Today President George W. Bush is expected to put his reduced political capital on the line to personally push for a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.
The questions are:
Is it a political profile in courage, or a caricature of craven political pandering? Is it the act of a politician who believes leading means getting out in front on cutting-edge issues or the equivalent of lip service to placate supporters who wonder why he has waited until just before the elections to take a strong stance on this issue?
Is it a genuine, sincere push for something he believes — or words that’ll be uttered that don’t jibe with what some have seen of him in private?
In short: is this something he firmly believes in and thinks can be done — or is it part of a divide-and-rule shell game designed as CYA to assure social conservatives that he is keeping a campaign promise while at the same time putting Democrats on the spot so they can be defined as a party whose members won’t move to try and outlaw gay marriage on a federal level?
And then there’s the big question: will this succeed with Bush’s conservative supporters or will they wonder why he has suddenly mustered the courage with Majority Leader Bill Frist to bring this up — coincidentally five months before the elections.
If this was so vital, why weren’t Frist and Bush out on the hustings promoting this for the past two years?
All signs and most news reports and analysis point to one conclusion: Bush’s comments will be, in fact, part of a political shell game that Mr. Bush does not expect to go anywhere but that could inflame his party base’s passions and get them out to the polls.
Welcome to the era of “wink” politics. You know: it’s an era you see on those Sunday morning talking head shows where insider journalists sit at round tables, winking at themselves and viewers as if to say “We know this politico doesn’t mean what he says and is just saying it to position himself for votes and that it’s a load of crap but, hey, folks this is how this game is played. Aren’t these political rogues delightful to watch?”
It’s an era where the importance is strategy and tactics — not sincerity, content and political realism.
If you do a Google search you’re going to be hard-pressed to find a ton of stories that say George Bush (a) firmly believes in this ban, (b) has been working all year for this ban or (c) thinks it has a chance of becoming a constitutional amendment.
What you’ll see if you read the stories is that Bush’s comments and the timing of them are a craven, transparent move to claw his way back up in the polls to regain the support of some wavering members of the GOP’s past winning coalitions — to arouse passions against gays, link up in the public’s mind support of gays with the Democrats and try to get his supporters out in droves in 2006.
In a column in The Los Angeles Times, Ronald Brownstein writes:
‘That’s vanity … not politics,” President John F. Kennedy once snapped at an aide who wanted him to provoke a confrontation with Congress on an issue Kennedy knew he didn’t have the votes to pass.
Times change, don’t they?
Now many in Washington believe the essence of politics is provoking confrontations over issues that have little chance of becoming law but a high probability of dividing the country.
Exhibit A is this week’s planned Senate vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. No one doubts the outcome. Proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority — 67 votes — to clear the Senate. When the Senate last considered the gay marriage ban, in July 2004, supporters mustered only 48 votes on a procedural test. The backers might do better this time, but they are unlikely to get close to the votes they need.
So there is little chance it’ll succeed. Yet Frist and Bush will be pressing this issue to show supporters that they’re going to try to deliver.
Will that be enough? Some news reports say no. The New York Times:
Taken together, the events will be the first time Mr. Bush has so strongly promoted his opposition to same-sex marriage since his re-election campaign nearly two years ago. Democrats accused the White House of trotting out a reliable hot-button issue to help soothe and re-energize disgruntled conservative voters five months before the midterm Congressional elections. “Everybody’s going to see through it,” said Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
But, in a new twist this year, some conservative activists expressed similar cynicism. They said Mr. Bush and the Republicans in Congress had a long way to go to convince social conservatives that they viewed the issue as anything but a politically convenient tool that they picked up only when they needed to motivate their core voters.
After the 2004 campaign, they say, Mr. Bush put his energies into domestic issues like Social Security and immigration rather than into the marriage amendment and other topics of interest to grass-roots conservatives.
“It was so central in the 2004 election,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative research group, said of same-sex marriage. “And the day after, the president began a crusade to reform Social Security and it went nowhere. Why not put energy into something that’s vital for our society and our country?”
In another piece, the Los Angeles Times also noted that Bush may face a tougher audience this time in his own party on this issue:
“I’m going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse,” said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. “We’re not buying it. We’re going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it’s too little, too late.”
Such comments have raised the prospect that the debate over gay marriage — designed to galvanize one of Bush’s most important constituencies, social conservatives — could instead exacerbate the president’s political headaches.
If so it would be a turning point:
It would signify that the Era of Winking is getting a bit old. MORE:
The White House event will serve as a prelude to the Senate debate next week on the proposed constitutional amendment.
Supporters acknowledge they have little hope of reaching the two-thirds threshold — 67 votes — the measure would need to pass in the 100-member Senate. They probably won’t get the 60 votes needed to shut off debate and force an up-or-down vote on the proposal…..
