McClintock!
David Weigel | June 24, 2008, 11:07am
A little while ago I sat down for
American Spectator meet-and-greet with California State Sen. Tom McClintock, the Republican candidate for an open, northeast CA seat abandoned by the corrupt John Doolittle. McClintock is a sort of rock star in Republican circles for two reasons: his long-time anti-tax activism (he's gotten almost every Republican in the State Senate to sign a no-tax pledge) and his
quixotic 2003 run in the gubernatorial recall. In 2002 and 2006 he'd lost heartbreakingly close races for statewide offices, so his chances at advancement looked non-existent until Doolittle quit and McClintock entered the race for a House seat 418 miles away from his Thousand Oaks home.
McClintock dismissed any idea that the "carpetbagger" charge would hurt him. "That's already been used against me, in the primary. And I won by about 16 points." He'd carried the district in two of his statewide races, and when I asked about his chances this time, he instantly recalled that political prognosticator Charlie Cook had increased the partisan slant of the seat from "Leans" to "Likely" Republican. Barring a Democratic landslide, he'll probably be a congressman.
"Democracies tend to drift off course," he said. "That's not new. But as a crisis approaches, Americans can sense a common danger and we always rise to the occasion." He saw the real political split in this country (and everywhere else) as between "authoritarians and libertarians," with authoritarians in the saddle now but libertarians coming on strong.
I asked McClintock how he would have voted on the FISA bill. "I don't know," he said. "There are elements that concern me from a libertarian perspective. I don't believe that the Bill of Rights extends beyond these shores, but I am concerned with civil liberties in this country, and with warrantless surveillance of Americans."
Jim Antle of The American Spectator asked what local enthusiasm was like for John McCain. "He wasn't my 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice," said McClintock. "But we can damn well tell the difference between a fireman and a firestarter." He allowed that McCain was right on earmarks.
McClintock was the state chair of Fred Thompson's campaign, but before he took that role he'd said nice things about Ron Paul, comparing him to George Washington. I asked him about that. "Ron Paul energized a cross-section of voters with a clear message: We want our Constitution back, and we want it all back." Thus, the Washington (and Jefferson) comparison.
Where did McClintock disagree with Paul? "He had a problem with butterflies. At the debates, for example, he'd make a powerful statement, then... a butterfly would go floating by, and he'd be off onto something else." McClintock, like Paul, supported a return to the gold standard, "although I don't know how you get there right now."
Several of the journalists in the room noticed McClintock hadn't attacked Paul's foreign policy. Did he agree with that? "On part of it, I do. When we were attacked on 9/11, the president should have identified the countries that worked with al Qaeda and the Congress should have voted on an official declaration of war. By failing to do that, we created this tug of war between Congress and the president, which is something we should have learned to avoid after Korea, after Vietnam."
One more note of pessimism: "If the worst case scenario is greatly increased Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and a President Obama, we can deal with that. Four years of Jimmy Carter gave us eight years of Ronald Reagan. I think when you look back that wasn't a bad trade."
UPDATE: Also, I asked McClintock which way he'll vote on California's anti-gay marriage initiative. "I'll vote for it and I'll work to help it pass," he said. "I make no moral judgments about homosexuality, but marriage is a natural institution meant to bring children into this world and inculcate them with social customs." What was the effect on California, so far, of the gay weddings? "It's another step in the deterioration of marriage. We've seen it deteriorated by welfare laws that make fathers' incomes disposable. We've seen it with no-fault divorce laws."
reason sucks | June 24, 2008, 11:32am | #
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
reason sucks reason sucks reason sucks
James Anderson Merritt | June 24, 2008, 3:31pm | #
Rhywun wrote:
"the whole point of the push for gay marriage seems less about human dignity and more about getting a paw into the spousal benefits cookie jar"
Which is really the same thing, isn't it? We dignify certain relationships by granting them certain rights. The argument against higher prices and such--in a time and place where state recognition of marriage ain't going away--is really an argument against the dignity of gay relationships.
--------------
Wrong, Rhywun. You are making the same logical mistake that people do who think that, for example, ending the drug war will somehow promote drug use, by "sending a message" to the youth that "we approve drugs." That message would only be detected by a defective receiver, as would the message, "Being gay is dignified," were the government to force unwilling people (taxpayers and legally-obligated private sector employers) to pay for benefits for gay partners.
