At this delicate moment in the fight for the freedom to marry, the revelation that President Obama was not telling the truth while running for office and during his first years in the presidency, when he claimed he personally opposed same-sex marriage because he felt “marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,” is not helpful.
Yes, many assumed Obama’s position was taken for political expediency, but being cleverly disingenuous doesn’t make the side fighting for marriage equality look good; it makes us look deceitful. The story of Obama having “evolved” on this issue was a better model of how we hoped others would shift their views.
Opponents of marriage equality will present this, with some justification, as an act to manipulate the stupid yokels (who cling to their guns and religion). This is not the way to win hearts and minds of those who view marriage equality with suspicion.
More. Obama has denied lying about his views on gay marriage, saying that Axelrod confused the president’s personal views with his policy position, and that his policy position evolved. That’s pretty good spin, even if it doesn’t quite address Obama’s campaign statements that clearly sounded as if he personally opposed same-sex marriage because of the “sanctity” issue.
The truth is surely that if the polls had shown a majority of Americans continuing to oppose gay marriage, Obama would have remained in opposition as well.
Furthermore. Kerry Eleveld writes in Politico:
But the candidate voters witnessed never seemed particularly tortured by his stance. Between 2004 and 2008, Obama stated his opposition to same-sex marriage and his support for one man-one woman marriage repeatedly, robotically, and without flinching on numerous occasions. Few of those pronouncements were quite as spectacular as the one he made in 2008 on Rick Warren’s stage at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” he told Warren’s flock of Evangelicals. “Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
The implication was that, in his view, same-sex unions were not holy enough to count as marriages. It wasn’t the statement of a candidate who was squeamish about the consequences of his comments. Rather, it revealed a candidate who was perfectly willing to leverage religious homophobia in his quest for the presidency. In fact, the only hesitation Obama experienced in that moment came from an interruption of excited applause from the crowd.
The president’s loyal LGBT base seems split between two responses: (1) Obama was struggling with the issue for many years and eventually thought it through to the correct conclusion, and (2) Obama, being a smart politician, had to say he opposed same-sex marriage in order to get elected and (eventually) support marriage equality. And the correct answer is (3) Obama followed the polling.
Final word? Via Reason:
It’s not difficult to imagine a pro-choice candidate winning the presidency. But imagine, if you can, a president whose position on abortion “evolves” after the election. Imagine this president advocating that all innocent human life is worth protecting. Imagine that she appoints judges to solidify her new pro-life attitude. And then imagine that the president’s top adviser informs us that the president was a pro-lifer all along. I imagine that would be a pretty big story.
I’m glad Obama has appointed pro-gay-marriage judges. But I can also see why his being duplicitous is so unsettling. It’s reflected in other campaign deceits aimed at wooing the center, including his promises to bridge the partisan divide and to cut the budget deficit by half (a pretense with immense consequences).
31 Comments for “Obama’s Canard”
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t doubt that there are a good many politicians who did or who are still doing the same thing, including Republicans. Speaking only for myself I don’t care what they “really” think or how they “really” feel. I care what they say and do because that’s what has an impact on what happens in the real world. Is it kind of crummy if Obama was for gay marriage but said he wasn’t to win an election? Sure. I’m trying to think of a politician who hasn’t taken at least one bullshit position because pollsters told him or her to do so. Frankly there are more valid attacks on Obama’s record on gay rights, especially the justice department’s defense of DOMA in the first term. That had a real effect. Would it have helped if he’d come out for gay marriage earlier? Yes, especially in California (Prop 8), but could he have won gotten the nomination taking that stand? I’m not so sure. All this proves is that Obama acted like a politician. Is that supposed to be surprising? It wouldn’t surprise me if at some point we find out that McCain or some other prominent Republican was doing the same thing on the same issue for the same reason. And I’ll feel the same way about that as I do about this one. *yawn*
posted by JohnInCA on
Yeah, I’m gonna put this one in the same box as his “lifestyle” comment earlier.
A big “no deal”. People who have a chip on their shoulder anyway are gonna use it to make a fuss, people that don’t aren’t going to care. The thought that there is someone out there that supported marriage equality but after hearing that Obama did in 2008 changes their mind is just silly.
