NPR.org, October 10, 2006 · It now appears there have been three Mark Foley landmines waiting to explode beneath the feet of congressional Republicans.
The first was the aggressive behavior of the six-term veteran Foley, who resigned from Congress Sept. 29 when the raw nature of his interest in congressional pages became public. Foley actually shocked Washington, and that's not easy to do in our time.
Bad as it was, that was just the first explosion.
The second came when people realized how much had been known about Foley's attention to pages and pursuit of former pages. It seems that at a minimum, several members of Congress and its staff were aware of the problem.
This second explosion was more damaging than the first. It created the impression that the Republican leaders in the House were more concerned with political damage than with protecting the pages. Polls show most Americans now believe this.
As for the third landmine, it's still lying un-detonated, just below the surface on Capitol Hill. And it has the potential to cause the most far-reaching damage of all.
This untouched landmine is the fact that quite a few of the people who are essential to running the House are gay, and many of them are keeping it a secret. This includes some members and many staff. And it most definitely includes Republicans.
In fact, because Hill gays who are Democrats are more likely to be out -- having less to fear in terms of reprisal -- the closeted gays are more likely as a rule to be Republican.
All this is ho-hum to many denizens of Washington. The presence of gays among the congressional members and staff is old news, if rarely discussed in public. In practical terms, most on the Hill have gotten over it, including many of the most conservative Republicans in both chambers.
But can the same be said for some of the Republican Party's most ardent supporters? Spokesmen for several organizations of social conservatives, frequently lumped together as "the Christian right," have been in the media since the Foley story broke, expressing their dismay. Stunned by the idea of men preying on pages, they seem disquieted, too, by the stories identifying various key staff figures as openly gay.
This is not a good report if you're an activist leader who regularly tells your constituency the Republicans are the good guys, the defenders of biblical morality and the knights of straight sexual traditions. Could it be the GOP opposes gay marriage and domestic partner legislation but looks the other way when it comes to the behavior of its own?
That question was implicit in what was said by Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, who wondered whether the Foley affair was not the byproduct of "too much tolerance and diversity."
The Republican Party has striven to have it both ways. They want to champion traditional mores and oppose the normalization of gay life, the mainstreaming of domestic partners and "Will and Grace." Yet they regularly elevate gays to key positions in their campaigns and in all three branches of the government, with the tacit understanding that these individuals will keep their private lives to themselves.
There are also occasions when the same party that presses for a ban on gay marriage by constitutional amendment appoints acknowledged gays to important jobs in the executive branch. Witness this week's installation of a new ambassador for HIV-AIDS policy, a gay man whose male partner attended the ceremony along with First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
This may all be politics as usual for the more urbane Republicans, but surely it is not a casual matter to all.
Perkins and some of his confreres have formed a coalition called the Arlington Group. It has made known its unhappiness with the current Republican leadership over l'affair Foley and over other issues as well. How much, they are asking, has this Congress, elected with the help of our ground troops, really done for traditional morality?
As the Foley investigation goes forward, we will hear some say the Republican apparatus harbors a kind of gay mafia, a network of both open and secretive gays who use their power to protect one other -- and perhaps to thwart the traditional values agenda.
Some conservatives who think this way may find themselves making common cause with liberal gays (strange bedfellows, anyone?). The latter sub-group is always threatening to expose the hypocrisy of conservative gays -- especially those who keep their orientation private while serving members given to gay bashing. It is rumored that lists are already circulating which name the names of those whose presence in high places displeases.
The implication of such lists is: Prepare for a housecleaning. Any such purge would be dispiriting and destructive for the institution of Congress, a throwback to the loyalty oaths and other excesses of the McCarthy period. But there may be other, still more portentous consequences.
Some activists in the GOP see Foley as their opportunity to discredit the "big tent" philosophy cited by GOP leaders -- and a chance to read gays out of the party once and for all. But if they do, they may initiate an even larger schism in the party between traditionalists and libertarians, between those who prioritize "moral values" and those who prefer to talk about the economy and defense.
Hardliners on either side of that divide may want such a clash to come. But big splits have meant big defeats for the GOP in the past, most recently in 1992. It would be disastrous timing to have a similar schism in 2006 -- or in 2008.
Ron Elving co-hosts It's All Politics, a weekly podcast, with NPR Political Editor Ken Rudin.
Related NPR Stories
*
Oct. 10, 2006
Kolbe: GOP Knew About Foley as Early as 2000
*
Oct. 10, 2006
The Mark Foley Scandal
*
Oct. 4, 2006
Conservative Groups Call for Accountability on Foley
*
Oct. 4, 2006
'Washington Times' Calls for Hastert to Resign
*
Oct. 4, 2006
Christian Conservatives React to Foley Scandal
Gay republicans
Moderator: Moderators
Gay republicans
Post #1Will this have a major impact on the religious right? Do you care that gay republicans are hiding themselves? What does this say about democrats when their political gays do not feel the wrath of their consituency and thus do not feel the need to hide?
