LGBT POV

As expected, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential election and a parallel star on Saturday Night Live, was a huge hit at the first Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tenn. Saturday night.

I watched on C-SPAN as the largely white, older crowd facially fawned over every mention of “the Constitution” and “the people,” as if they were insiders watching the run-up to a presidential bid. She took some snarky partisan digs at Obama and Joe Biden and had some good one-liners. Her foreign policy position as “We win, they lose” was not one of them. Been there, done that under Bush.

To be fair, Palin did make a good point about promised transparency that now seems to have been tossed in favor of closed doors.

But talking about transparency while fighting to keep potentially scandalous emails secret about her time as governor and how she spent money and her unelected, unappointed, unvetted husband Todd seemed to have a say in governmental decisions – as reported by MSNBC – belies her straight talk on that one.

“I am a big supporter of this movement,” Palin said. “America is ready for another revolution.”

Oh, boy. I can hear militia fever locking and loading. But on C-SPAN the Tea Partiers looked more like the old Christian Coalition grassroots foot soldiers, not the right-to-carry- concealed-weapons-near-the-President types.

The Tea Party speeches I saw and Palin’s addresses seemed to praise the non-partisan nature of the movement – happy to make both Democrats and Republicans nervous. But then they repeatedly cited Ronald Reagan all over the place – Saturday would have been his 99^th birthday. And for some reason – they also referenced John F. Kennedy – probably since it worked so well for Scott Brown in his heady win in Massachusetts.

And they LOVE Scott Brown. That was one of Palin’s good lines: “If there’s hope for the Tea Party movement in Massachusetts, there’s hope everywhere.” We heard the same thing when the Religious Right passed Prop 8 in California – and sure enough, they’ve been exporting the strategy ever since.

Palin encouraged “competitive” primary races – which should cause a few candidates some heart murmurs. But during a Q & A after her speech, Palin said that she would endorse candidates in 2010 who fit some basic criteria and values about limited government and spending and a committment to be accountable to that. There were other “fringe” things on the side there that she might disagree with that should remain on the side if the candidate was to win.

Earlier in the day one prominent panelist said social issues should be off the table with the focus on three conservative principles – limited government, lower taxes and the free market. But later a woman named Kimberly Fletcher, founder of “Homemakers for America” sounded almost Fred Phelps-ish in how she gathered up her family and went to promote GW Bush in 2004 in a heavy Black Democratic stronghold. When she didn’t win any converts with her Bush signs, she had the kids pack that up and she pulled out the Christian Coalition’s “voters guide” – and she started connecting based on “moral values.”

But here’s the thing: Scott Brown is pro-choice, or that’s what he told Barbara Walters:

WALTERS: Let’s talk about some of your specific views. You are pro-choice, yes?

BROWN: Yes.

WALTERS: And gay marriage is legal in the state of Massachusetts. But the Republican party platform language calls for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, and they want a federal ban on gay marriage. Are you out of step with your party, or do you think that the party has to broaden, and change its platform?

BROWN: Well I’ve always been a big tent person, you know? We need more people to come into our tent to express their views in a respectful and thoughtful manner.

And, you know, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but I think we need to do more to reduce the amount of abortions. And the difference between me and maybe others is that I’m very — I’m against partial-birth abortions. I’m against federal funding of abortions. And I believe in a strong parental consent notification law.

And we should do more for adoptions.

WALTERS: But you’re still pro-choice?

BROWN: Yes, because I feel this issue is best handled between a woman and her doctor and her family. And on the marriage issue that you brought up, it’s settled here in Massachusetts, but I believe that states should have the ability to determine their own destiny and the government should not be interfering with individual states’ rights on issues that they deal with on a daily basis.

So maybe those are the little disagreeable positions Palin was talking about.

But here’s the thing that LGBT folks should be concerned about: Palin ranked looking backward, eschewing political correctness and embracing “Divine Intervention” as the third most important job to get done if she was elected president. HUGE applause.

And to those of us who have been listening to the initiative-happy folks over at the National Organization for Marriage – Palin’s constant – and I mean constant reference to “the people” is almost filled with foreboding. The Tea Party folks spent time during Saturday’s convention trying to encourage and train people to run for elected office. But there also seems to be a disconnect between how the elected representative is part of and represents “the people” and doesn’t automatically become an “elite” elected official, which Palin spoke about so disparagingly.

I don’t think the Tea Party folks have really teased this out yet. Every answer to an elected official who might not be doing exactly what they want is to threaten revenge by “the people.” In fact, Palin cautioned against this – saying politicians will disappoint. But among this group anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a move to make this a more initiative-driven country – which, we here in California can tell you – doesn’t work well.

Interestingly, even one of ProtectMarriage’s “expert” witnesses in the federal Prop 8 trial would back this up. Kenneth P. Miller, an associate professor of political science at Claremont McKenna College, was supposed to be an expert witness on gay political power and the initiative process. At one point, plaintiffs’ attorney David Boies – who wrecked Miller’s credibility on the stand – read from a book Miller co-authored with political science professor Bruce Cain (who filed an amicus brief opposing Prop 8). To me, this section totally undermines the initiative argument used by NOM and ProtectMarriage and all the big “the people rule” proponents:

“We discuss how ironically direct democracy can actually be less democratic than representative democracy in that it fails to maximize democratic opportunities for refinement, informed liberation, consensus building and compromise, and violates democratic norms of openness, accountability, competence and fairness.”

It would be nice to have Palin on record about this. Why does that matter? Because right after Aug. 29, 2008 when John McCain announced that he was picking someone so totally unknown to most of us – fundraising for Yes on 8 shot through the roof. While most LGBTs and the No on Prop 8 campaign were going, “Huh? Sarah who?”– the ultra-conservative Religious Right had found their political angel. And no matter how much we might go “Huh?” when most of us hear her speak – “the people” are hearing a spiritually imbued call to action and that we should take seriously.