This afternoon, a frenzy erupted when the incoming Romney campaign spokesman on foreign affairs, Richard Grenell, quit before he started. Grenell is openly gay, and a fierce advocate for his views on marriage. The Romney campaign claims it all but begged him not to quit, but Grenell was evidently rattled by attacks from the Right on his fitness for his post.
Among those attacking him was Matthew Franck of the Witherspoon Institute. Franck published his views on National Review Online, and they are nothing short of appalling. Franck says Grenell’s being gay should not disqualify him from working for Romney, nor should his support for same-sex marriage. But he reveals his disingenuousness when he writes this: “Grenell has made a particular crusade of the marriage issue, with a kind of unhinged devotion that suggests a man with questionable judgment. And when the Obama State Department is already moving to elevate the gay-rights agenda to a higher plane than religious freedom in the foreign policy of the United States, it is reasonable to wonder whether Grenell, after taking such a prominent place in the Romney campaign’s foreign-policy shop, would be in line for an influential State posting where he could pursue his passion for that same agenda.”
Actually, it is not at all reasonable.
Put aside the preposterous non sequitur of Obama’s privileging gay rights over religious freedom, which has nothing to do with what Romney would do in office. Grenell might be in line for such a State Department posting or he might not. It is conceivable such a posting would somehow touch on gay issues, but it might not. The election is not for months. Romney has to win before there are posts to be filled. And assuming Romney won, Grenell’s views on any subject in the fantasy post Franck imagines would be secondary to the policy of the United States government Grenell would be tasked with carrying out. That is true of any political appointee in the president’s service.
To suggest Grenell would do otherwise is to do him—a man Franck does not know—an incredible disservice, and suggests bad faith on Franck’s part, not on Grenell’s. Franck does not wish a gay activist to serve in the Romney campaign or the U.S. government. Others like him don’t either. That is the true purpose of his opposition, and such disingenuousness should be called out and opposed.
I don’t know what kind of spokesman Grenell would have made for Romney—he got into immediate trouble for deleting hundreds of tweets over the past few years featuring intemperate though often witty remarks about liberals and Leftists, and evidently got a lot of reporters angry during his tenure as a press guy at the U.S. mission to the United Nations. But he wasn’t my hire, he was the Romney campaign’s, and they liked what they heard. I’m sure they checked with Grenell’s former boss, my friend John Bolton, whose conservative bona fides is irreproachable.
People are suggesting this will be bad for Romney because it will hurt him with the gay community. But the professional gay-rights movement and its leadership will already come after Romney in relation to his Mormon beliefs and the church’s role in the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which forbade gay marriage in the Golden State before a court overturned it. Those folks do not constitute a constituency that would ever support Romney.
The question is whether it will hurt Romney with others. Since it seems clear the Romney campaign did not push Grenell out but rather that Grenell decided he didn’t need the grief he was getting from Franck and others, it will be hard to charge the candidate with bigotry in this specific case. I imagine the same issues that will motivate people to vote for Romney rather than for Obama will be in play for homosexuals as well.
As for Franck and whoever else may have led Grenell to throw in the towel, they have perversely made it less likely they will be heard with favor by those who are working hard to oust the administration that Franck rightly says has been so hostile to religious freedom issues—an ouster Franck and his colleagues have made a tiny bit more difficult with their shenanigans, and shame on them for it.
Well and truly written, sir.
People have a notion of what each political party stands for — and although it's often a false idea of what the party stands for, the ideas/notions are so ingrained it is easy to re-enforce them and difficult to change them (too many people are surprised that Lincoln was a Republican and too many Democrats think that the current party is JFK's party — that's the JFK who lowered taxes, ran on a missile gap, had an Attorney General who went after union corruption, and believed in equality of opportunity … all Republican ideals now). The point is that Conservative attacks on Grenell hurt Republicans because they just emphasize Democrat propaganda of Republicans. This is one of the reasons the Indiana Governor suggested a truce on social issues for the time being. I swear, by the people I run into, most (including most Republicans) are tired of hearing anything about gays, good or bad (and probably are tired of most social issues). I believe the side that talks the loudest and is the most aggressive will turn the most people off. Let it be OWS … and let it continue to be Obama.
The Republican establishment and its fellow travellers have made it clear that Conservatives are no longer welcomed in what was once Ronald Reagan's "big tent". Consequently, Conservatives can't be assumed to be Republicans. Actually, many Conservatives are Blue Dog Democrats (aka Independents), and they feel little need and no obligation to support Mitt Romney.
Keith, I think an obsession with social issues is the problem. A significant, loud and shrill minority not only want to talk about it, they want to hold their breath until they turn blue unless the candidate knuckles under. Obama is going to cobble together enough groups to win in November because people like Franck aren't being ignored, or condemned.
As usual, the demonization of social conservatives misses the point. The matter of what such an appointment says about Romney's reliability on the issue in more critical areas where the issue *will* come up and why conservatives in general have only reluctantly come around to supporting him. But even I still have my concerns over the likelihood of a President Romney saddling us with more appointments, especially judicially, of the David Souter variety and we all know what those kinds of appointments would mean for religious freedom.
