Archive for the ‘Culture Wars’ Category

Jeff Sessions Takes a Stand Against Protecting Gay Workers – New York Magazine

Jeff Sessions. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Donald Trump may be bashing his attorney general left and right, but that hasnt deterred Jeff Sessions from deploying his bosss legal agenda. His latest rollback, on what now looks like a banner day for the Trump administration and LGBT rights, was the Department of Justices new position in court that federal civil-rights law doesnt protect employees targeted by anti-gay bias in the workplace.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one of the crowning achievements of the civil-rights movement, and by its very terms forbids employers from discriminating against anyone on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Since the laws enactment, courts have understood the word sex to mean gender and not sexual orientation, and thus it became standard practice for judges to routinely dismiss cases whenever a worker alleged, say, that his employer denied him a promotion simply because the employer didnt like that the worker hung a picture of his bearded spouse in his cubicle.

In recent years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which oversees enforcement of Title VII, began to see things differently. And relying on Supreme Court precedent that read existing law as forbidding things such as same-sex harassment and gender stereotyping, the agency started to push the argument that Title VII, indeed, may be read to also forbid taking adverse employment actions against gays and lesbians.

Advocates ran with this position, arguing for themselves and their aggrieved clients that federal employment law, if read the way EEOC and Justice Antonin Scalia read the law that is, textually makes it illegal to fire the gay worker with the framed picture of his bearded spouse. After all, a woman with the same picture frame and bearded husband wouldnt be fired. Thats classic discrimination on the basis of sex: The sex of the workers spouse is the bosss guiding light. And isnt the expectation that a man should only marry a woman de facto sex stereotyping?

In a landmark April ruling, an appeals court bucked precedent and ruled for the first time that the EEOCs position is the correct one. And other courts, including the Manhattan-based federal appeals court, are starting to give a fresh look at an issue they once thought was open and shut. Its in that New York case that Trumps Justice Department filed a brief opposing the view that Title VII protects gay workers. Its view is a familiar one: It should be up to Congress to fix the law if it wants to prohibit anti-gay discrimination. As written, the law just doesnt do that.

But for Sessions and his lawyers to prevail in this particular battle, they will be forced to contend with something their hero Scalia recognized for a unanimous Supreme Court in 1998: that what matters in the end is the laws text, not what Congress may have in mind at a specific moment in history. In his view, statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed.

In other words, Sessions could well take a beating here as well. And the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of many of our culture wars, is already on deck to deal the painful blow sooner rather than later.

It does away with the individual mandate and defunds Planned Parenthood.

A bad bill designed to avoid scrutiny.

Their shared dark vision of the world unites them.

But the funding probably wont make it through the Senate.

The Dept. of Justices new position is that federal civil-rights law doesnt cover employees targeted by anti-gay bias

John McCain calls for bipartisanship, votes to prevent it from happening.

Reince is a f*cking paranoid schizophrenic. And so much more.

Anthony Scaramucci credited Trump with nailing 3-foot putts, but the White House transcript says they were 30-footers.

All the tactical brilliance that has kept unpopular and divisive GOP health care legislation alive disguises a fatal strategic blindness.

The Senate parliamentarian ruled that the GOP cant roll back Obamacares regulations without 60 votes. That makes skinny repeal more dangerous.

As Trumps religious-freedom envoy, Brownback has a chance to leave the state he wrecked and to take his religious views worldwide.

General Joseph Dunford wrote in a memo that there have been no modifications to the current policy.

Thinking it through before you vote for a huge change to the health-care system is for big-government liberal weenies.

It explains his otherwise inexplicable attacks on staunch ally Jeff Sessions.

Any effort to go after Muellercould be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency, the senator said.

The R train may have been held in the station after a press conference.

The point of skinny repeal of Obamacare is to enact a bare-bones bill to shape in committee. Bulking up could be fatal.

Trump insists that his harassment of Sessions cant be obstruction because he has nothing to hide, is just doing all this out of pointless spite.

It will collide head-on with the doctrine of animus the legal principle guarding against singling out a group for harm.

