Party exploited gay marriage as a wedge issue. “It reminded me of Nazi Germany,” Sennett, who has a gay family member, said. “What was your reaction?” Norquist looked uncomfortable. Instead of answering directly, he predicted that twenty-three states would pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, after which the issue would disappear. Sennett wasn’t satisfied. She pressed Norquist again on what he thought of targeting gays, adding, “It’s bad, right?” At last, he answered her. “Yes, it’s bad,” he said.

This is the part of the article that Democrats should clip-and-save. It will probably come in handy in 2006.