Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, April 21, 2009
Politics / Homo Steve Schmidt's Family Values
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to John McCain's campaign and a former advisor to George W. Bush, came out in favor of same-sex marriage last week. It was treated as big news and held up as more evidence of the building momentum for marriage equality in the United States. Schmidt delivered a speech to the Log Cabin Republicans and pointed to the GOP's collapsing support among young voters as one reason—one among many—why his party should drop its opposition to same-sex marriage.
As a percentage of the total vote, younger voters didn’t really increase in the last election. But the Democrats’ margin with those voters certainly did. In short, we were crushed by the Obama campaign with voters under 30.... I doubt [today's young voters] will abandon social attributes that distinguish them from older voters; among them, a greater acceptance of people who find happiness in relationships with members of the same sex. And I believe Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are being defined by positions on issues that I don’t believe are among our core values, and that put us at odds with what I expect will become over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters.
Schmidt urged the GOP to embrace marriage equality without alienating the social conservatives who comprise "an indispensable part of the Republican coalition." Embracing marriage equality to attract gays and lesbians and straight supporters of marriage equality without driving the rabid gay haters out of the party... good luck with that, Steve. (Video and full text of Schmidt’s speech to the LCR is here.)
I was less wowed than other bloggers by Schmidt's speech because Steve Schmidt has a lesbian sister. Which is terrific—everyone should be so lucky as to have a lesbian sister. But Schmidt's position on same-sex marriage isn't all that groundbreaking when you consider that his family is directly affected by the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. It's just more proof, as if more were needed, that Republicans are quite capable of tolerance and open-mindedness and empathy—but only when they themselves or members of their own families are touched by an issue that requires a little tolerance, open-mindedness, or empathy. Would rabidly and reliably right-wing Dick Cheney support gay rights—including marriage rights—if he didn't have a lesbian daughter? Would Rush Limbaugh have moderated his stance on locking up drug addicts if he hadn’t managed to get his fat ass addicted to Oxy? Would Nancy Reagan be a supporter of stem-cell research if her husband hadn’t suffered from a disease that stem-cell research holds out the best hope for a cure?
I’m not dismissing Schmidt’s stance on same-sex marriage. I’m glad he’s doing right by his sister—or, more to the point, I’m glad he’s making amends to his sister after working so hard for Bush and working so hard to elect John McCain, one of those GOP geezers who opposes same-sex marriage, adoptions by gays and lesbians, repealing DADT, repealing DOMA, and on and on. A speech before the LCR was the least Schmidt could do to make amends to his sister. And props to Schmidt's sister for being out to her family. (And as much as it kills me to say it, belated props to Mary Cheney too.) Schmidt's sister provides more evidence, as if any more more needed, that the single most important political act a gay or lesbian person can take is coming out to his or her family.
But as gratifying as Schmidt's speech was, it wasn't all that significant. When we start seeing more and more prominent Republicans—ones who don’t have gay or lesbian siblings or children—backing marriage equality, adoption rights, repealing DADT, etc., that will be a significant development in the evolution of the GOP. Same goes for when Rush Limbaugh comes out for marriage equality, Dick Cheney comes out for stem-cell research, and Nancy Reagan comes out against incarcerating drug users.
Don't hold your breath.
2
This thing about the empathy of Republicans is something I've been pondering for a bit. It really seems to me like some of the people I know who are Republicans have a lack of true empathy. An inability to put themselves in the place of others.
I don't have a gay child or sibling, but, I can easily imagine how I would feel if I did. Or if I myself were gay. Or if a family member had Parkinson's.
Someone I know was railing against national health care the other day, and I was thinking (particularly given the timing with Elswinger's death), why doesn't he see that it could be him? That he may have a job and insurance now, but if he or his wife were to have a catastrophic illness, he could lose all of that and be facing bankruptcy at a time when his health should be the primary concern?
When I am discussing national health care with Republicans, I always, always use nation-level economic arguments instead of person-level health care arguments. The human element of the debate does not seem to resonate...
I don't have a gay child or sibling, but, I can easily imagine how I would feel if I did. Or if I myself were gay. Or if a family member had Parkinson's.
Someone I know was railing against national health care the other day, and I was thinking (particularly given the timing with Elswinger's death), why doesn't he see that it could be him? That he may have a job and insurance now, but if he or his wife were to have a catastrophic illness, he could lose all of that and be facing bankruptcy at a time when his health should be the primary concern?
When I am discussing national health care with Republicans, I always, always use nation-level economic arguments instead of person-level health care arguments. The human element of the debate does not seem to resonate...