Here is the original post:
Jeff Sessions Takes a Stand Against Protecting Gay Workers - New York Magazine

The culture wars are all Trump has left – The Week – The Week Magazine

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

It's pointless for Democrats to try to downplay "identity politics." In President Trump's America, identity politics will come to get you no matter what. Indeed, fighting these old culture wars is just about all Trump has left.

That's a prime lesson of Trump's surprise Wednesday morning announcement that transgender people are not welcome to serve in America's military. In making that announcement, Trump usurped an ongoing Pentagon study into the issue apparently even catching the Defense Department off-guard and made a naked, cynical play to appeal to the socially conservative and otherwise traditional voters that make up much of his base.

"This forces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin to take complete ownership of this issue," an unidentified Trump administration official told Jonathan Swan of Axios. "How will blue-collar voters in these states respond when senators up for re-election in 2018 like [Michigan Democrat] Debbie Stabenow are forced to make opposition to this a key plank of their campaigns?"

Get that? Even if Democrats want to avoid identity politics in 2018, Trump won't let them.

This ought to be clarifying. Ever since Trump won in November, Democrats have been mired in internal debates over whether they should downplay identity politics issues emphasized by their base of ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities in favor of a broader appeal to the "white working class." The underlying question: How much should Democrats turn their backs on the heart and soul of the party to win elections?

The debate seemed to be resolved this week when party leaders unveiled their "Better Deal" agenda to run against Trump and the Republicans in 2018. It contained some big promises a minimum wage hike, a crackdown on monopolies, apprenticeship programs, and more but notably skipped any issues that might seem to appeal specifically to black or brown or gay people.

Those voters noticed. That the agenda "never mentioned voter suppression, police brutality, immigration, or refugees felt like a low-key dog whistle to me," one observer wrote.

That "Better Deal" effort, however, lasted all of two days before Trump pulled Dems back into the culture wars.

"Transgender Americans are serving honorably in our military," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) tweeted in response to Trump's announcement. "We stand with these patriots."

Just when Dems thought they were out, they get pulled back in.

Good.

Why? Because Democrats can stop debating whether victory requires them to downplay strong stands for LGBTQ rights, for immigrants and against voter suppression policies that disempower African-Americans. Republicans are going to tie Dems to those policies anyway, so the party and its candidates might as well be forthright instead of coy about where it stands on those issues. Maybe Democrats could even trumpet their inclusiveness as a virtue.

This isn't 2004, when George W. Bush came out for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage a plain attempt to divide voters on culture war issues. In the years since then, gays and gay marriage have become increasingly accepted. If history is any guide, today's action will help Trump shore up his base in the short term and be irrelevant in another decade.

But for now, the culture wars will rage again. Trump can't pass a health-care bill (at least so far). Getting a tax cut looks like it might be tricky. The wall he promised looks no closer to reality than it did six months ago. There are real questions these days about whether Republicans are capable of governance.

In that climate, all Trump and the Republicans will have left are identity politics and the culture wars. It's why Trump after promising to be a president who would protect LGBTQ rights came out against them. It's why he spent a Tuesday night speech describing the crimes of illegal immigrants in torture-porn detail.

And it's the reason conservatives are cheering the prospect of Kid Rock making a Senate run against Stabenow; policy, these days, matters to them much less than all the "real America" virtue signalling that the entertainer provides. For Trump Republicans, that posturing is all that seems to really matter.

Identity politics aren't going away. Democrats might as well embrace it, fly their rainbow flags high, and fight back.

Original post:
The culture wars are all Trump has left - The Week - The Week Magazine

Transgender effort reopens culture wars – San Francisco Chronicle

President Trump returned the military to the culture wars of recent decades Wednesday with a tweeted declaration that transgender people can no longer serve in any capacity in the armed forces.

Conservative allies cheered it as a step back from what they saw as an effort by the Obama administration to run a social engineering experiment in the military. Transgender people and their advocates denounced it as bigoted, and even some of Trumps fellow Republicans criticized it as shortsighted.

After a 20-year fight by LGBT activists and supporters to open the military to gays, lesbians and transgender people had seemingly been settled in their favor under former President Barack Obama, Trump returned to the battlefield with a series of early-morning tweets.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military, Trump tweeted. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.

Transgender people have been allowed to serve openly in the military since last July, when then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced a policy that allowed service members to transition gender in the military, set standards for medical care, and outlined responsibilities for military services and commanders to develop and implement guidance, training and other programs.

