President Bush signaled to his followers — and the nation — once and for all something many Americans had already concluded:
He is a divider, not a uniter. And even in this era of ultra-political polarization he’s willing to tilt to those who want to divide Americans rather than those who would unite them.
Without batting an eyelash.
Bush yesterday effectively gave a hand signal of support to his social conservative followers who often use protecting the sanctity of marriage as code words to try and clamp down on the nation’s gay population and in effect gave his middle political finger to Americans who are screechingly weary of the partisan politics of demonization — even if this demonization is couched by spin-master-supplied, lofty sounding words. Or — believe it or not — a suggestion that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is a “civil rights” issue.
In a political action of pandering so breathtaking it may qualify him for lifetime honorary membership in the Pander Society, Bush couched his support of a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in language blaming the judiciary. Even though — more than ever — his administration and party are gaining control of many levels of the court system. From his statement:
The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.
America is a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. In this country, people are free to choose how they live their lives. In our free society, decisions about a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people. (Applause.)….
….Some argue that defining marriage should be left to the states. The fact is, state legislatures are trying to address this issue. (Applause.) But across the country, they are being thwarted by activist judges who are overturning the expressed will of their people. And these court decisions can have an impact on our whole nation.
The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state’s definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by the courts, then marriage recognized in one city or state may have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriage as redefined by judges in, say, Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own state laws or their state constitutions say.
This national question requires a national solution. And on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come not from the courts, but from the people of the United States. (Applause.) An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice. When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution, the only law a court cannot overturn.
In fact, as a zillion analysts — many of them conservatives — have noted, there is ZERO CHANCE this amendment will pass. Bush is doing this to fire up his conservative base, and try and contrast the GOP with the Democrats, and get his religious right political troops out to help the GOP hold on to Congress in 2006.
Two curious facts:
1) Apparently no members of the religious right were present at this photo op.
2) Press Secretary Tony Snow suggested a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is actually a “civil rights” issue. See the VIDEO HERE.
In an open letter, Bush was blasted by the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group. Here’s part of it:
Mr. President,
On behalf of millions of gay and lesbian Americans, I write to denounce your decision to divide the American family by promoting an amendment that would insert discrimination into the United States Constitution. Your decision to use the grounds of the White House—America’s House—to advance discrimination is an insult to millions of fair minded Americans from all walks of life.
Mr. President, gay and lesbian Americans pay taxes, contribute to community and family life across our great nation, and worship the same all-loving and compassionate God. Thousands of gay and lesbian Americans, under your command, serve proudly in our nation’s military, fighting to win the war on terror and promoting liberty across the globe. Your effort to codify discrimination against our families, including men and women in uniform while the nation is at war, is offensive and unworthy of the office of the Presidency. Great Republican Presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan have united Americans and appealed to our best hopes, not our worst fears.
Wedge-issue politics may score short-term political points but will end up eroding your ability as President to unite the American people behind winning the war in Iraq, enhancing border security, advancing immigration reform, and controlling spending. Your call for “civility and decency” in this debate rings hollow because the effort to write discrimination into our Constitution is intolerant and uncivil.
The Christian Science Monitor notes the potential benefits and dangers Bush and at least one potential GOP Presidential candidate faces on this issue:
With Mr. Bush struggling to win back support of fellow Republicans who have grown discouraged, the president has been under increasing pressure to advocate forcefully on an issue that religious conservatives consider of utmost importance, especially with state court cases under way that could lead to legalization of same-sex marriage. Congress faces even larger political stakes: low public approval ratings, and, unlike Bush, danger of low voter turnout this fall in the midterm elections among social conservatives that could hurt Republicans seeking to maintain their majority.
At the same time, the GOP’s efforts at creating a “big tent” image will be put to the test. Some of the most vulnerable members of Congress – many of them moderate Republicans from the Northeast – could be hurt by the debate, as it highlights a point of view less resonant in that part of the country than in others.
The debate could also reverberate further into the future, into the 2008 presidential contest. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a likely GOP contender, opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, arguing that the issue should be left up to the states. He has long faced hostility from social conservative leaders over this and other positions, and his recent efforts at reconciliation with this activist wing of the party could be set back by the debate.
And, the Monitor notes, if this measure fails — and it will — Bush could face NEW pressures, pushing him further right:
If the amendment fails in the Senate, as presumed, he will face continuing pressure to push for this and other measures important to religious conservatives. During his presidency, his pattern usually has been to hold positions consistent with those of religious conservatives, but not to advocate for them as fiercely as religious leaders would like. On constitutional amendments, the president plays no formal role – his signature is not required – so any power he may wield would come through the bully pulpit.
Meanwhile, Republican leaders in Congress are also going to push other hot-buttons like calling for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning (it’s unlikely to pass) and repealing the estate tax (also iffy). The Wall Street Journal explains:
Republicans “are playing to that smaller group, that group of conservative, Republican, religious people,” says John Green, a political-science professor at the University of Akron in Ohio and a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. “In a close election, those people could make a very big difference. If it wasn’t a close election, I don’t think you’d see it being much of an issue.”
….Beyond the marriage and tax measures, Republicans in Congress and the White House are looking for other issues to lure conservatives to the polls. The Senate also is likely to debate, perhaps as soon as this month, an anti-flag-burning amendment and might consider a prohibition on transferring a minor across state lines to get an abortion unless her parents give permission.
Republicans need a boost from within their party if they are to maintain their majorities in the House and Senate. As of April, just 27% of conservatives approved of Congress, compared with 53% in January 2005, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. That is even lower than Mr. Bush’s approval rating among conservatives, which was 60% in April compared with 71% in January 2005.
So Congress has now gone under the GOP from a place where laws are made and issues are discussed to a political vehicle used to define one’s political enemies by forcing them to vote against issues that you can later use against them, even if you know the issues can’t pass. Has this been done before? Yes. On this scale? No. Career governance has been displaced by career demonization.
On the other hand, if Bush is trying to win back his base so the GOP can hold onto power, an ABC News poll suggest he may be onto something:
An ABC News poll finds that most Americans oppose gay marriage but markedly fewer — especially those outside George W. Bush’s core supporters — would amend the U.S. Constitution to ban it.
Opponents, however, are far more likely to call it a make-or-break issue in their vote for Congress — a finding that explains Bush’s renewed push for a gay marriage ban.
Among all Americans, 58 percent say gay marriage should be illegal, but fewer, 42 percent, say it rises to the level of amending the U.S. Constitution. Among conservative Republicans and evangelical white Protestants, though, opposition to gay marriage soars more than 85 percent, and two-thirds support a constitutional amendment to ban it, a sharp contrast to views in the political center, as well as on the left.
The intensity of these views adds to the political calculation: People who “strongly” oppose gay marriage — 51 percent of the public — outnumber strong supporters by 2-1. And those strong opponents are nearly three times as likely as other Americans to say they would vote only for a candidate who shares their view on the issue.
What does all this mean to the Bush presidency? In more ways than one, it is proving to be one of the most troubling Presidencies in American history.
It isn’t proving to be a Presidency of all the people.
With each passing day, more and more it’s a Presidency of the base… by the base…and for the base.
So if Bush gets out his base in 2006, the GOP could hold onto the Congress.
Then he’d be left with two more years.
As President of the Base.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.