SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Steve Schmidt: Gop "at Risk Of Becoming A Religious...

THE PLANK APRIL 17, 2009

Steve Schmidt: Gop "at Risk Of Becoming A Religious Party"

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

Moments ago at the Log Cabin Republicans convention, former McCain campaign senior advisor Steve Schmidt, who recently endorsed gay marriage, warned that the GOP is "at risk of becoming a religious party. In a free country a political party cannot remain viable in the long term if it is seen as a sectarian party." Strong words. Wonder what his future will be in Republican politics...

--James Kirchick

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 26 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

26 comments

Steve Schmidt's career in GOP politics is now over.

I wonder what he'll do with the rest of his life.

- DC Spence

April 17, 2009 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Wonder what his future will be in Republican politics..."

Night shift janitor?

- primwallflow

April 17, 2009 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"At risk?"

- janus

April 17, 2009 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"At risk"?  He should have been reading all of the newspapers, with Sarah Palin, for the last few years.

- dylanposer

April 17, 2009 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More fundamentally, a party predicated upon the inalienable sanctity of the individual suffers from schizophrenia as long as it denies any of that individual's core constituents, e.g., his or her sexual orientation.

Which is why "social conservative" is an oxymoron and why religion and conservatism are, ultimately, oil and water. Religion is statism of the soul, better suited for collective social systems where the culture's chosen chiropractors align behavioral medians with chapter and verse (statutory or scriptural), children are shamed into coloring within the lines, and outliers rot in secular hell.

- williamyard

April 17, 2009 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some Republicans worship God, some Republicans worship Wall Street. Most Republicans worship both.

They'll find a way yet again to realign the temples.

For conservatives, the night is always darkest just before the next foreign or domestic crisis.

george

- iambiguous

April 17, 2009 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But yard, aren't you forgetting that post WWIII conservatism is inherently fusionist? The contemporary experiment with conservatism  was to weld together anti-communism, Catholic morality (old school), and libertarian economics. This attempt may be growing more oxymoronic as we go (think modern conservatism as a term), but there is something to it. Maybe Kansas will cease being red sometime soon, but I suspect probably not too soon. There is still some glue in their schtick.

- propositionjoe

April 17, 2009 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know what else puts the Republican Party at risk of becoming a religious party?  Making national figures out of yahoos like Sarah Palin.  Whose brilliant idea was that again?

- FWright

April 17, 2009 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seriously, yard, can you start podcasting or something?

Also, my Kirchick Quotient on this post was infinite, in that I did not recognize the author at all. This brevity of form and transparency of voice is what blog posting is all about. Get in, get out, let the material speak for itself. Excellent.

- rhubarbs

April 17, 2009 at 1:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

STEVE SCHMIDT HAS SOME ADVICE FOR HIS PARTY.... Steve Schmidt, the top strategist for the McCain/Palin presidential campaign, will appear before the Log Cabin Republicans and urge his party to embrace marriage equality. "I'm confident American public

- Anonymous

April 17, 2009 at 1:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

joe:

Agreed, there's still plenty of glue. But gay rights may prove a potent solvent. The more visible (i.e., normal) gays are, the less grip that glue retains. To be successful, any party must eventually sneak around, if not rebuke, ideology. At some mysterious point, however, the effort at coherence proves too great a strain; the center cannot hold. Best to bring in the demo crew at that point to deconstruct, then recycle what you can and toss the rest. The GOP can, for example, support restrictions on some abortions while allowing others on secular rather than religious grounds (the sanctity of the individual), but I don't see how they can oppose gay rights without relying solely on religious rationale.

george:

You wrote "For conservatives, the night is always darkest just before the next foreign or domestic crisis." I may have to borrow that line.

- williamyard

April 17, 2009 at 2:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yard: but I don't see how they can oppose gay rights without relying solely on religious rationale.

You know, I recently tried to as a thought experiement on the linker thread and it is really difficult.

The problem is for the people who have a religious rationale. How do you go against what you believe God wants you to do? It is not a theological argument (like justification) , it starts to get into 10 Commandments territory with them. agree or not, having a religious rationale doesn't make it wrong. Much of our common law arose out of religious rationales. However I find that for pigs like Palin, it is not religion that motivates them, but overwhelming vanity.

I watched a little bit of Palin's speech and found myself incredibly offended, she portrays herself as a hero for having a baby with down's syndrome, instead of something that just happens. If you believe abortion is wrong, not having an abortion is not f-ing heroic. My wife and I recently had a baby, we didn't test for any genetic anomolies, and since he is still so young I have no idea if he is autistic, or whatever. He is what he is, accepting it is not herioc. Stop using your child as a device to extol yourself Palin you freaking asshole. I am also sure for Sarah her not being gay makes her heroic as well.