The White House was short on details for how Trump would implement his planned ban or how the military would go about removing the thousands of transgender people who are already in the services. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the presidents announcement is something that the Department of Defense and the White House will have to work together on as implementation takes place.

This was about military readiness; this was about unit cohesion; this was about resources within the military and nothing more, Sanders said.

LGBT activists and like-minded politicians promised to fight any ban, and said Trumps tweets sounded similar to earlier orders barring nonwhite and gay people from the military.

There is no resignation at all among us, said retired Navy Cmdr. Zoe Dunning of San Francisco, a lesbian who retired in 2007 and helped lead the fight to overturn the dont ask, dont tell policy that barred openly gay and lesbian service members. There is complete opposition. I hear nothing different in what Trump says from what was used to justify discrimination against African Americans and the LGBT community before the same old thing about disrupting cohesion and effectiveness.

Conservatives applauded the presidents move, saying transgender politics and medical costs they can bring with them small though they may be have no place in the militarys ranks or budgets.

Felicia Alvarado Elizondo served in the Navy during the Vietnam war.

Felicia Alvarado Elizondo served in the Navy during the Vietnam war.

Felicia Alvarado Elizondo serving in the Navy during the Vietnam war in 1966.

Felicia Alvarado Elizondo serving in the Navy during the Vietnam war in 1966.

Transgender effort reopens culture wars

Obviously, were very happy with this decision by the president, said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. Like many Americans, we believe its long overdue. President Trumps tweet says the military understand that the military is for fighting and winning wars, not engaging in a massive social experiment.

Brown said he hoped Trumps pronouncement was just the beginning of a larger rollback of LGBT presence in the military. The whole subject of homosexuals in the military needs to be readdressed, he said. Unfortunately what weve been seeing on the part of some Republicans is some weak knees addressing this, but were working on that.

For Felicia Flames Alvarado Elizondo, Trumps tweets provoked two reactions. One was anger. The other was a feeling of deja vu.

Elizondo, 71, was a Navy seaman named Felipe serving in Vietnam in 1967 when she told her commanding officer she was gay. After a quick stint in the brig, she was booted out of the service. Within a few years, she had transitioned into a woman and become a gender-rights activist but nothing, she said, made her any less proud of having served her country.

I was there to fight for my country, and it doesnt matter what your gender is as long as you believe in democracy and fighting for you country, said Elizondo, who lives in San Francisco. People join the military to defend our freedom, and what Trump is doing is horrible. He doesnt know us, or how we are.

Alexander McCoy, a Marine veteran who is now affiliated with anti-Trump, ex-service members, disputed the presidents assertion that the presence of transgender people in the ranks is disruptive. What is disruptive, he said, are military efforts to hunt down people who are in the closet because their sexual orientation or gender identification is banned.

The fact that Donald Trump is trying to return our military to (the dont ask, dont tell era) is disgraceful, said McCoy, spokesman for Common Defense, a national grassroots organization that has 15,000 members in California.

Reaction among politicians was quick, and not always predictable. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called Trumps statement unclear and said the panel would hold hearings on the issue of transgender people serving in the military.

There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military regardless of their gender identity, McCain said.

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Iowa National Guard, said anyone who is qualified and can meet the physical training standards to serve in the military should be allowed the opportunity. However, Ernst also believes that taxpayers shouldnt cover the costs associated with a gender reassignment surgery, a spokeswoman said.

Other Republicans strongly backed Trump, including Rep. Duncan Hunter of San Diego, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He called for a restoration of warrior culture to allow the military to get back to business.

US President Donald Trump speaks to the American Legion Boys Nation and the American Legion Auxiliary Girls Nation in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC, July 26, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / SAUL LOEBSAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

US President Donald Trump speaks to the American Legion Boys Nation...

National security should trump social experimentation, always, Duncan said.

Probably the best-known transgender military veteran Chelsea Manning, who served in the Army as a man and was court-martialed and convicted under the Espionage Act for leaking classified information to Wikileaks tweeted that the presidents move sounds like cowardice. She said denying health care costs to transgender troops while supporting the $400 billion F-35 fighter jet program is further reason we should dismantle the bloated and dangerous military-intel-police state.

