One of the reasons why our politics now seems so sleazy, intellectually smelly, and excruciatingly tiresome and feels like undergoing a root canal to watch is that you see people blatantly pandering. And Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker gives us the quintessential example of a politician thirsting for support who won’t do anything to alienate part of a voting bloc he seeks. To wit:
Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) said on Sunday he is not sure if homosexuality is a choice.
The 2016 GOP presidential candidate refused comment on the issue during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“I don’t know the answer to that question,” Walker said when asked if being gay is a choice.“That’s not even an issue for me to be involved in,” he said. “I don’t have an opinion on every single issue out there.”
“I am going to spend my time focusing on the issues I do know and can work on,” he added.
Walker also said his White House run is focused on representing all Americans, even ones who do not support his beliefs.
TRANSLATION:
1. Stop asking me that because it might scare of the many voters in the GOP base who insist being gay is a choice — which all research indicates it is not. And don’t ask me about research and science because then the voters who won’t believe in research and science after years of nonstop anti-science conditioning by listening to or watching their favorite conservative talkers or reading their favorite right wing blogs will be angry at me as well.
2. I have to add the fact I’ll serve all Americans now because I want to make sure I don’t come under attack which will make my wooing of those voters then more difficult: I’d then have to either backtrack, which is NOT an option if I want to get elected, or more specifically say that being gay is a choice, which could limit my appeal in a general. I know how to walk a tightrope, so leave me alone.
3. I have to see if this works so I can minimize this question in case I get the nomination. If this plays, I can use the same response all the time and reporters will stop asking me the question.
It’s all blatant pandering. Indeed, even Walker’s own kids were upset at his stand recently:
The family of expected Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker, the Wisconsin governor, apparently isn’t on the same page as he is when it comes to same-sex marriage.
In a profile of Walker’s wife, Tonette Walker, The Washington Post reported Sunday that the Supreme Court’s recent marriage ruling was a “particularly tough day” for the Walker family.
Some of the couple’s children, she said, are big proponents of same-sex marriage and were bothered by Walker’s call for a constitutional amendment to reverse the court’s decision.
“That was a hard one,” Tonette Walker said. “Our sons were disappointed … I was torn. I have children who are very passionate” in favor of same-sex marriage, “and Scott was on his side very passionate.
But Americablog’s John Aravosis didn’t see this interview as mere happenstance but makes the (convincing) case that it had a political motive: to soften the pandering:
Republican responses to the Obergefell v Hodges have ranged from sad to angry. For his part, Scott Walker called for an override of the ruling via a constitutional amendment allowing states to define marriage, seemingly forgetting that he is running for president in 2016, not 2004.
Walker’s position is acceptably anti-gay for the Republican primary, while being borderline disqualifying for the general election — a predicament every GOP candidate will have to work through if they hope to win the White House next year. And Walker’s solution, it seems, is to soften his tone on the issue through surrogates; namely, his wife and kids.
….It would be easy to write off the disagreement within the Walker household over marriage equality as a generational or gender divide, but that would be a bit too generous. While support for same-sex marriage is higher among younger voters and women, a majority of men and a plurality of Boomers are still in favor. What’s more, support for same-sex marriage among Republicans has been as high as 40 percent in recent surveys. Put another way, Walker has room to — ahem — walk back his extreme position on same-sex marriage in light of hearing compelling evidence from his family.
Of course, doing so would disqualify Walker from a GOP primary for another reason: It would mean that Walker is not the dominant patriarch that Republican voters demand in a strong leader. Heads of the household are allowed to consider their wives’ opinions, but they certainly aren’t allowed to let their wives “wear the pants,” as it were.
In short, Tonette Walker’s disclosure that she and her sons personally disagree with Scott Walker on marriage equality, but that disagreement has led only to a change in tone — not substance — on the issue, is a carefully-engineered gambit designed to thread a needle between primary and general electorates. Walker gets to be the anti-gay patriarch who appreciates and tolerates the concerns and disagreements of those close to him. He gets to have his anti-gay cake and eat it, too.
It’s all about pandering.
Base pandering.
And, yes, you can define “base” in two different ways.
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.