Also, the more I read about Grenell, the more I wonder how in the world this guy was somehow the only one possible for the job. n n"At the end of Grenell's service in the Bush administration, he took a notable whack at the administration, telling The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld of his effort to have his partner, Matt Lashey, listed in the United Nations' Blue Book, which is ‘a reference guide of contact information for different member states of the United Nations as well as diplomatic personnel and their spouses.’ n n“Grenell had attempted to have Lashey's name added several times, to no avail. He told The Advocate back in 2008, ‘What put me over the edge was a friend and colleague who met her spouse after I was already with my partner — they got married and subsequently were put into the Blue Book in a matter of days.’ n n“The State Department eventually told him that the Defense of Marriage Act prevented the listing. Although he protested the decision behind the scenes, Lashey's name was not ever added, which led to his coming forward to criticize the treatment publicly as he left his post. n n“Grenell cited his help for LGBT groups, though, as an accomplishment of his time in the Bush administration. He ‘helped secure two former U.S. ambassadors to the U.N., John Danforth and John Bolton, to give keynote speeches at Log Cabin Republican conventions,’ according to The Advocate's report, as well as succeeding in getting some LGBT groups accredited at the U.N.” n n"Then, shortly after leaving the Bush administration, Grenell publicly condemned Bush for opposing a U.N. resolution urging the full acceptance of homosexuality, which the Bush administration believed would facilitate pressure to accept redefinition of marriage." n nThis was clearly a person obsessed with the gay agenda, not a person who simply happened to be gay.
After the rush to judgment by VerBruggen, Mac Donald, and Lowry (early columns) on l’affaire Zimmerman/Martin followed by Lowry’s unwarranted firing of John Derbyshire, I’ve given up on National Review.
Maybe Grenell just had a deep affection for Matt–if they are an ongoing item. One condemnation and arranging for a couple of speaking gigs does not leap out as a frenzy of lost weekend obsessiveness. It's the age-old game of three-part definition: I'm sincerely committed to my beliefs, you're obsessed, that guy over there is a fruitcake fanatic. On the other hand, if social conservatives don't want to vote for Romney there's always a third party option.
So his "deep affection" led him to make an obnoxious demand that in no way affected his ability to live with whoever he wanted to live with? You see, there is the nub of why people like Grenell are offensive to social conservatives. It's the fact that they wish to find ways of holding up banners telegraphing their behavioral preferences and their desire to get royal approvals of government sanction for it. And if social conservatives wish to register their objections to it, that is their perogative and contrary to what John Podhoretz says it is NOT unreasonable of them.
If defeating Obama means siding with Matthew Frank, then I side with Matthew Frank. If defeating Obama means siding with John Podhoretz, then I side with John Podhoretz. Defeating Obama is a far greater matter of pure principle than either (a) tolerance of or fairness to gays and (b) social conservative beliefs about gays.
Self-righteous intolerance is despicable whether it is from the right or the left. The dehumanization of another human being whether based on religion or politics is anathema to a civilized society. Shame on those that think God backs their actions.
Seems to me that Grenell was engaging in some self-righteous intolerance of his own when he tried to undermine the Bush Administration's position. n nAs for the garbage that social conservatives should get out of the way and accept the long-term reality of gay marriage because "it's the future", it's amusing how that issue NEVER gets enacted by popular vote and only through the Dred Scott-Roe vs. Wade style formula of judicial tyrrany. When it couldn't even pass in California and it took a dishonorable judge who should have recused himself overuling the will of the people, that is the last word on just which side of the issue is more in line with the will of the people.
The perception that the GOP is unwilling to accept gays in the higher ranks of its party will only end up hurting the GOP with young voters. n nAccording to a Gallup poll from May 2011, an overwhelming 70% of voters age 18-34 supported same-sex marriage. That's the future, folks. n nIn fact, the trend is already clear. In 2011 for the first time, a majority (53%) of all Americans supported same-sex marriage. And that will only increase in the future. n nRomney can't afford to alienate this group this year. nAnd the GOP can't afford to alienate them in future years. n n
I don't care if most people think same-sex psuedomarriage is OK, it doesn't make it right. nWhy is Commentary marching down the path to approving such nonsense? BTW, not approving of it is not the same as hating gays. I have gay relatives and acquaintances.
"The perception that the GOP is unwilling to accept gays in the higher ranks of its party will only end up hurting the GOP with young voters. n nAccording to a Gallup poll from May 2011, an overwhelming 70% of voters age 18-34 supported same-sex marriage. That's the future, folks." n nYou assume those views are fixed and immobile. You also assume that the key component to winning the support of the 18-34 demographic is gay rights. You have no basis for either assumption. Young people mature and change their views about a lot of subjects. A person's political views at the age of 18 on an issue like marriage are not likely to be the same as they are at the age of 38, when he's actually married and has kids. n nThe GOP is the party of social conservatives — a somewhat diminished but still quite politically potent demographic whose support is badly needed by Republicans come this fall. I have no opinion on L'Affaire Grenell (as Podheretz melodramatically puts it), but your political reasoning of humping on a single poll's results for a single issue as the key to winning the youth vote in the fall is superficial nonsense that best ignored.
JPod is right … this is a twofer for leftists. nGrenell seems to be a reliable hardcore neocon who has worked for John Bolton and has got a habit of writing acerbic twitter messages to his left wing opponents. So not having him on the Romney team is a definite win. nAt the same time, there is credible evidence social conservatives torpedoed the hiring of Grenell because of his views on gay marriage. It seems the Romney campaign was too cautious/scared to fight for Grenell, angering pretty much everyone outside the social con camp. Not bad. n nMARCU$
Actually, Grenell demonstrated that when push came to shove, he cared more about being an activist for SSM and the gay agenda than whatever it was that supposedly made him indispensable on foreign policy matters. He could have shown some class of his own and been willing to answer the objections in a reasonable matter by perhaps offering reassurances that in no way was he associated with the gay agenda and that social conservatives should have nothing to worry about. Instead, he chose to duck and run and demonstrate where his real priorities lie. That's his perogative, but it doesn't do much for the idea that some massive injustice was done.