Shane Ortega, 30, of Los Angeles, is a transgender man who served in the Marine Corps from 2005 to 2009 and then in the Army from 2009 to 2016. He served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ortega began transitioning in 2010 while in the military. On Wednesday morning, he woke up to a phone call from a transgender person currently serving in the military who feared what will come next, and now, once again, feels compelled to hide his sexual orientation as much as possible.

Disruption is not something (the president) is qualified to quantify because Donald Trump has never served in a tactical position in his life, Ortega said. Bullets dont police gender. Bullets dont care if youre fat, green, purple or pink.

Estimates of the number of transgender people in the military range from 6,000, as measured by a Rand Corp. study, to over 15,000, as tallied by the National Center for Transgender Equality.

Rand found that the cost of gender-transition procedures related to health care treatment is relatively low.

The total cost of medical care for transgender troops would increase health care costs by $2.4 million to $8.4 million annually, representing a 0.04 percent to 0.13 percent increase in Pentagon health care expenditures, the nonprofit research group said.

Transgender reassignment surgery which not every trans person chooses to undergo can cost anywhere from a few thousand dollars to nearly $100,000, depending on how extensive it is, said Courtney DAllaird, founding coordinator for the Gender & Sexuality Resource Center at the University of Albany in New York.

A proposal in the House to eliminate transgender surgery funding for service members was defeated last week, with dozens of Republicans joining Democrats in voting against it.

Kevin Fagan and Sarah Ravani are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Email:KFagan@

sfchronicle.com, sravani@sfchronicle.com

See the original post:
Transgender effort reopens culture wars - San Francisco Chronicle

Jeremy Corbyn’s topsy-turvy culture war – The Week Magazine

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

While the British government negotiates the greatest divorce settlement since Henry VIII took a fancy to young Anne Boleyn, the country seems paralyzed with indecision over its future.

Now that it is happening, should Britain go for a "soft" or "hard" Brexit? The former entails remaining in the single market, like Norway, and so having tariff-free access to a block that represents 46 percent of U.K. exports; the latter means going it alone on the world stage and trying to get free trade deals in time for 2019. Economic common sense only points in one direction, but the price of that is continuing free movement within the EU and the Vote Leave campaign last year won thanks largely to immigration.

That referendum turned into a bitter and ugly culture war, a marked sign of the shifting from the traditional left/right axis towards a conflict between globalism and nationalism. Yet it has had a huge unintended consequence, too: What started as a battle for Britain's soul between metropolitan liberals and conservatives seems to have left both sides exhausted and impotent and instead emboldened hardline socialists, viewed until recently as harmless relics of a bygone age. And they may be the ultimate victors of Brexit.

Seven years ago the hard left was dead and buried. Then after Labour lost the 2010 election to David Cameron's Tories, the party had a choice to make. In an alternative universe, Labour would have elected the suave centrist David Miliband to party leader. He might have gone on to narrowly defeat the Tories in 2015 to become prime minister and is somewhere in another dimension meeting President Hillary Clinton for talks.

In reality, though, David Miliband was challenged by his goofy younger brother Ed, a leftist with a funny nasal voice who had the habit of making awkward faces, especially while eating bacon sandwiches. And so confident was David of winning against his hapless sibling that he did not even bother ringing a number of Labour MPs for their support. The lefty Ed won an unexpected and narrow victory over his centrist brother, only to lose the 2015 election against the odds to an unpopular Tory-led government who by this stage had meanwhile promised a referendum on membership of the EU, in order to see off the challenge from the populist U.K. Independence Party.

Even better, Ed Miliband had helpfully changed the party leadership rules, giving the ordinary members more power, while also making it easier for anyone to join the party for just 3.

After Miliband stepped down in 2015, Labour MPs allowed the hard-left Jeremy Corbyn, until then a sort of harmless 1980s throwback, onto the ballot just to give members an alternative, almost as an afterthought he then swept to a landslide victory. The membership has now overwhelmingly changed with the arrival of new 3 joiners, to such an extent that at this year's election Labour got the official support of the Communist Party of Britain not to be confused with the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), with whom they are at daggers drawn. Labour moderates, always keen on open borders, found themselves now outnumbered and strangers in their own home.