If a private company decides it is good business to pay spousal benefits to gay couples, and if the prices and quality for their products or services remain (or become!) more attractive to customers as a result of that policy, great! But if not, customers have the ability to make other choices in the marketplace. The same is true for spousal benefits for heterosexual couples. If the policy doesn't pay -- if "family friendly" companies can't compete in the marketplace -- the companies will reduce or eliminate spousal and family benefits, or they will go out of business as customers abandon them.
Government and government-controlled companies (e.g., contractors that must follow government employment rules as a condition of their contracts), on the other hand, are a different matter altogether. People are rarely free to quit paying taxes or otherwise "contribute" to the revenues of government. Pensions and employee benefits, vexing for private sector companies, are becoming a crushing burden for state and local governments, and the taxpayers who pay for it all. Amidst all the calls to try to "rein-in" these expenses, along come the same-sex marriage proponents, who understand very well that establishment of legal spousal status for gay couples will exacerbate the financial problems of the employee benefits and pensions situation. In fact, it appears that they are counting on access to the public trough, and that is where I lose a lot of sympathy for the movement. When you actually count on the unwillingly surrendered contents of another person's pocket to affirm the "dignity" of your relationship, that's just f---d up.
I don't think that the government has any business authorizing or subsidizing marriage. If people want polygamous, heterosexual, or homosexual unions, or extended families through serial monogamy, that's their business, not mine and not my government's. On the other hand, the government certainly needs to recognize and respect the voluntary relationships between people. Recognition and respect, however, do not necessarily include "subsidy." Nobody has the right to be subsidized at another's expense; those who claim otherwise, and who lobby to enshrine their opinion into law, cannot possibly be good libertarians of any sort, or perhaps even worthwhile friends or useful allies of libertarians, can they? Just asking.
grylliade | June 24, 2008, 4:35pm | #
Among the wealthy, perhaps. Historically, the vast majority of married couples owned zero property.
And historically, most poor couples didn't get married. They were just considered married by common-law marriage; church weddings were generally reserved for the wealthy, who needed such things to clarify property rights and lines of descent.
Which is ignoring that marriage has meant different things at different times to different people. What we mean by marriage today, even between two heterosexuals, is very different from what was meant by marriage even a hundred years ago, let alone two hundred. Among the Puritans in Massachusetts, church weddings were forbidden; marriage was
only a state function, only recognized by the church. Among the Anglicans further down the coast in Virginia, church weddings were common among the upper class, and served a religious purpose as well as a secular one.
Marriage has come today to be primarily based on love, which has its own set of problems. Given that it is so based, and given the legal benefits that accrue to marriage, it is criminal to not allow gays to marry. If you want to call it a "civil union," rather than marriage, fine; just so long as the legal benefits are the same. I guarantee you everyone will be calling it marriage in two decades anyways.
The monstrous thing about not allowing gay marriage comes in regards to those legal benefits. When it comes to legal decisions about end-of-life issues, for example, gay partners of many decades' standing can be left out, where parents who hate their child's lifestyle may exclude the partner completely from the decisions, or even from seeing their partner. Parents, after all, if they're the closest living relative, could have that right without legal recognition. There are myriads of other situations that can come up that are parallel.
Sure, gay couples could go through all the hassle to set up powers of attorney and all that. But why should they have to, when the legal shorthand of marriage exists for just such situations? Because you're put off by gay relationships? What basis, other than "I don't think gays should be married," can you come up with for denying them these rights? Think it's wrong all you want, but there is no earthly reason to deny gays these
legal rights.
To clarify, when you characterize my position as discriminating against homosexuals, you are tacitly assuming that homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are similar in an essential way. This claim is not justified by any evidence from biology or history, any more than a religious claim that God opposes homosexuality is.
They
are similar in an essential way. The emotional and sexual attraction and lifelong commitment is
exactly the same.
EXACTLY THE SAME. There is no difference, other than that gays can't have children. Well, you know what? My parents can't have children either; my mom's too old. Guess they should get divorced. My sister has MS and would have complications from having children, so she and her husband have decided not to have children; guess they should get divorced. Oh wait, that's right, it's okay, because they're
designed for it or something. Tell you what, if you can tell me what the relevant difference between gay and straight relationships is, I'll concede the argument. Remember, the difference must be
relevant.
