OutRight
by Dale Carpenter

How Could They?
Explaining the Log Cabin Republican's endorsement of Bush

How could they?

The Log Cabin Republicans' (LCR) endorsement of George Bush has drawn criticism from Fire Island to the Castro. Gay political groups, notably the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), blasted LCR. The critics not only disagreed with the endorsement but seemed dumbfounded by it. Yet even if Gore is objectively the better choice for gays, the endorsement of Bush advances gay equality.

There are three possible explanations for the endorsement. The first is the ignorance theory: Gay Republicans must be unaware of the candidates' differences. This theory reminds everyone that Bush supports antigay sodomy laws, opposes allowing openly gay people to serve in the military, and opposes gay adoptions. On each of these issues and others, Gore takes the better position.

So, in a press release, HRC instructed gay Republicans to compare the candidates' records. If gay Republicans would just familiarize themselves with the facts, the argument goes, they wouldn't support Bush.

The problem with the ignorance theory is that its assumption is wrong. Some gay Republicans are undoubtedly oblivious to the candidates' stands on gay issues. But that is certainly not true of the hundred-plus activists from across the country who overwhelmingly backed the endorsement (the vote was 109-2).

It's safe to say no one knows better the GOP's antigay record than gay Republicans do. They know it because they work day-by-day within the party. And they know it because if a Republican so much as sneezes within the vicinity of a gay person, they hear about it from other gay groups. Whatever else they are, gay Republicans are not ignorant.

The second explanation of the endorsement is the selfishness theory: Gay Republicans know Bush's record is worse but support him because they put their individual interests ahead of the interests of gays as a group. This theory holds that gay Republicans tend to be professional and wealthier than most people. By backing Bush, they support a candidate who will tax them less and will spend less on social welfare programs that don't directly benefit them. It's a charge any gay Republican has heard many times: You're willing to trade your civil rights for a tax cut.

The selfishness theory probably explains support for Bush among a few gay Republicans. Mark this irony, however. A similar theory explains the fervor of at least some gay Democrats for Gore. Their enthusiasm is a product of their other personal commitments (like support for abortion rights or affirmative action) rather than their faith that Gore will actually accomplish something for gays.

But the selfishness theory can't explain the activism of most gay Republicans. If economic self-interest is gay Republicans' chief cause, LCR is an odd vehicle to promote it. There are plenty of conservative groups that far more directly and effectively press an economic agenda. LCR, as an organization, spends little time on tax cuts but lots of time on gay issues.

The third explanation is the strategic theory: Gay Republicans know Bush's record is worse than Gore's, and aren't just acting on their selfish interests, but endorsed Bush because it helps the cause of gay equality more in the long run. Under this theory, backing Bush makes sense even if he's inferior on gay issues.

Such strategic behavior-sacrificing short-term principle to long-term interest-is common among gay political organizations. Consider HRC's own early endorsement of Gore over Bill Bradley, his Democratic primary opponent. Weighing just the issues, which is what critics of LCR's endorsement claim to do, Bradley was probably better than Gore. But HRC's early endorsement nevertheless made strategic sense because Bradley was a sure loser by that point and Gore would likely reward his early friends.

But how could endorsing an inferior candidate help us reach equality? If gay Republican activism is good for anything, it's the assistance it gives the broader gay civil rights movement by working within the GOP for change. Gay Republicans cannot work within the party if they forever position themselves outside it. That means they must publicly reward Republican candidates who show tangible signs of progress.

There is justifiable skepticism in gay political circles about whether Bush's talk of tolerance is more cosmetic than substantive. But there is no doubt within the GOP, LCR's target audience, about the significance of Bush's moves toward gays. He not only met with gay Republicans, setting a precedent for GOP candidates around the country, but declined to meet some antigay preachers who subsequently demanded an audience with him. He made a modest attempt to strip antigay language from the party platform. And for the first time ever an openly gay person spoke to a Republican National Convention. It was enough to send some true-blue Republican delegates into paroxysms of prayer.

Snubbing Bush after he made those controversial positive moves would have been a strategic mistake. If LCR had refused to endorse Bush, many Republican stalwarts would have concluded that courting gays is a waste of time.

The alternative endorsement standard suggested by LCR's critics-that the group should not endorse unless the GOP candidate is as good as his opponent-is impractical. Under that approach, by the time LCR endorsed a Republican the goal (equality) would have been accomplished.

The fundamental challenge for every organization is to figure out how to achieve its ends. LCR wants both parties competing for gay votes, something they don't do now. Endorsing Bush helps us get from here to there.

Writing from the conservative end of the spectrum, Dale Carpenter was president of Texas Log Cabin Republicans from 1995-98. A law professor and former Houston resident, Dale began writing his column for OutSmart in 1994 and has won three Vice Versa awards for excellence in gay writing. Now living in Minneapolis, he can be reached at OutRight@aol.com.