- blackton

April 17, 2009 at 2:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know that conservatives oppose "gay rights."  Most do oppose gay marriage, but if that's what is meant by gay rights, y'all just ought to say so.  Does the term "gay rights" mean more than gay marriage or not?

- butchie b

April 17, 2009 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

butchie,

In some ways I think of "______ rights" where "______" is a characteristic that does not affect the specific inclusion or proscription of social transactions. (Not sure I stated that clearly...hmmm...)

Thus, suppose you have an outwardly protruding navel, as opposed to those with an innie. Your outie should not in and of itself prevent you from social transactions other than those requiring a certain type of belly button; the front of the bus is not reserved for innies. (However, we CAN reserve the front of the bus for those who have difficulty walking.) This is known as "outie rights."

So, should gays be allowed to get married? Society is in the process of defining marriage. If marriage is solely designed as a method of organizing procreation, then gays should not be allowed to get married. Neither should infertile heterosexuals.

By allowing infertile heterosexuals to marry and not explicitly stating that marriage partners need differing genitalia (or differing chromosomes), we're implicitly permitting gay marriage, in my view. There's nothing a priori denying gays the right to marry otherwise.

Now, society may come along and pass laws stating, "Only heterosexuals can marry" just as society may pass laws stating "Only those with innies may marry." Whether such laws are constitutional is beyond the purview of my pretty little head. I happen to have no problem with gays getting married, but that doesn't mean my opinion should hold sway.

Pop quiz: a state passes a law stating that "Marriage is between a man and a woman."  John Doe decides to marry Jenny Roe. Jenny used to be Dave before her operation. Can they marry? What if John was Susie before *his* operation?

Discuss. Or, as the late great Herb Caen used to say, "Weeee! The people!"

- williamyard

April 17, 2009 at 3:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

butchie: I was surprised you did not tell Schmidt to STFU, as he said more or less what I said in the other post - with the "at risk" caveat, which is, as noted above by others, silly and nonsensical.

Bill: wonderfully concise exposition of the issue; one would think you are a committee secretary or something for managing to grasp the essence of the issue in a symphony of noise.  Although, personally, I do think Outies should sit at the back of the bus.  And no marriage for lima beans.

Rhubs: wow - totally - I had to go back and check that it really was JK.  His other post on South Africa was also notable for what it did not contain.  Is it possible that CanWest was driving the boy to snarky distraction?  Whatever the reason - compliments on the improvements.

- icarusr

April 17, 2009 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yard, the first part of your missive confuses more than clarifies.

As to gay marriage itself, I'm opposed, but I don't think that my view should hold sway, either.  I don't find the procreative rationale persuasive.  The state has always regulated who can marry and who cannot.  it is not just a matter of genitalia.  That is, we ban adult siblings from marriage, even if they are of the opposite genders.  I can't marry my grandmother, even to get her health benefits.

And if the traditional understanding of marriage is no longer operative, what's magic about the number 2?  why not 3 or more?  Big Love, here we come.

Our culture has defined marriage as we know it.  There is an effort afoot to change that understanding, and I expect that the effort will succeed as to gays within 25 or so years.  But it is not intuitively obvious to me that it should.

- butchie b

April 17, 2009 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus, as I read your previous, it did not only critiize the party, qua party, but leveled vicious criticism at every member thereof.  Every Dem ain't Cynthia McKinney, either.  I resented it, but overreacted.

- butchie b

April 17, 2009 at 3:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

butchie: I can level withering criticism at GM without necessarily meaning to criticise everyone who works for it.  I referred to the Republican Party and do think that the Party, as a corporate and political entity is sick and has been sick for a long time, and in fact people inside it are making the same comments, along the same lines.  

The rot has been apparent for a long time - Newt Gingrich, shutting down the US Government and the impeachment should have given ample warning to all true "conservatives" what was afoot.  As a committed Burkean, I was horrified by the revolutionary language of the "Contract with America" and by what followed.  A Party that then raises DeLay to its leadership and Abramoff to a position of glory, who then glorified the Ape Bush and genuflects at the Altar of the God Cheney, who raises Joe and the Palin and who celebrates ignorance over probity and torture or ethics - now, whatever the individuals in it, such a Party deserves no respect as a body corporate.  That its own members are recognising this sad truth - witness not just Schmidt but Frum and Brooks - is just cherry on the whipped cream.

I don't like this, by the way.  I'm fiscally conservative, socially ultra-liberal, believe in strong but rational defence, don't like many multilateral institutions but think them necessary, value rationality over emotion, have no patience for special interest politics and abhor revolutionary politics of any stripe.  I am aching to find a true conservative - in the sense of willing to conserve our values, our environment, our way of life, etc. - to vote for.  But why do Conservatives (in Canada) and Republicans (in the US) insist on fielding hogs and troglodytes as candidates and running on socially destructive platforms extolling ignorance?

