In what looks set to be the beginning of a more active political presence, the daughter of the vice-president, Mary Cheney, has just joined the board of the Republican Unity Coalition. The RUC is a new group in the Republican Party, designed to advance the inclusion of openly gay men and women in the party’s ranks and leadership. It’s spear-headed by Charles Francis, a close gay friend of the president, and a good friend of mine and supporter of this site. According to Charles,
Mary’s main focus will be to help the RUC reach out to gay and lesbian voters, as well as build bridges to all within the Republican Party. This summer, she will work with us to build the RUC membership network across the country. Mary’s experience, both in her past work at Coors and with the Bush/Cheney campaign, provides the RUC with a whole new level of judgement and political savvy. We are so proud to have Mary Cheney stand with the RUC.
Cheney puts it this way:
RUC is an organization that reflects my fundamental beliefs and principles. Working together we can expand the Republican Party’s outreach to non-traditional Republicans; we can make sexual orientation a non-issue for the Republican Party; and we can help achieve equality for all gay and lesbian Americans.
This is splendid news. It seems to me a quite amazing fact – and devastating to the David Brocks of the world who want to keep gays on the Democratic plantation – that the most prominent openly gay member of a first or second family in American history is a Republican. This reflects a simple truth: that gay people come in all shapes and sizes, from all backgrounds and religions, and from every political shade and hue. Rather than be terrified of this, we should welcome it. From all accounts, Cheney is also no believer in traditional gay rights victimology and may, with any luck, begin to give a prominent voice to what many regular, non-activist gay people believe: that we want no special favors, just simple equality; and that the right to marry is a critical and non-negotiable part of that struggle. Welcome, Mary, to the even more difficult part of coming out as who we are: not just that we are gay, but that we are complicated, diverse and often non-leftist in our politics. Now let’s see if the religious right and gay left unite in decrying this hopeful sign of changing times.
THE FRENCH THUNDERBOLT: What to make of the far right’s amazing success in France? You’ll read plenty of jeremiads in the usual places about this being a sign of resurgent anti-Semitism, racism, and so on. In so far as le Pen represents these things, these jeremiads are not out of place. But his highest ever level of support – still only 2 percent more than seven years ago, by the way – should, I think, be read more broadly. It’s a sign that the French left, having attempted to move to the center, is, as a result more incoherent than ever (although it may still do fine in the legislature, thanks to the French voting system). Jospin was hurt by his leftist rivals as severely as Gore was by Nader. But more profoundly, this was clearly a vote propelled by a populist revolt against the autocratic, anti-democratic and dangerous power of the European Union and the leftist platitudes – all immigration is good, crime cannot be defeated, the nation-state is dead, the need for a strong military is anachronistic – that are now routinely expressed by European elites as almost theological certitudes. His victory speech last night was an appeal to “the excluded, you the miners, the steelworkers, the workers of all those industries ruined by the Euro-globalization of Maastricht, you the farmers forced into ruin, you the first victims of crime in the suburbs and cities.” Some of this is protectionist claptrap, but some of it is also a revolt against policies devised for, of, and by the European liberal elites. Le Pen’s most radical position is that his country should quit the European Union altogether, and has described the euro as “the currency of occupation.” When a mere 51 percent approved the currency in the first place, you can see why he has appeal. He has also abandoned some of his vile anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant positions, in favor of more mainstream beliefs that immigrants should adopt the national culture of their new country. In fact, it may well have been the Muslim anti-Semitism that led in part to the violence and vandalism of the last month that gave his anti-crime message even more potency. I’m not defending le Pen; his past and present bigotries render him unelectable. He won’t win the presidency, thank God. But if Chirac doesn’t hear what this vote portends, then we can expect more unrest.