Post #2
If the 'third bomb' does actually go off, then I think this would have a fairly major impact. We already have 'cracks in the dam' of anti-gay Republicanism (witness Mary Cheney). If this is accurate, it could create a breach.Cmass wrote:Will this have a major impact on the religious right?
Hmmm. Do I care? Well, in one sense no. I would never expect someone to come out of the closet. That is their decision, and given the abuse that many suffer when they do, I can't blame people for keeping their orientation private. All the more so if they are Republican operatives.Do you care that gay republicans are hiding themselves?
Some say this indicates shame. I say it indicates a good understanding of current reality. After all, who would blame Christians in China for not holding services on the street corner? Who would say they are ashamed of their religion for not doing so?
You may be right, buy I am not ready to completely accept the underlying assumption that there are not a lot of gay democrats in the closet. Probably fewer, yes. But they would still be exposed to the general anti-gay sentiment of the public, and if they are an elected official, coming out of the closet could be political suicide in many areas of the country.What does this say about democrats when their political gays do not feel the wrath of their consituency and thus do not feel the need to hide?
Of all the social issues that my conservative brethren are so concerned about, this one makes the least sense. I can understand being concerned about abortion, and frankly have a hard time coming down on one side or the other. I can at least understand the concern about the 'decaying moral fabric' of our society, and rising divorce rates, and the diminishing influence of religion in society. However, the gay issue I have a hard time seeing as anything but prejudice justified by selective and biased use of scripture. I have a hard time not believing that the real reason so many Christians are anti-gay is just plain old-fashioned 'they ain't like us and they're yucky.'
IMV, if those supporting the various 'marriage amendments' were really consistent and concerned about families, the institution of marriage, or promoting Biblical values, then they would include a prohibition against divorce for any reason other than infidelity and a prohibition against remarriage after divorce.
Post #3
Once again Micatala, you make far too much sense and are far too reasonable. If you were head of any one of these Christian family counsels or action committees this whole topic would probably be about as important as dress codes and lunch box etiquette and topics such as global warming, poverty and war would probably be important. As it is, however, you are not. And thus.....where are the fire breathers and atheist dragon slayers!?!
Firedup4jesus?
Achilles?
Firedup4jesus?
Achilles?
Post #4
I think it is worth remembering that many, perhaps most, conservative CHristians who identify as Republicans are Christians first and Republicans second. Many conservatives are not at all shy about saying they have no real 'allegiance' to the Republican Party, and are more than willing to offer even sever criticism of the party as a whole or individual republicans in particular.
They pick republicans because the party tends to at least be closer to their views, has made overtures and incorporated the Christian right to a great degree, and the CR has had a lot of success in influencing the direction of the party. However, I think currently you are seeing a fair amount of disenchantment amont the CR vis-a-vis the Reps. The Foley scandal is only the latest in a long list of straws on this camels back, whether or not it is the one that breaks its back.
((PS: Isn't looking for fire-breathers a form of flame-baiting, almost by definition??
))
Demos probably shouldn't celebrate too much. Some members of the CR may sit on their hands politically, but I would guess most will still see the Reps as much preferrable to the Demos, especially if the Demos make no substantive overtures to the CR, and continue to make folks like Howard Dean their 'face.'
They pick republicans because the party tends to at least be closer to their views, has made overtures and incorporated the Christian right to a great degree, and the CR has had a lot of success in influencing the direction of the party. However, I think currently you are seeing a fair amount of disenchantment amont the CR vis-a-vis the Reps. The Foley scandal is only the latest in a long list of straws on this camels back, whether or not it is the one that breaks its back.
((PS: Isn't looking for fire-breathers a form of flame-baiting, almost by definition??
))Demos probably shouldn't celebrate too much. Some members of the CR may sit on their hands politically, but I would guess most will still see the Reps as much preferrable to the Demos, especially if the Demos make no substantive overtures to the CR, and continue to make folks like Howard Dean their 'face.'
Post #5
I agree, micatala. After the last presidential election, I saw an interview with a Kansas CR guy, who said he was a Christian, and would vote for whichever party seemed more likely to do what he wanted to see done. At that time, it was the Republicans (which, spoken backwards, sounds like snackel booper). The most the Foley incident will do is make the thinkers in the CR wonder whether it's better to support people who acknowledge that gays exist and suggest we accept them into our midst and allow them equal rights, or whether it's better to support people who claim that gays are Bad and Sinful, but protect them and hide their Secret as long as they vote for wars, tax cuts, and environmental destruction in the name of Economic Freedom...oh yeah--and claim to be Christians.
But, as you say, this is just one of many straws on the back of the SnackelBoooper camel. I would have thought that it would be the least of them, really, since it's god, not Republicans, who makes gays. Republicans do lots of other things we can disagree with (witness the Abramoff business, and our local congressional race in which the R's candidate has been pouring money into ads that don't even mention his name--they just splatter mud all over his opponent). Indeed, a local minister had an article in today's paper expressing a certain amount of sadness that the current administration and congress have taken us just about as far from Christian ideals as it might be possible to go.