3
@1 - Even if she is in support of gay rights, for every Meghan McCain, there's an Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin and Maggie Gallagher to counter. For every Steve Schmidt, there's a Rush Limbaugh, Tony Perkins, Sean Hannity, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, etc. to counter.
Dan is absolutely right that in the grand scheme of things, this is really insignificant. The GOP is still hopelessly in the pocket of the radical (religious) right.
Dan is absolutely right that in the grand scheme of things, this is really insignificant. The GOP is still hopelessly in the pocket of the radical (religious) right.
5
You say this as if it isn't a normal thing.
What about the parents who shunned they gay sons and daughters, only to be outspoken about GLBT acceptance after said son or daughter has either attempted or succeeded in suicide?
How about the people who become AIDS spokespeople only AFTER they get it...and acknowledge that they were the ones who ignored the lessons in order to get it?
How about the people who become spokespeople for any number of lifetime illnesses (MS, Downs Syndrome, etc) only because they have friends or family or children who have it?
Compassion due to impact is nothing new.
...
The one single good thing you have said is Schmidt's sister provides more evidence, as if any more more needed, that the single most important political act a gay or lesbian person can take is coming out to his or her family.
Truer words have never been spoken, even if they are 35 years old.
What about the parents who shunned they gay sons and daughters, only to be outspoken about GLBT acceptance after said son or daughter has either attempted or succeeded in suicide?
How about the people who become AIDS spokespeople only AFTER they get it...and acknowledge that they were the ones who ignored the lessons in order to get it?
How about the people who become spokespeople for any number of lifetime illnesses (MS, Downs Syndrome, etc) only because they have friends or family or children who have it?
Compassion due to impact is nothing new.
...
The one single good thing you have said is Schmidt's sister provides more evidence, as if any more more needed, that the single most important political act a gay or lesbian person can take is coming out to his or her family.
Truer words have never been spoken, even if they are 35 years old.
6
Props to Mary Cheney? What in hell for? She's still the daughter of a war criminal, and a suck-up bag of sleaze cashing in on her daddy's power and influence. So she's a lesbian. You don't get a free pass for being a lesbian.
7
I'm sure most under-30 voters are fine with same sex marriage, but I would guess that many of them voted for Obama for the novelty of voting in the first black president.
On another note, which would be better to have: a lesbian sister or a gay brother?
On another note, which would be better to have: a lesbian sister or a gay brother?
8
Oh, Dan, perpetual and petulant cynic ... change comes in small and big steps.
Be glad for the voices of change who are nationally noted ... and whose message goes to big media.
By the way - change does indeed start with something less than mass support.
Remember Rush gets paid mega bucks for his act. I wonder if he believes any of it. Paid to be on stage, lots of these people are marketing, books, lectures, etc.
Happy for ANY Change
Be glad for the voices of change who are nationally noted ... and whose message goes to big media.
By the way - change does indeed start with something less than mass support.
Remember Rush gets paid mega bucks for his act. I wonder if he believes any of it. Paid to be on stage, lots of these people are marketing, books, lectures, etc.
Happy for ANY Change
9
#6 you get a freer pass as a Lez than we give to straight white guys ... duh.
And her fathers sins are now hers? How Old Testicle you are, angry Fnarf.
The Gay and Lesbian movement is VERY diverse - and trust me - Lesbians do not share your short sighted ranting.
And her fathers sins are now hers? How Old Testicle you are, angry Fnarf.
The Gay and Lesbian movement is VERY diverse - and trust me - Lesbians do not share your short sighted ranting.
11
I totally agree with your point that the single most important political act a gay person can do is come out. Yes, some family reject us. But most do not.
When I was a kid growing up, my parents were largely apolitical. They rarely said anything about gays, good or bad. Since I've come out, my entire family has become much more politically active and much more liberal. Not just parents, but siblings too. And it is clear that this is due to their awareness of discrimination that I face on a daily basis, and my struggle for self acceptance as a teenager/young adult.
Not all families react this way, of course. But that general trend happens much more often than not. Coming out makes a big difference.
When I was a kid growing up, my parents were largely apolitical. They rarely said anything about gays, good or bad. Since I've come out, my entire family has become much more politically active and much more liberal. Not just parents, but siblings too. And it is clear that this is due to their awareness of discrimination that I face on a daily basis, and my struggle for self acceptance as a teenager/young adult.
Not all families react this way, of course. But that general trend happens much more often than not. Coming out makes a big difference.
12
The Republican's like to take rock solid stands on issues of myth. Myth that gay people choose to be gay. Myth that gay people can't serve in the military. Myth that cells in a dish are human beings. Myth that humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs. Myths in the bible. Myth that the U.S. can remain the world's bully without great cost. Myth that G.W. Bush didn't run this country into the ground. Really, when will reality play a role for these people?