Ed Miliband was a sort of comic figure in charge with a nerdish quality, including the ability to do a Rubik's Cube in 90 seconds; a nebish, in the words of the Jewish Chronicle editor. Even his opponents quite liked him, and just as his shadow chancellor Ed Balls has gone onto become a star of Strictly Come Dancing so Miliband has remained a popular figure in the public eye.

His successor is a somewhat different character. A man of undoubted principle, Corbyn split up with one of his wives, an exile from Pinochet's Chile, because she wanted to send their sons to selective grammar schools while he insisted on the ideologically purer comprehensive (a state school that does not screen for achievement or abilities). People of Corbyn's politics usually get called "firebrands" but he comes across more as the aging hippie art teacher people remember from school who smoked weed, which only adds to his popularity; not that he would touch anything, of course, since he's a vegetarian, teetotaling cyclist the dark triad, so to speak.

He is also an out-an-out socialist who has expressed admiration for Chavez's Venezuela, although there is also something of the eccentric English nonconformist in him, perhaps Quakerism or one of those strange groups that arose during the English Civil War, like the Fifth Monarchists.

The most obvious parallel would be that he is Britain's Bernie Sanders, if Sanders had near-single digit support among Jews, who are perhaps somewhat put off by Corbyn describing Hezbollah and Hamas as his "friends."

Yet none of these quotes seems to get through to supporters, who, like Trump voters, regard them simply as slurs. The Labour leader also has well-publicized sympathy for the Irish Republican Army, while his shadow chancellor John McDonnell has appeared at May Day rallies with the Soviet hammer and sickle beside him. Again, these are all just slurs.

Corbyn was dismissed as a sort of fossil but he plays well to a generation who receive filtered news through social media sites, and have low levels of trust in the press generally. He is very popular among the young overwhelmingly so with young women and especially those who have gone through the university system.

He is a beneficiary of the "overproduction of the elites," and the excess numbers of college-educated young who cannot find the jobs or status they assumed their degrees would entitle them to and, more importantly, have no hope of ever buying a property in the country's absurdly overpriced housing market.

Yet a year ago he seemed to be leading his party to electoral suicide; they hovered in the mid-20s in the polls, and not a day went by without there being talk of a split. His followers never gave up hope, showing a devotion that is verging on the cult-like, and ignoring the fact that during the Brexit campaign the supposedly pro-Remain Labour leader was putting in all the effort of a Mariah Carey dance routine.

Corbyn in fact has always hated the European Union his record is unambiguous on that subject and by his inaction he probably helped to swing the referendum for Leave. Just as Thatcherites obsess with Europe holding back Britain with needless regulations and social democratic waffle, the hard-Left sees Brussels as a capitalist conspiracy, preventing governments from subsidizing failing industries and imposing other economic discipline. They disliked the Vote Leave crowd more, though, seeing them correctly as cultural conservatives who wished to turn the clock back.

Yet Leave's victory has been followed by a tremendously hapless government; a snap election supposed to destroy Corbyn led him to within a few thousand votes of reaching Downing Street. Theresa May's insistence on going for a hard Brexit damaged an unattractive party's only outstanding selling point, their economic management.

While polls now show public opinion in Britain moving in the direction of single-market membership over immigration controls, the Left-wing Labour leader has outflanked the Tories on the issue, telling the BBC on Sunday that under him there would no longer be "the wholesale importation of underpaid workers from central Europe in order to destroy conditions, particularly in the construction industry."

It was an old-fashioned Samuel Gompers-style argument for immigration controls, yet this despite Labour winning most of its new support at the election from the young, the university-educated, the cosmopolitan and metropolitan, most of all among Remain voters. They voted for him even though Corbyn is more eurosceptic than almost anyone in the Conservative Party, and has always been openly so. Why? Because he seems to have the ability to make people project their own fantasies onto him.

No one believes that Britain can have immigration restrictions and have the single market, but it doesn't matter; if leaving the EU proves to be an economic disaster, then even if Corbyn is in government the Tories will rightfully get much of the blame. Now Labour is 6 points ahead in the polls and could still yet come to power, using Brexit to mold the country in their own image, and joining a long-list of previously weak groups who have filled the void after the superpowers have exhausted themselves, from the Arab conquerors of Byzantium and Persia to the Bolsheviks in 1917.