….”Social conservatives are disappointed that there hasn’t been more action on the issues that were highlighted in the 2004 election,” said Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Assn. of Michigan.
He added: “Increasingly, social conservatives expect real action, not just politically timed attempts to motivate and organize the base.”
Other complain that Bush, despite Monday’s planned event, has not put the full heft of the presidency behind the bid to ban gay marriage.
“President Bush’s position is actually quite good on many … life and family issues, but he needs to get out front on them,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, wrote in a message to supporters last week. There is also dismay among some activists over the wording of the amendment.
At least two prominent social conservative groups — Concerned Women for America and the Traditional Values Coalition — believe the language contains a loophole that would allow gays to seek civil unions.
The proposed amendment reads: “Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, and others say the second sentence leaves open the option that gays and lesbians could enter unions other than marriage; and that’s a deal breaker for them.
So some feel it’s too little, too late.
The Washington Post reports that at last one GOPer is already using the gay marriage issue against his opponent:
In one North Carolina congressional district, for instance, Republican challenger Vernon Robinson has aired a radio ad attacking Democratic Representative Brad Miller with mariachi music playing in the background: “Brad Miller supports gay marriage and sponsored a bill to let American homosexuals bring their foreign homosexual lovers to this county on a marriage visa. If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals.” Miller voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, saying the matter should be left to the states.
“The republic has survived pretty well for 220 years with marriage based on state law,” he said Friday. “I don’t think we ought to amend the Constitution every time a politician wants to campaign on an issue.” Miller said he supports the North Carolina law banning same-sex marriage, but is open to gay civil unions.
But isn’t this an issue that George Bush is known to care deeply about? Isn’t this an issue that he talks about often in private? Isn’t this an issue that he was just waiting to raise in public since it has been on the top of his own personal agenda?
Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president’s moral radar. “I think it was purely political. I don’t think he gives a s–t about it. He never talks about this stuff,” said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush. White House aides, who also declined to be identified, insist that the president does care about banning gay marriage. They say Monday’s events with amendment supporters—Bush will also meet privately with a small group—have been in the works “for weeks” and aren’t just a sop to conservatives.
Whatever Bush’s motivation, his actions aren’t likely to quiet his critics. Land says he’s happy Bush is speaking out, but he’d like to see signs of real commitment to the issue. “We know what a full-court press looks like when we see one,” Land says. A White House official, who declined to be identified discussing strategy, says Bush has not made calls on the amendment because “nobody has asked us.”
MESSAGE TO THE WHITE HOUSE: When someone uses the “nobody has asked us” defense on not diving into a controversial issue, it doesn’t work and winds up angering those who wanted you to get involved.
So will Bush’s comments and the Senate vote succeed? The vote is almost certainly doomed to failure. Will it energize the party’s base so they turn out in droves to support GOP candidates? Will they remember Bush’s support on Election Day? Stay tuned.
And will there be another possible impact? Will many Democrats, independents and Republicans who don’t like this kind of politics cast votes against those who are trying to foment controversy and division over this issue (which as it stands now each state could decide on in a much quieter way, rather than federalizing it)?
Meanwhile, perhaps President George Bush needs a reminder.
It seems he originally ran to be the President of the United States of America.
But he increasingly governs as if he wants to be the President of the Disunited States of America.
UPDATE 1: We’re informed by a reader from CNN in the comments section:
I thought you might be interested to know that there is a Senate Gay Marriage Amendment Debate, live on PIPELINE today at 2pm ET! CNN Pipeline is an online, commercial-free multiple live-news feed. It showcases four simultaneous news feeds from around the world and an on-demand function that allows you to select from a variety of news stories.
Please let your members know that they can go to http://www.cnn.com and click on the Pipeline link to watch it *live* and get a two week free trial.
UPDATE 2: CNN’s Jeff Greenfield notes that this is Bush and the GOP “returning to the well” and that while there are risks there are also potential benefits:
But sometimes the ploy can backfire. In 1982, Tom Bradley backed a very tough gun-restriction ballot proposal and narrowly lost his bid for governor in part because of a huge turnout among gun owners.
But sometimes, hot-button issues can gain national traction without any political strategy, even if same-sex bans are not on the ballot in states with competitive Senate races. How? Well, suppose New York State’s highest court decides there’s a constitutional right to gay marriage, or more previously enacted bans are struck down in courts in other states. That could put the issue front and center again — which is right where Republican strategists want it.
SOME OTHER VIEWS ON THE GAY MARRIAGE BAN ISSUE:
The Vice-President’s daughter, who clearly does not understand that politics is a zero sum game, must not be happy about the President’s decision to pander to the social base. She had hoped that “no one would think about trying to amend the Constitution as a political strategy.� She says that “amending the Constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong.�
It is too bad that Ms. Cheney doesn’t realize that she is in the “fundamentally wrong� party. And it is too bad that President Bush doesn’t realize that political pandering is “fundamentally wrong� for America.