13
There is only one issue on which Republicans will never budge: Tax cuts for the rich. This is the cornerstone of their party, the philosophy that the very wealthiest among us are the prime movers of the economy and that helping them get wealthier is the best strategy for improving it. All the social issues that appeal to evangelicals are just window-dressing, which is why you will occasionally see Republicans who support abortion rights or rights for gays but will never see one who doesn't support tax cuts for the wealthy.
But they need these social issues to sell their conspicuously anti-working-class platform to the working class. So they're not in a very good position to join the twenty-first century on social issues, because then they'd be left with defending their support for an American aristocracy to an audience whose shining hope for the future is supposed to be a service job waiting on that aristocracy hand and foot.
But they need these social issues to sell their conspicuously anti-working-class platform to the working class. So they're not in a very good position to join the twenty-first century on social issues, because then they'd be left with defending their support for an American aristocracy to an audience whose shining hope for the future is supposed to be a service job waiting on that aristocracy hand and foot.
14
@2:
I think some of this comes from the notion that empathy, compassion, et al are perceived by many on the right as being "soft" emotions, and therefore don't project the sort of hard-as-nails, pragmatic stoicism they prefer to sell to their constituents. That's why you always hear Republicans referring to "bleeding-heart liberals", as if the idea that showing sympathy, or any kind of emotional connection to the poor, the downtrodden, the less-fortunate, whatever, was a sign of weakness.
Shrub tried to reframe that emotional distancing with his "compassionate conservatism" schtick, which was really just an attempt to put a kinder, gentler face on the Right's tendency to look upon the lower classes with undisguised contempt for having the "moral weakness" of not being wealthy, since in their mind wealth=virtue, while poverty=depravity.
Kow-towing to social conservatives is simply the GOP's way to maintain some ideological control over enough of the middle-class to continue to get themselves elected; they've convinced them that they, and not liberal Democrats, have their best interests at heart, even though if you look at their track record of actually delivering on their promises they've been marginal and erratic at-best: a Supreme Court justice here, a ban on foreign funding for family-planning there, restrictions on stem-cell research, etc., etc. None of these are the real "brass ring" issues social conservatives have been promised, but they've been just enough to keep the Far Right distracted while the plutocrats continue to transfer vast sums of the nation's wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer of the uber-elites.
I think some of this comes from the notion that empathy, compassion, et al are perceived by many on the right as being "soft" emotions, and therefore don't project the sort of hard-as-nails, pragmatic stoicism they prefer to sell to their constituents. That's why you always hear Republicans referring to "bleeding-heart liberals", as if the idea that showing sympathy, or any kind of emotional connection to the poor, the downtrodden, the less-fortunate, whatever, was a sign of weakness.
Shrub tried to reframe that emotional distancing with his "compassionate conservatism" schtick, which was really just an attempt to put a kinder, gentler face on the Right's tendency to look upon the lower classes with undisguised contempt for having the "moral weakness" of not being wealthy, since in their mind wealth=virtue, while poverty=depravity.
Kow-towing to social conservatives is simply the GOP's way to maintain some ideological control over enough of the middle-class to continue to get themselves elected; they've convinced them that they, and not liberal Democrats, have their best interests at heart, even though if you look at their track record of actually delivering on their promises they've been marginal and erratic at-best: a Supreme Court justice here, a ban on foreign funding for family-planning there, restrictions on stem-cell research, etc., etc. None of these are the real "brass ring" issues social conservatives have been promised, but they've been just enough to keep the Far Right distracted while the plutocrats continue to transfer vast sums of the nation's wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer of the uber-elites.
16
@7 are you serious? I am under 30, most of my friends are under 30, and none of us voted for Barack Obama because he was black. None of us were even tempted to vote for McCain/Palin simply because there was a woman on the ticket. If you are under 30 and chose to vote for Barack Obama because of his skin color, or know a lot of people that do, then it's your personal experience talking there and not ignorance. However, it's not right to put anybody into categories like that. The young people of this country can be informed voters. We need the older voters to take us seriously, and you need us too if you want to keep winning on these important issues of equality.
17
your cynicism is misplaced. #13 gets it. all the other bullshit is mutable. the Republicans are re-strategizing, and a few here and there are going to thaw on relevant social issues. that doesn't change the fact that they are scumbags where it will always count in the way government should be run. ran? run? while it's commendable to Schmidt for taking a stand like this, and while it'd be even more commendable for a Republican (or any human being seemingly opposed to gay marriage) without a gay relative, it's still unimpressive on anything resembling a political scale. they'll sell the religious right out in a second if it will help them make a comeback against soft socialism, because that's all they really care about.
