i read an interesting article the other day which claimed that republicans were more tolerant than democrats—at least in terms of who can be in the party. (e.g. it seems among democrats that abortion rights, for example, is a litmus test for membership, but republicans have their official position while making room for those who disagree).
the introduction to a salon article reminded me of this:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger thrilled delegates at the Republican National Convention last month with a thundering affirmation of the party’s conservative principles. Back home, though, he has governed more like a Democrat on such issues as gay rights, guns and the environment.
In his first round of bill signings since the end of the legislative session in August, he approved a law requiring health insurance companies to extend to gay partners the same benefits they offer to unmarried heterosexual couples. He allowed the sale of clean needles to slow the spread of AIDS, and he approved an expansion of the state’s hate-crimes law to protect transvestites.
(note: this article does go on to quote some republicans who are upset—so it’s not universal tolerance, just within the party leadership, i suppose)
laryn
Sep 27 2004
04:34 pm
i read an interesting article the other day which claimed that republicans were more tolerant than democrats—at least in terms of who can be in the party. (e.g. it seems among democrats that abortion rights, for example, is a litmus test for membership, but republicans have their official position while making room for those who disagree).
the introduction to a salon article reminded me of this:
(note: this article does go on to quote some republicans who are upset—so it’s not universal tolerance, just within the party leadership, i suppose)