—LaShawn Barber, a high profile conservative and Christian blogger, is highly critical of Bush in a post that should be read in full. A small taste:
Bush has the wherewithal to fight to change the freakin’ Constitution, yet when it comes to stopping illegal aliens from crossing the border, he has no fight in him to execute laws already on the books? OK.
Politicians are so transparent. The midterm elections are quickly approaching (can you believe 2006 is half over?), and Bush is trying to appease angry conservatives and Christians by pushing this amendment. It’s an empty and meaningless gesture because the thing will never be ratified.
—Gay Orbit: “I’ll look forward to 2008 when we can finally say “Good Riddanceâ€? to this president, and to all of the Republicans who will lose in November partly because they support such obviously diversionary tactic like this one. I’m not one to put a large amount of trust in an electorate that is more interested in American Idol than in actual issues. But I honesly believe that, this time, they will see right through Bush and Co.’s attempt to mask all of the things they’ve screwed up by using this tactic.”
—Pam’s House Blend: “As I said yesterday, the bible beaters have been roiling over the lack of attention that the White House has paid for this and they are still bleating. Daddy Dobson, according to the article, met up with key Rethugs and tossed out this nice, “Christian” threat: “If you forget us, we’ll forget you.” Tee hee. “
Is it the hedonistic aspect of gay marriage that we find so disturbing, or do we really believe that we will extinguish all traces of homosexual and lesbian behavior by outlawing their very unity? The sanctity of marriage needs our protection, but does it have to be protected at the expense of discriminating against a vast number of our population. The problem is, if we choose that path, where do we start and where do we stop?
If the President simply wants to say he is still the man we elected in 2004, perhaps there is a better way of saying it. If he is trying to make up for his stand on the immigration issue, he is treading on some bigger corns there. Either way pushing this issue right now seems like a bad move, as far as I am concerned. New York, Washington and the State of California will be up in arms just for starters.
–Americablog asks “Who are the bigger chumps? The religious right or their followers?” Read the whole post.
What’s even worse is that there is no other purpose behind this fatuous “Marriage Protection Amendment� than politics. It is no secret that the right wing and the Religious Reich are not happy with the president at the moment, so he is doing this just to fan the bonfire of their sanctimonious bigotry in the hope of re-electing Republicans next fall. What’s even more disturbing is that everyone from both parties knows that this amendment will never get enough votes to be sent to the states for ratification. So why, with a war of their own making dissolving beyond chaos, with gasoline prices soaring, with a budget deficit soaring to the moon, is the president and his party wasting our time by engaging in an act of political masturbation? (Or more correctly, an act of sodomy against the Constitution.)
It’s simple. Nothing matters more to this president than being president; nothing matters more to the Republicans than being in office, and if sacrificing the rights of a several million queer people to do it, it’s a small price to pay for their grip on po
—Decision ’08: “Regardless of your stance on the issue, isn’t it blatantly obvious that Bush is pandering to the base because of poor poll numbers? At least before, the rush of events in San Francisco and Massachussetts made it a legitimate issue – but now, it feels a little forced. Let’s worry about the three ‘I’s first (Iran, Iran, and immigration) [The writer probably mean Iraq in the first instance].”
First, I can’t see it passing through Congress, second it smacks of trying to divert attention away from the real issue on voter’s minds – illegal immigration….Forget the hypocrisy of the Democrats about rising gas prices (which aren’t rising at the moment at all) and the rest. I just can’t see that this issue will translate to better results at the polls in November. The real thing most people want is real immigration reform. Not amnesty, reform and enforcement.
—Brilliant At Breakfast: “[Bush] will do what he must to retain power and push the GOP political agenda. He has no moral compass and cares nothing about Americans. He’s so ego-centric it’s sickening.”
Hey, guess what? [Bush] is more concerned with who sleeps with whom rather than putting an end to the endless murders of American soldiers in Iraq. Marriage is so important that it outweighs the whole Iraq is a bad war and we should be out of there issue?
Well, I’m gay, and I don’t really ever want to get married. Why not? Because there is no one in this world I would trust that much not to hurt me. Sure I’d sleep with someone, and maybe even live with them, but marriage? It’s only a income tax thing. It doesn’t have anything to do with love
—Impolitical: “Yet lets bash gays because we can, we’re bullies and it might do us some electoral good….Yet the Divider is willing to roll the dice once more on this issue. For all the talk about considering other view points of late at the White House, you’d certainly never know it by their actions…”
Finally, Bush seems to be listening to those who voted for him. The link above leads to a story by AP. I believe that this amendment is important. Marriage cannot be redefined….
….This is one time that I don’t believe that Bush is playing politics. I know that he truly wants to fight for the institution of marriage. Even Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in September of 1996. I was living in Hawaii at the time and remember that many Hawaiians protested in the streets against gay marriage. Was CLinton playing politics? Here is the story from 1996.