But, as you say, this is just one of many straws on the back of the SnackelBoooper camel. I would have thought that it would be the least of them, really, since it's god, not Republicans, who makes gays. Republicans do lots of other things we can disagree with (witness the Abramoff business, and our local congressional race in which the R's candidate has been pouring money into ads that don't even mention his name--they just splatter mud all over his opponent). Indeed, a local minister had an article in today's paper expressing a certain amount of sadness that the current administration and congress have taken us just about as far from Christian ideals as it might be possible to go.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #7
And just what specific views are those?They pick republicans because the party tends to at least be closer to their views, has made overtures and incorporated the Christian right to a great degree, and the CR has had a lot of success in influencing the direction of the party.
I have never really understood this.
My Mom's church, for example, is absolutely appalled at this claim. She can't understand how this ever happened except that somewhere along the line there developed a weird blend of God, Guns, Guts, Grizzlies and patriotism. Religion with unquestioning nationalism and thirst for power and revenge. My Mom's church, the UCC, is finally organizing to try and push this back down into the seedy back alleys where it belongs. Their marching cries are "Take back my God" and "God is still speaking". As an atheist I view these as utterly ridiculous statements but I support these people because they are far less dangerous than the alternative
My view of religion changed dramatically about 10 years ago when the CR began to seize power. I used to think of it as a fairly benign, if not somewhat annoying thing that superstitious people did in the privacy of their own churches: A support group to help convince each other they will live forever. However, 10 years later, I am convinced it is one of the most dangerous things humans have ever created and may in fact play a major part in the elimination of our species.
There was a fellow I went to high school with - a couple years ahead of me - named Eric Elnes who led CrossWalkAmerica, a 2,500 mile march to try and bring the quiet Christians out from hiding to take on the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons and John Hagees of the world. It will be very interesting to see if anything comes of it.
Here is a quote from him:
Unfortunately, quotes like that don't resonate as loudly as: "God is on our side!! Kill terrorists! Kill Kill Kill! Homos are after your children! Kill Kill Kill! etc..""...positive hope, that there are a lot of people who believe that you can be a lover of Jesus and also a lover of the environment, a lover of Jesus and love the poor, a lover of Jesus and love gays and lesbians—or be a gay or lesbian. We wanted to go from silence to joyful proclamation."
Post #8
One of the problems is, though, that a lot of CR's will never accept that "god made gays". In their view, devil made gays by deceiving 'our children' into accepting 'the lie of the gay lifestyle.' We simply have to pray for God to 'heal them' and if they accept God's healing, He will turn them away from this sinful lifestyle, back into hetersexuals. As in the creationist movement, there is a whole ton of disinformation flowing out to convince the faithful of this point of view.Jose wrote:The most the Foley incident will do is make the thinkers in the CR wonder whether it's better to support people who acknowledge that gays exist and suggest we accept them into our midst and allow them equal rights, or whether it's better to support people who claim that gays are Bad and Sinful, but protect them and hide their Secret as long as they vote for wars, tax cuts, and environmental destruction in the name of Economic Freedom...oh yeah--and claim to be Christians.
But, as you say, this is just one of many straws on the back of the SnackelBoooper camel. I would have thought that it would be the least of them, really, since it's god, not Republicans, who makes gays. Republicans do lots of other things we can disagree with (witness the Abramoff business, and our local congressional race in which the R's candidate has been pouring money into ads that don't even mention his name--they just splatter mud all over his opponent).
The fact that some gays are promiscuous, or diseased, or irreverant, or hate God, or are just plain wierd provides numerous examples that leaders of the CR can use to 'prove' that gays are un-godly, evil, etc. Argument by example is, of course, a foolproof method of proving almost anything you want. Simply find N=1 cases, and you are done.
Post #9
Argument by example is, of course, a foolproof method of proving almost anything you want. Simply find N=1 cases, and you are done.
Well said - that's a keeper. 5 tokens for you.
As in the creationist movement, there is a whole ton of disinformation flowing out to convince the faithful of this point of view.
I'm convinced that gays are simply the latest Boogyman in a long lineage of Boogymen which, in recent times included blacks and those danged commies. The commies are gone so now who can we hate and fear?
It's all about manipulative people gaining influence and power using religion on gullable, frightened and often ignorant people.....I can only imagine who the next Boogyman will be....perhaps scientists or teachers???
Post #10
As I get ready to hit the sack, it looks like the gay marriage ban in my state is going to pass, but much more narrowly than I think people would have expected earlier this year. I will take that as a sign of encouragement.
I am hopeful that the slow tide against anti-gay sentiment will continue to gain steam, and the states that have passed these bans might revisit them in the not too distant future.
I am hopeful that the slow tide against anti-gay sentiment will continue to gain steam, and the states that have passed these bans might revisit them in the not too distant future.
