Hugo Schwyzer

In February, I put up a post called The quixotic faithful remnant: on being a happy liberal Republican in which I explained my commitment to the tiny but still potentially relevant left-wing of the Grand Old Party. Lately, I’ve encountered a number of fellow progressive Republicans through social networking sites like Facebook. As the battle rages on for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, the widespread assumption is that the struggle is primarily between those on the center-right and those on the far right. But this ignores the reality that there remain — particularly on the West Coast and in the Northeast — a large number of socially liberal, environmentally concerned, fiscally responsible folk who continue to identify with the GOP.

The fact is that on a great many issues, particularly around the environment, gay rights, and reproductive health, large contingents of the Democratic majority in Congress are well to the right of center. Indeed, until Arlen Specter rather cravenly switched parties this spring, Pennsylvania had the distinction of having as its two senators a pro-choice Republican (Specter) and a pro-life Democrat (Bob Casey, Jr.) While it would be a stretch to call Sen. Specter a feminist (we remember his shameful behavior during the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings), his record on reproductive rights as a Republican was substantially better than his Democratic counterpart. We see the same thing in the House: Shelley Capito, a fine moderate Republican congresswoman from West Virginia is well to the left of her Democratic counterpart from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, on virtually all reproductive rights issues. Put simply, the Democrats became a majority party once again by actively recruiting socially conservative but economically populist candidates to run in swing states. (Think Heath Shuler, Jon Tester, Jim Webb, the aforementioned Casey, and so on.) From the standpoint of those who see women’s right to choose as a central issue, this is immensely troubling.

And what of President Obama himself? I continue to have reasonably high regard for him, but am more than a little disappointed by some of his decisions in the three critical areas of women’s rights, gay and lesbian inclusion, and environmental protection. And it occurs to me that progressive Republicans can make a case for criticizing the president by challenging him from his left. Below the fold are three issues where prominent Republicans are to the president’s left.

1. Mountain-top mining of coal. The Obama Administration has appalled environmentalists nationwide by refusing to ban a particularly destructive form of mining which involves blowing off the tops of mountains. The damage to ecosystems is exponentially greater than the traditional form of mining, which is more expensive and labor-intensive. In order to placate coal states (and large unions like the United Mine Workers), the EPA declined to ban the practice, something that most environmental leaders had expected it to do. Interestingly, many leading GOP figures are staunchly anti-coal (see this editorial from the Republicans for Environmental Protection.) The Democratic Party, particularly in the Rust Belt and in parts of the south, is more responsive to the demands of unions which prioritize job creation than it is to environmental lobbyists who prioritize protecting the earth. The GOP, traditionally less tied to unions, is thus in a better position to advocate that the EPA put nature, not jobs, first and foremost. (This doesn’t mean being “anti-job”; it does mean insisting that those jobs that will survive in industries like mineral extraction will need to be very different, and far greener, than the sort that existed in the past.)

Many Republican house and senate members have better environmental records than their Democratic counterparts. (Start by comparing the voting records of Olympia Snowe and Robert Byrd, and you get the idea.)

2. Gay rights. President Obama’s foot-dragging on every single issue of importance to the gay, lesbian, and transgendered community has shifted from the troubling to the appalling. The latest embarrassment is the Justice Department’s decision to defend the odious Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, a tactic that draws a harsh and justified rebuke today from the New York Times. And Obama’s stance that marriage ought to remain solely between one man and one woman puts him with Carrie Prejean, the omnipresent Miss California — and to the right of Dick Cheney, who has called for the issue of marriage to be decided by the states and supports the right of his own lesbian daughter to wed. Check out the Log Cabin Republicans — a national organization for GLBTQ folk in the GOP — for more.

3. Reproductive Health and Sex Education. President Obama repeatedly promised that one of his first priorities would be to support the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). He hasn’t mentioned FOCA since being inaugurated. Though he’s made some good moves on choice (repealing the global gag rule), Obama’s record on reproductive health and responsible sex education isn’t nearly as good as it could be. His budget for 2010, as Nancy Northrup (president of the Center for Reproductive Rights) noted recently:

I am deeply disappointed with President Obama’s failure to strike government funding restrictions on abortion, particularly the Hyde Amendment, from his proposed budget for 2010…The President’s budget abandons the millions of women who rely on Medicaid and other federal programs for health services, including federal employees and their spouses and dependents, women served by Indian Health Service, women in the Peace Corps and in federal prisons.

More recently, the president chose Alexia Kelley, a pro-life Catholic, to be his director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services. Here’s the story at Feministing. But I didn’t first learn about Obama’s very troubling decision there. I heard about the Kelley appointment from Ann Stone (a Facebook pal), president and founder of a group of Republicans for Choice who strongly criticized the decision.

There’s no question that on these three issues, President Obama is better than his predecessor. But that’s a might low standard to which to hold this man who promised to lead a genuinely progressive — and bi-partisan — coalition.

There’s also no question that for the most part, the majority of Democratic elected officials in this country are better on women’s issues, gay rights, and the environment than the majority of Republican office-holders. But those generalities obscure an important truth: pro-choice progressive Republicans with a strong environmental conscience are in a unique position to challenge the president to do better, to do more, to be bolder. Just as the GOP rightly questions the administration’s blithe approach to mammoth deficits, progressive Republicans can criticize the tentative and disappointing steps Obama has taken in these three critical areas of concern without worrying about “weakening party unity.”

A recent article in the Atlantic (not available online) mentioned the extraordinary success of the Economist. While other magazines are losing subscribers, and some predict the end of print journalism, the expensive and unglamourous Economist is rapidly gaining market share. Ten years ago, I didn’t know many other folks who subscribed; now it seems everyone around me reads this venerable and indispensable English newsweekly. I mention this because the Economist, particularly in recent years, has adopted a consistent editorial stance in favor of greater environmental concern, in favor of free trade, in favor of free markets, in favor of free ideas, and in favor of women’s sovereignty over their own flesh. The Economist strongly supports gay marriage as well. And perhaps the magazine’s growing popularity is linked to this editorial stance, and to the sad reality that very few American politicians are consistent advocates of that particularly congenial and sensible position. The magazine fills a niche — a niche that the left-wing of the GOP can fill too, given a chance to rise.

There was a time, not so long ago, when the GOP was to the left of the Democratic party on major issues of social and environmental concern. The GOP self-destructively purged its left wing to fly solely on its right; the Democrats have managed, on issues like coal-mining and choice, to sacrifice environmental justice and women’s rights for the sake of party unity. It’s time for progressive Republicans to emerge from the shadows and take our place in the national discussion. We need to fight to take back the party from the far-right. But we can also broaden our focus by reaching out to the “Economist” readers whose views go virtually unrepresented. And we can start by respectfully but firmly calling out Barack Obama on his lukewarm commitments to women’s rights, gay rights, and environmental protection.