Defending marriage is not just a Judeo-Christian issue. I am sure not many Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Confucianists are for same gender marriage either. I have been to Asia, and believe me, the attitude towards those living an “alternative lifestyle” was worse than in America.
—Lorenzo from AZ has a post saying Bush plans to create a new cabinet post:
I’ve heard that in addition to pushing for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, that Bush will create a sub-cabinet director position for Homo Land Insecurity, to continue to fight the queer agenda and related Powerpoints.
Quite properly, this division will be used to eradicate the homosexual terrorist threats to our very life, to our institutions, to our faith-based governance, and then to all the homo hype in the media. The homos must be stopped. To do nothing means the terrorists win, and that we don’t support our troops.
–Polimom, Too as usual has a must-read post. Here’s part of it:
In recent years, the radical religious fringe (what an embarrassment to the GOP that they’re considered “the base”) has responded so predictably to these little pokes and prods. Will that fringe care, or even notice, that this is a ploy? Do they understand that this proposed Amendment has no chance of passing, or that the Republican leadership is assuming their constituents will act like Pavlov’s dogs?
Surely you’ve heard of Pavlov? He was the Russian psychologist and physician who brought the world classical conditioning – the behavioral theory that predictable reactions can be produced with consistent stimuli. Jump, base! Sit, base!
—Ron Beasley: “Nothing seems to be going George W. Bush or the Republicans way 6 months before the election. So what to do? Change the subject and fire up the base.”
This week, we’re getting treated to a morality lesson from the party that brought us pedophiles, perverts, hookergate, and a Senate majority leader under investigation, after having just been fined $11,000 for campaign chicanery. Republicans aren’t just weak and ineffectual, with no ideas, but they’re desperate. They have nothing else to turn to but their old standards. Use ’em while they work. We are watching the last gasp of the Grand Old Party of the Past, because people under 40 could care less about who marries who. Compared to Iraq, nuclear proliferation and global warming it just doesn’t add up. But being taught this lesson by Republicans? Puh-leaze.
By spear-heading the FMA again, Bush has alienated a vast swathe of socially inclusive suburbanites, the veep’s daughter, every gay person and many of their families, libertarians, constitutional conservatives and principled federalists. But he’s won over the fire-breathers, right? It turns out: Not even them any more…The first push for the FMA was a tragedy. This second time is a farce. Even its supporters know it.
—The All Spin Zone has a snarky post. Read it in full. We won’t quote it because it would take it too much out of context.
—Glenn Reynolds is raising an eyebrow over it, too:”There are times when I’ve found Bush’s transparent lack of enthusiasm for this measure comforting, but of course it just makes it more obviously pandering when they trot it out at this point. Or maybe I should say “attempted pandering,” since if LaShawn’s reaction is typical it’s not a very successful effort….Given the WSJ poll that showed earmarks and immigration as the #1 and #2 concerns of voters, why not try addressing those issues sensibly, instead of trying to run on symbolism? Just a thought . . . .”
—Bull Moose, who used to work for the Christian Coalition:
The question is whether the religious conservatives will hold their collective noses and stick with the Republicans or whether they will show up at all in November. One of the main achievements of the 2004 Bush campaign was maximizing the religious vote. It is unlikely they can replicate that success. As the former Legislative Director of the Christian Coalition, the Moose has some experience in this area. Religious conservatives will not be fooled. They increasingly realize that all the GOP is not animated by their concerns. They are tired of being taken for granted – and a little symbolic affection won’t matter much.
This couldn’t be a worse time to deepen the divide in America in pursuit of political gain. The morale of the country is at a low point. Yet, this President and his Party are pressing forward with a politics of polarization that will further weaken our nation. It is reprehensible.
President Bush is preparing to throw his “political capital” behind the Federal Marriage Amendment–quite possibly the most blatant act of political pandering I have ever seen. The only question is whether the people that this charade is intended for are as naive as the Bush administration and Congress obviously believe and they will accept this is an act of principle rather than politics. My guess is no.
—Sister Toldjah has a post that MUST be read IN FULL to totally get its main theme. Here is a tiny part (but read it in full):
One thing I want to be clear here is that there are some people arguing that there are more pressing issues to deal with right now than the gay marriage amendment: namely, tackling the immigration issue which has gotten very contentious. That argument has a lot of validity and I understand it. What I take issue with is the complaining that the President is “pandering to the baseâ€? – the base (and I include myself in that) didn’t mind the President pandering to it when he threw red meat to it by nominating Sam Alito, and getting offended at the idea of the President pandering to the base now makes little sense in light of that. In fact, if the President right now stood before the American people and announced his support for the House plan (the plan that I support), he’d be pandering to the base. But then the pandering would be ok, wouldn’t it?
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.