EUROPE’S RIGHTWARD MARCH: In a broader context, le Pen’s victory is even more striking. In Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Italy,and Belgium, right-of-center anti-immigrant, Euro-skeptic parties are all in the ascendant, as this helpful piece in the Guardian explores. In some ways, you can see the victory of our friend Pim Fortuyn as a symbol of these trends as well. As for the American implications, I’d say any trend that can help weaken the pretensions of the EU to becoming a transnational rival to the U.S. is a thoroughly healthy thing. I’d also say the clout of voters in Europe alarmed by some elements in radicalized Muslim communities in their own countries could bode well for the long-term struggle against Islamo-fascism. And given the new strength of the Christian Democrats in Germany, the incipient resurgence of the Tories in Britain, and the Berlusconi government in Italy, the full picture should give even more sustenance to president Bush. When he wages war against Iraq, he could have far friendlier allies in government in Europe than he seems to right now.
DOES THE POPE GET IT? No, not about the sexual-abuse scandals. About the threat of Islamo-fascism. Here’s what he said this weekend to Nigerian bishops:
I must also raise an important issue which I know is a source of grave concern to you and your people. There are certain parts of the country where proponents of Islam are acting with ever greater militancy, even to the point of imposing their understanding of Islamic law on entire states within the Nigerian Federation and denying other believers the freedom of religious expression. I strongly encourage and support your every effort to speak out courageously and forcefully in this regard.
So it’s only when Jews confront these militants that he has a problem?
BEGALA AWARD NOMINEE: “After midnight, when most of their elders – and most of the press – had left, the crowd began to boogie. In coats and ties, or rugby shirts, they looked like young Bush Republicans – albeit better dancers, whirling each other across the blue carpet against the blue walls.” – Donald G. McNeil Jr., of the New York Times, describing supporters of the neo-fascist rightist, Jean-Marie Le Pen, as the French equivalent of Bush supporters.
ROSS ON ARAFAT: If you didn’t catch it yesterday, check out this extremely revealing interview with president Clinton’s chief Arab-Israeli negotiator, Dennis Ross, on the genesis of the failure of the accords presented at Camp David and later at Taba. It’s a devastating account of Arafat’s simple refusal to deal plainly, to take the opportunities offered him, and confirms my view that there can never be a negotiated peace with this man. Here’s the money dialogue:
HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?
ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.
Arafat’s whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you’ve got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.
KELLER’S THEOLOGY: John Ellis (friend/supporter) makes a good point about Bill Keller’s latest column. It’s such a revealing insight into the collective mind of the New York Times’ curia, a kind of recitation of official theology. And that theology believes that the Democrats are only failing to get political traction – despite the Enron scandal, if you can believe it – against president Bush because they’re not paleo-liberal enough. His amazing memo therefore urges the Dems to campaign against capital punishment, against the Pentagon’s nuclear policy, and in favor of Castro. (He has a brief digression in favor of tax ‘simplification,’ whatever he means by that. Somehow I doubt he wants a flat tax). Now there are plenty of good – if to my mind unpersuasive – reasons for doing all of the above. But what planet are you on if you really think that this paleo-left combo will rally the masses to turf out a war-popular president?
MUCH ADO: Well, we’ve yet to have a preview because the technical intricacies of this production have overwhelmed our time to master them. We took Sunday off because we were all exhausted. Today, we continue to tech-run the last third of the show and hope to pull off our first full run-through tonight (not to paying audiences, if any). Take it from me: this has been a grueling marathon – physically, mentally, emotionally. To give you an idea, the main stage has about 15 trap doors from which almost every entrance and exit is accomplished. Every scene has interpolated light and music cues. There is singing, dancing, a disembodied voice, watering cans and shaving bowls. And then there are two other stages. The audience moves from one space to another in the course of three acts, from Dante’s heaven to, er, hell. Mastering all this well enough to be able to focus on acting the play simply takes time. Trying to rush it simply made it worse. For this reason, I’m very sorry to say I’ve had to cancel my appearance tomorrow at an AEI colloquium on Josh Muravchik’s new book, “Heaven On Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.” My apologies. But the show must go on. All day and all night, so far.
The Dish 