Culture wars, like any other kind, have unintended consequences.

Follow this link:
Jeremy Corbyn's topsy-turvy culture war - The Week Magazine

‘It will be fun to watch [Democrats] have to defend this’: Why Trump’s transgender military ban should frighten GOP – Washington Post

President Trump's tweeted transgender military ban on July 26 drew immediate criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, who were caught unawares by the decision. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

In early 2016, when the controversy over North Carolina's transgender bathroom law was dominating the headlines, Donald Trump broke with others in his party, such as Sen. Ted Cruz. He suggested this particular culture war wasn't worth fighting.

North Carolina did something that was very strong. And they're paying a big price. There's a lot of problems, Trump said. He added: Leave it the way it is. North Carolina, what they're going through with all the business that's leaving, all of the strife and this is on both sides. Leave it the way it is.

That Trump looks a lot different than the one we saw Wednesday. He announced on Twitter that he would ban transgender people from serving in any capacity in the U.S. Military.

This is something even the Obama administration wrestled with, andthe Pentagonrescinded its ban on transgender service members only about a year ago. But Trump's decision is a bold one for a few reasons: 1) In any capacity sounds like an extremely broad ban, and 2) Trump's choice of words tremendous medical costs and disruption are likely to outragethe LGBT community. That's a community that had hoped Trump, whatever his other policies, would be something of an ally, or at least not an adversary.

President Trump announced that transgender troops won't be allowed to serve in the military on July 26, reversing the Pentagon's 2016 decision to lift the ban. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

It's not totally clear that Trump is preparing to go down the culture-warrior road here, but for an embattled president who seems to love controversy andis increasingly just trying to maintain his base, itwould seem an attractive and logical move.And that's a prospect that GOP leaders should be very concerned about.

I think Commentary's Noah Rothman put it well here, suggesting that the culture wars could be a kind of emergency fallback for Trump, who faces a broadening Russia investigation and a record-low approval rating for a new president:

There are few better ways to rally the socially conservative troops than to warn about things like the dangers of transgender people serving alongside U.S. troops or using the wrong bathrooms. A bathroom law debate in Houston in 2015 included some of the most brutal and suggestive campaign ads you'll ever see, with plenty of innuendo aboutsex offenders entering bathrooms with children.

Campaign for Houston released a video ad against a bathroom law in Houston in 2015. (Campaign for Houston)

But whilelocal and state Republicans have waged bathroom-bill fights, the national GOP has largely steered clear of them. And as the country has moved sharply in favor of same-sex marriage and LGBT rights, the national GOP has largely moved on from these issues. Rather than taking progressive positions, it has simply ignored them.More than a decade after values voters were supposed to have delivered George W. Bush his reelection win, the party has recognizedthat the country has moved past it on these issues.

And that's because it has seen the polls and it saw what happened in North Carolina. Even as Trump was carrying the state, Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, who defended the bathroom law, lost reelection. He was one of thevery few big-name Republicans who actually underperformed Trump, andthere are plenty who tied McCrory's loss directly to that bathroom bill.

[Trumps stance on LGBT rights has always been confusing]

But Trump's decision is already reigniting the culture wars, to some degree. An anonymous Trump administration official offered this hugely cynical quote to Axios's Jonathan Swan on Wednesday morning:

"This forces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, to take complete ownership of this issue. How will the blue collar voters in these states respond when senators up for re-election in 2018 like Debbie Stabenow are forced to make their opposition to this a key plank of their campaigns?"

In response to that quote, another White House official distanced the decision from that kind of political calculation. When I read that, I was like, what's wrong with whoever you are? the official told The Washington Post's Philip Rucker. This was not a political decision. It was a military readiness and military resource decision.

But then the official added: It will be fun to watch some of them [Democrats] have to defend this, but that was never an impetus.

Even that quote should terrify the GOP. The idea that anybody in the White House sees political gain from this decision either directly or indirectly suggests the culture wars are on the table.

Update: Shortly after this posted, Trump tweeted something else that suggests he might be wading into the culture wars.

Read the original here:
'It will be fun to watch [Democrats] have to defend this': Why Trump's transgender military ban should frighten GOP - Washington Post