- icarusr

April 17, 2009 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, butchie, I like the idea of polygamy, although I'm certain that, having typed that, my attorney just started salivating.

- williamyard

April 17, 2009 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yard: "Pop quiz: a state passes a law stating that "Marriage is between a man and a woman."  John Doe decides to marry Jenny Roe. Jenny used to be Dave before her operation. Can they marry? What if John was Susie before *his* operation?"

The underlying genetics are still the same.  Jenny is still a "Dave" and John is still a "Susie."  Have courts rendered decisions in such cases?  I'm curious to know the outcomes.  By extension, there are several congenital sex chromosome abnormalities, as well as biochemical hormone synthesis pathway deficiencies, that cause dramatic virilization of genetically female individuals, and vice versa, to the extent of erroneous assignment of sex at birth.  Has any marriage case involving such confounding circumstances been heard that anyone is aware of?

- ritebrother

April 17, 2009 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also, re monogamy vs. polygamy, are we talking physical fact or perception? Because if a guy with chronic short-term memory loss marries a gal with multiple personalities, technically it would be monogamy although from the POV of the participants they'd be sleeping with somebody different every night of the week! (Invent a pill that induces temporary amnesia and you'll make a fortune in the marriage counseling business.)

I draw the line at marrying Siamese twins. That's too kinky for my blood.

(Don't get me started on all the implications for Durable Power of Attorney.)

- williamyard

April 17, 2009 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ritebro,

Yeah, I figured the XX/XY configuration would (should) prevail, definition-wise...and as you note even that is not always so clear-cut.

Yet why do I have the feeling plenty of supporters of opposite-sex-only marriage don't want to split such (pubic?) hairs? For many I suspect it's the appearance of gender, not the fact of sex.

- williamyard

April 17, 2009 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus - fair enough.  We are not far apart in our thinking.  As to your final question, I have no satisfying answer, although I view W in a more favorable light than you (and 99% of posters hereabouts) do.  In any case, the demographics favor the Dems.  If you are a fiscal conservative, then I shall expect withering criticism of the Obama budget and his overall penchant to spend like a drunken sailor (who at least spend their own money).

Yard, I find many men enthusiastic about polygamy, but nor nearly as keen on polyandry. imagine.

Rite, I know none.  There has been a case in WI on adult brither-sister marriage. The court invalidated it, but seems to me that Lawrence v. Texas isn't limited to gays.

- butchie b

April 17, 2009 at 4:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, butchie, if polygamy is legal then polyandry must be also, accordingly to the Constitution, oui?

The wifey and me get lucky on the side when we can, then debrief each other later in the privacy of our own home. (It's kinda exciting, for a minute or so.) Our relationship with both ourselves and each other transcends mere sex, so one of us gettin' busy with something strange is about as traumatic as finding out she went out for pizza with a gal pal and forgot to save me a slice.

Jealousy, in my view, is for people who aren't really that committed to each other. I mean, what's the point of having a soul mate if the thought of somebody noodling her hoo-hoo gets me all bent out of shape? What is it about "unconditional love" that's so difficult to understand?

I didn't always feel this way. I was all clingy and paranoid and jealous earlier in life. I actually thought I loved someone while insisting that they deny themselves one of the wonders of being alive. How selfish is that? But as the man sang, "Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."

So, like the other man sang, "It's your thing, do what you wanna do. I can't tell you who to sock it to..."

- williamyard

April 17, 2009 at 5:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yard:

You wrote "For conservatives, the night is always darkest just before the next foreign or domestic crisis." I may have to borrow that line.

george:

Given that I stole it from you, take it.

gw

- iambiguous

April 17, 2009 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FWright:

You know what else puts the Republican Party at risk of becoming a religious party? Making national figures out of yahoos like Sarah Palin. Whose brilliant idea was that again?

george:

After Sarah Palin created God she realized she needed God to create her first. For billions and billions of years they argued back and forth about it. Finally, in a particularly vicious slugfest, the Big Bang itself came into existence. Now, 13 billion years later, you and I are here to decide how Barack Obama fits into all this.

So far my own investigation has determined [definitively] the following:

* I created Palin before Obama created me

* God created Palin, then created Himself creating me

* I then created Obama out of an appendix dangling from Palin's nostril

* Finally, one of us [I think it was me] noticed a curtain swaying back and forth in the Garden of Eden.

* Obama yanked it open and there He was.....Rush Limbaugh

Bottom line? None of us will ever go to Hell. Why? Because we're all in Hell now.

gw

- iambiguous

April 18, 2009 at 4:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close