James Anderson Merritt | June 24, 2008, 4:38pm | #
Tonio wrote:
"Tonio | June 24, 2008, 2:45pm | #
Don't get me wrong. I'm for leaving people alone to define their families however they see fit, as long as it isn't at someone else's expense. That said, we should be looking for more ways to get more people off the mandatory benefits gravy train, not trying to create a new class of passenger."
A very strained argument for denying equal protection to an unpopular group while claiming to want equal rights for all. See also Rhywun at 2:17 and Reinmoose at 2:19.
--------
Just so I am clear on this: Are you saying that the mandating of spousal benefits is a legitimate form of "protection" to be provided by government, which gay couples should also enjoy? That failure to provide such benefits to gay spouses actually does them harm, is a hardship on them, which legal "protection" is necessary to redress? I'm all for government not disrespecting committed homosexual unions by denying next-of-kin or inheritance status, etc. Those kinds of things sound like "equal protection" issues to me. But forcing one person to subsidize another's relationship or choice of life partner goes way beyond "protection," and well into "protection racket" territory.
The anti-discrimination, "equal protection" laws we have were originally put in place to protect people who were wronged by others owing to characteristics they did not choose and, for the most part, could not change: age, race, sex, etc. Also, as there is specific prohibition in the Constitution against government establishing or favoring a particular religion, religious orientation was included in the list of protected classes, even though this quality is often something people CAN choose, or at least can choose to change or abandon if they lose faith or find something that is more inspirational to them.
Marriage is something else, entirely. Same sex marriage proponents declare the right to marry as being universal, and demand "equal protection" for that right as for the right to obtain food, shelter or equal-pay-for-equal-work despite color of skin or the possession of two x chromosomes. Yet, these days, in this society, people typically freely choose to marry or not. They dissolve marriages, enter into others, and so forth. Marriage is clearly not the necessity that food, shelter -- or even a job, as means of obtaining other necessities -- are. It is a discretionary state -- as is religion, true, but unlike religion, there is no constitutional amendment that compels government to treat marriage in any special way.
As long as nobody prevents people from getting married or from legally dealing with each other as married people do -- next of kin decisions, community property assumption, automatic inheritance rights, right to decline to testify against the spouse, adoption rights, etc. -- then isn't that "equal protection" under the law right there? I completely support the recognition of such rights for gay spouses. And if that were all that were being demanded -- simple human dignity under the law, in other words -- I would be completely on board. But the issue of spousal benefits seems to loom exceptionally large in this matter (even if all the propaganda focus seems to be on "human dignity"). I think that amounts to a demand to expand the sphere of non-libertarian conduct by the government, which I cannot support.
Finally, I hope that "equal protection" doesn't become the "commerce clause" for the 21st century. To judge by the way it is being tossed around in the gay marriage debate, however, I think it is a likely candidate to occupy that niche.
James Anderson Merritt | June 24, 2008, 5:02pm | #
Tonio wrote:
JAM: Conspicuously ignoring questions about equal protection, and substituting fear-mongering about the huge and unfair cost of spousal benefits for homos.
Again calling you on shallowly, transparently seeking to avoid extending equal protection to an unpopular group, while giving pro-forma condemnation to the existence of spousal benefits for anyone.
You doth protest too much, methinks.
----
And you seem to reveal your own agenda, or at least your attitude, by using loaded phrases such as "fear-mongering" (when did I monger fear?), "benefits for homos" (when did I ever use "homos"?), and "shallowly, transparently" (as if I am trying and failing to conceal something, yet my cards are on the table). If you want to discuss the issue in a civilized way, with an eye toward solving problems, fine. If you want to pretend to be civilized but use the tactics of scorched-earth, marginalization politics to belittle participants who hold views you oppose, and to obtain privilege for some at others' expense, then go over and stand with the "American Empire" neocons, who may even be able to give you some useful pointers.
By the way, I do not just give pro-forma condemnation to spousal benefits for everyone, I have actively opposed, argued, and voted against government mandates of special benefits, whether it be spousal benefits of any kind for anyone, the precise composition of auto-insurance or health insurance coverage, etc.
Let's suppose my view prevails: Gays get full marriage status EXCEPT that nobody has to pay involuntarily for gay spouses. Now suppose that this energizes you to mount a successful retaliatory campaign to eliminate ALL mandatory spousal benefits. ("I'll show that shallow, transparent, protesting-too-much SOB what REAL equal prot
