“McCain Leaves Social Conservatives Cold”
by Casey Pick | March 13th, 2008 |I didn’t say it - Rick Santorum did. (Well, actually, the folks at RealClearPolitics chose that headline for his article, but if the shoe fits, I’ll take it.) Reporting back from a meeting of, in his words, “the who’s who of Hilary Clinton’s vast right wing conspiracy,” Santorum described McCain’s efforts to ignite the base as incomplete. “He talked about two legs of the Republican stool - spending/taxes and national security. But the third leg - social issues - went unmentioned.”
Good.
I’ve written before about how a McCain nomination helps make homosexuality more of a non-issue, and the fact that Santorum is throwing a fit on behalf of the anti-gay wing of the party is just more evidence. When I claimed that McCain was significantly more moderate on gay issues, there was some degree of disbelief in the comments - well, I say that we should take our opposition at their word when they say somebody isn’t with them. Santorum asks
“will the people who make up the backbone of the get-out-the vote effort go to work for him? Only if he demonstrates that his vaunted pragmatism and open-mindedness will lead him to different positions on some issues… more than better explanations will be needed.” (emphasis mine)
The former senator then goes on to dedicate a third of the article to McCain’s opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, and whining about the legislative and judicial progress GLBT people have made toward relationship recognition. When it comes to McCain’s position on homosexuality (however imperfect from our perspective), Santorum isn’t satisfied - he is desperate to get McCain to take up the anti-gay banner, and he’s fighting a losing battle. Everybody knows that in presidential elections, candidates shift right (or left) to get the nomination, and move back to the middle for the general election. This is especially true for John McCain, whose best chance of being elected in 2008 lies with independents and the 30% of Democrats who support his position on the Iraq war. McCain can’t risk alienating those friendly non-Republicans by coming across as a moralizing, Bible-thumping homophobe. Even worse, doing so would cost him his reputation as a person of integrity who is willing to disagree with his base. McCain needs to distance himself from the ugly aspects of the Bush administration, foremost of which is the sense that Nero was fiddling while the Rome was burning, attacking the gays when there were more important issues at hand. Bashing gays isn’t just unprincipled - this year, it’s bad politics.
Get-out-the-vote drives are important, but only if the votes are there. This is not a social issues election - it will be fought on the battlegrounds of the economy and national security. The boogie-man of same-sex marriage simply does not work anymore. McCain knows this. Former Senator Santorum does not… but then, he has a lot of time on his hands these days, so maybe he’ll figure it out. And if he doesn’t, who cares? Rick Santorum is blessedly irrelevant - which may be the best evidence out there that the Republican Party is changing, slowly but surely.
5 Responses to ““McCain Leaves Social Conservatives Cold””
“The boogie-man of same-sex marriage simply does not work anymore.”
Nationally? Perhaps. Probably so. On an individual state-by-state basis? Absolutely not.
North Carolina, for example: Currently (by the grace of our good Lord) the Republicans do not control our Legislature (or the Governor’s Mansion or the judicial branch, for that matter). If, for some reason, the Dems slipped up and allowed the Republicans to bring our marriage amendment to a vote in the House and Senate, and if it passed, you’d better bet that 2009 would be the landmark year when North Carolina’s historically Democratic legislature became Republican. The marriage amendment, if on the ballot, would swing our election so far to the right it wouldn’t be funny.
As bad as I think the national GOP is, our N.C. GOP is perhaps 10 times worse. If national GOPs equal prejudiced conservatives, N.C. GOPs equal not-quite-so-far-from-Old South racists and bigots.
By Matt on Mar 14, 2008
Fair point, especially given the recent rant by our friend from Oklahoma. Still, I tend to prefer to focus on the positive, and when evidence says that on a national level bringing up marriage as a scare tactic is ineffective to the point of ludicrous, I’ll take it.
By Casey Pick on Mar 14, 2008
The disconnect between national politics and state politics has always interested me.
I’ll use North Carolina as an example again, seeing as though I’ve lived here my whole life and know it best:
As I’ve said before, North Carolina has had, historically, a Democratic-controlled government. Local government, state legislature, governor’s office, judicial branch… Almost all Democrats (minus the conservative pockets around the state). Our biggest cities are all Democratic-controlled.
At the same time, however, North Carolina votes Republican when it comes to national representation. Even in areas that vote Democrat for state legislative offices, a GOPer holds the Congressional district. We have two GOP U.S. Senators (and before then we had Sen. Helms).
Take the history of our governor’s office into consideration: Since 1901, only two Republicans have ever lived in the Governor’s Mansion: James Holshouser (1973-1977) and James Martin (1985-1993).
Even then, going back as far as the first election of a Democratic-Republican Governor, you’ll see the overwhelming majority off all office-holders were Democrats (or that party’s predecessor).
The state legislature’s history is pretty much the same. There are only very few times the General Assembly has been controlled by Republicans. Since 1971, the Senate has never been held by the GOP. From the same time, 1995-1998 (immediately following the national conservative takeover in 1993-94) is the only time the GOP held a (slim) majority in the House.
This huge disconnect is interesting. Very interesting. And, I think, it shows how national politics doesn’t always have anything to do with how individual states and localities within them act or react to huge social and political issues.
By Matt on Mar 15, 2008
I have trouble sharing your rosie view of a McCain presidency. He opposed (sort of, with asterisks) the FMA on federalism grounds. He strongly supported the anti-gay-marriage amendment in his own state. His statements on DADT have been indistinguishable from Huckabee’s. Most frightening, he has promised his proxy on federal judgeships (not just the Supreme Court which in the next 4 years could easily see three vacancies - at least two from the ‘gay-friendly’ side) to the Santorum clique. Tony Scalia has made it clear that overturning Lawrence v. Texas is one of his highest priorities. Good luck to our gay friends in states like NC if McCain wins the presidency and tips the balance on the Supreme Court.
By tristram on Mar 17, 2008
I am a registered Republican, I was part of Log Cabin California’s sacrificial lambs for state house and state senate in California in 2002.
I find the Republican party great on all issues except equality. Yes the Democratic party does play lip service on some of key issues we care about.
Honestly this may be the first time I vote Democratic for president. When PFAW and other organizations show independent voters and liberal Republicans the real McCain, he will lose more votes.
Maybe it will take a McCain defeat to right the wrongs of the Republican Party. We need more inclusion.
It is perceived that McCain is leaving social conservatives cold, but he’s doing the lip service to them and its very uncomfortable to support him. I thought I could discount Bush’s social conservatism for national security when I voted for him in 2004. But I just dont want this pandering to have any reward in the future.
By Matt from California on Mar 18, 2008