@7- fuck off, if you're not under 30 now you never were.
@7- fuck off, if you're not under 30 now you never were.
18
@16 & 17
Hold on, don't wet your pants. I did not say "ALL under-30 voters" or even "majority" or even "most." Only many. I agree with you that MOST under-30 voters ARE aware of the real issues, and do vote with conscience, and are politically active.
How about this, SOME under-30 voters, and some over-30 voters, helped elect Obama because it's a first.
C'mon, would the election have been as energetic and exciting as it was if it were two crusty, old WASPs on the ticket instead of only one?
Hold on, don't wet your pants. I did not say "ALL under-30 voters" or even "majority" or even "most." Only many. I agree with you that MOST under-30 voters ARE aware of the real issues, and do vote with conscience, and are politically active.
How about this, SOME under-30 voters, and some over-30 voters, helped elect Obama because it's a first.
C'mon, would the election have been as energetic and exciting as it was if it were two crusty, old WASPs on the ticket instead of only one?
19
While I am completely pro-choice, I have to agree that there is something unsavory about people who support stem-cell research only because they can benefit from it.
20
@18
it was the smugness permeating from your use of the word "novelty". you were coming off making the irritating assumption that everything people under 30 do is "flip", "whimsical" and possibly "ironic", and you should do well to expect to catch shit for it.
... then again, before the election I did tell quite a few people that the idea of a black man sitting behind the desk of the Oval Office, smoking a cigar, with his feet up on the desk and laughing manaically brought a sheer feeling of vindication to me.
it was the smugness permeating from your use of the word "novelty". you were coming off making the irritating assumption that everything people under 30 do is "flip", "whimsical" and possibly "ironic", and you should do well to expect to catch shit for it.
... then again, before the election I did tell quite a few people that the idea of a black man sitting behind the desk of the Oval Office, smoking a cigar, with his feet up on the desk and laughing manaically brought a sheer feeling of vindication to me.
21
D. @19: I know! And some of these people are even so low as to support SURGERY and MEDICINE just because they might benefit from it! Can you belieeeeeeve it?
22
@9 Don't be an idiot. Mary Cheney was one of her father's top campaign aides, and the director of vice presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney 2004 Presidential re-election campaign. She was fully apart of the bigotry and fear mongering coming out of the GOP.
And really, it doesn't matter that it was her father she was working for- she compromised her own long-term happiness and the freedoms of her fellow gays for a fat paycheck. I regard her and every closet case gay republican as the same: spineless slime who should be made to live in a country like Iran or Iraq, where they as gay people barely have the freedom to live.
And really, it doesn't matter that it was her father she was working for- she compromised her own long-term happiness and the freedoms of her fellow gays for a fat paycheck. I regard her and every closet case gay republican as the same: spineless slime who should be made to live in a country like Iran or Iraq, where they as gay people barely have the freedom to live.
23
I'll go with "gay brother", because my brother's hot.
On another note, which would be better to have: a lesbian sister or a gay brother?
I'll go with "gay brother", because my brother's hot.
24
And would the Brady Bill even exist [under a different name, of course] - with Reagan's support - if Brady and Reagan hadn't both got shot?
And would McCain be against torture if he himself hadn't been actually tortured?
This reminds me of the Onion article where victims of a rare disease are hoping a celebrity gets it.
And would McCain be against torture if he himself hadn't been actually tortured?
This reminds me of the Onion article where victims of a rare disease are hoping a celebrity gets it.
25
@18, Lee is right. It wasn't a 'novelty' to vote for a Black man, just like it wasn't a 'novelty' to vote for a woman when Hillary Clinton still had a chance at getting the official nom. I'm glad that you recognize many under-30 voters are informed individuals without whom the democratic party would be missing a valuable contingent.
As for the main point of this article... I have no problem with people supporting something after it affects them. While it'd be great if everybody (not just Republicans) could support all of humanity without a 'what's in it for me' thought, that'd be awesome. However, I feel it would be much worse if an anti-gay rights activist had his daughter come out to him, and then continued to hate on gays. What's wrong with coming around to the light, no matter how late?
As for the main point of this article... I have no problem with people supporting something after it affects them. While it'd be great if everybody (not just Republicans) could support all of humanity without a 'what's in it for me' thought, that'd be awesome. However, I feel it would be much worse if an anti-gay rights activist had his daughter come out to him, and then continued to hate on gays. What's wrong with coming around to the light, no matter how late?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (25) RSS