A Different Kind of Republican Candidate

Matthew Berry isn’t your typical Republican congressional candidate from the South. An alumnus of Dartmouth and Yale Law, Berry has clerked on the Supreme Court and worked in the Department of Justice during the Bush administration. He is also Jewish and openly gay—two traits you don’t find too often in Republican candidates.
I chatted with Berry about why he is challenging one of the most liberal members of Congress, Democratic Rep. James Moran, who has represented Virginia’s 8th Congressional District since 1990, and what he believes his candidacy says about the future of the Republican Party.Politics: You’re gay and you’re Jewish. Both of those traits are rare in the Republican Party. How do you reconcile that? Does your candidacy factor into the big tent versus ideologically purist debate currently going on in the GOP?MB: I think there is nothing odd whatsoever about being Jewish and running against Jim Moran. Jim Moran has made a series of offensive statements about American Jews. I am getting support from Jewish Republicans, Jewish independents and Jewish Democrats because they know when it comes to issues of concern to the Jewish community, Jim
Moran is one of the worst members of Congress.
With respect to my sexual orientation, I am a conservative Republican who happens to be gay. I don’t think my sexual orientation has anything to do with my views on the economic future of the country, what we have to do to protect our national security, with empowering individuals rather than government. So I think that my candidacy shows that all different types of people can believe in the core principles of the Republican Party. I think my candidacy is good for the party. The Republican Party needs to reach out to all people because I think our core principles of fiscal responsibility and national security and empowering individuals can have appeal with all groups.Politics: You mentioned some of the core principles of the Republican Party—fiscal conservatism, paying down the debt—but in the past decade many Republicans have focused on social issues and gay marriage has been one of those issues. What is your opinion of that? Is opposition to gay marriage a Republican principle that you choose to ignore?MB: My position on a number of these issues is that I am a believer in federalism. I think that different states are going to arrive at different decisions on many of these issues. That is part of the genius of our founding documents. I am not running for Congress on the federal level to push any particular agenda. I think states should make those decisions. The people of Vermont will likely make a different decision than the people of Mississippi, and that’s something I’m fine with. I believe that marriage in our history has traditionally been regulated and defined at the state level. I think that if a state wants to have gay marriage, than the federal government has no business telling them not to. On the other hand, under our constitutional structure, if a state decides not to have gay marriage, than I don’t see how the federal government forces them to have it.Politics: Do you personally have an opinion on gay marriage—for example in Virginia?MB: My position is the same as former Vice President Cheney’s. I think people should be free to enter into whatever types of relationships they would like. If it were up to me, the state would permit same sex marriage. I respect people who have a different view on that, and I think that should be fought state-by-state by the democratic process.Politics: Do you think that the Republican Party has failed to appeal to a broad swath of the American public? If so, how can it do a better job?MB: I think that the Republican Party can do a better job. Over the last few years, if you look at the election results, certainly the Republican Party has not done as good a job as it needs to attract a majority of voters. On the other hand, I think that we are turning things around.
If you have a positive outlook and you present specific solutions to improve people’s lives and you avoid some of the harsher rhetoric, than I think that the Republican Party can do very well. I kind of came of age and became interested in politics during the Reagan presidency. I think that Ronald Reagan presented a very optimistic view both of the future of the country and of what the Republican Party has to stand for. What I am trying to do—and what I think works for Republicans—is be an optimist and to present specific ideas in terms of how we can improve people’s quality of life. I think that is the way to expand the tent. If you are only in the business of condemning and saying no and saying that things are going to hell in a hand basket, I think people get turned off.