In case you’ve forgotten, people don’t really swap their beliefs that way. Lots of people go from “anti-equality” to “pro-equality”. Very very few do the reverse. This “revelation” isn’t gonna matter at all.
posted by Houndentenor on
More than anything it’s indicative of a political culture in which “leaders” follow public opinion rather than lead.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“…but being cleverly disingenuous doesn’t make the side fighting for marriage equality look good; it makes us look deceitful.”
Whoa there! Did Stephen just try to portray himself (the “us” to whom he refers) with the side fighting for marriage equality? Now that there is a hint of foreseeable victory by the leaders and worker bees who have been fighting this fight for a generation is in the aire, the same people against whom Stephen has ranted and railed throughout the process, suddenly and surreptitiously Mr. Miller wants us to think he has been part of the vanguard all along?
Tell me some more about disingenuity.
posted by Houndentenor on
Exactly, and in spite of voting for a ticket that promised a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage nationwide?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yes, many assumed Obama’s position was taken for political expediency, but being cleverly disingenuous doesn’t make the side fighting for marriage equality look good …
I can’t imagine why.
Anyone who didn’t think that the President’s positions on the issue of marriage equality were carefully calibrated to stay within acceptable boundaries of public opinion is hopelessly naive.
Americans aren’t naive about politicians — Americans expect, for example, that Republican presidential candidates will pander to the nohomo crowd in Republican primaries, but morph to a more centrist point in the general election — and the almost complete lack of reaction to Axelrod’s kiss-and-tell is evidence enough of that fact.
But the more interesting question is why Stephen thinks that the President’s behavor reflects on the gays and lesbians who were involved in the fight to marriage equality. I am aware that the President’s calibrations make a good talking point for the nohomo crowd, as well as anti-progressive conservatives like Stephen who feign surprise and shock that President Obama, unlike every other politician ever born, hid his hand, I can’t imagine that any of this will get any traction.
President Obama never led the fight, or purported to do so. Even the nohomo crowd never suggested that he did. Anyone who is marginally sentient is aware that we’ve made gains because we pushed for them, not because we asked for them. I think that Americans understand that, even if Stephen doesn’t.
The fight for equality, which began before the President was born, was never led by anyone in any meaningful sense. The “gay rights movement” was disorganized and fractious from the beginning. Anyone who doesn’t understand that has drunk way too much of the “homosexual agenda” Kool-Aid. I think that Americans understand that, too, even if Stephen doesn’t.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Not to distract from the important business of Obama-trashing, there has been a legal development in Alabama that is worth noting.
AL[dot]com reports this morning that the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed “dismissed a request by Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis to clarify Chief Justice Roy Moore’s order instructing probate judges to ignore a federal court ruling allowing same-sex marriage”.
According to the report, “[t]he justices wrote that they do not have the authority to address the question”, because it was a request for an “advisory opinion”, which can be requested only by the Governor or the legislature.
I’m not sure whether this signals that the court will also dismiss the emergency petition for a Writ of Mandamus that I mentioned last night in another thread.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Obama responded to Axelrod’s contentions in a Buzzfeed interview that was covered a lot of topics. The interview contains this quote as well:
“My sense is that the Supreme Court is about to make a shift, one that I welcome, which is to recognize that — having hit a critical mass of states that have recognized same-sex marriage — it doesn’t make sense for us to now have this patchwork system.
“It’s time to recognize that under the equal protection clause of the United States [Constitution], same-sex couples should have the same rights as anybody else.”
In his response to Axelrod’s claim, Obama states that the foundation of his thought(s) re: marriage equality was always ‘how to ensure equality for gays and lesbians while accommodating religious sensibilities’. (not a quote, but the gist of a longer comment).
In this interview, Obama ‘spins’ his past statements wherein he tied his personal faith to his opposition to same sex marriage. He posits his support for civil unions as an expression of the internal debate he was experiencing while working out his desire to see equality for gays and lesbians while recognizing those oppositional religious sensibilities.
I’ve always found fault with Obama’s pretzel-logic attempts to find some common ground between a religiously-based bigotry and a minority community’s equality. But it only seems reasonable that people – including Stephen – should go to the source (i.e., Obama) to hear his reply.
Here is the lesson Obama tells Buzzfeed he learned from his ‘evolution’ on marriage equality:
“These are the kinds of things you learn as you move forward in public life: that sometimes you can’t split the difference,” Obama said. “That sometimes you just have to be very clear that this is what’s right.”
The complete Buzzfeed interview – there’s quite a bit on lgbt issues, but it is a broad-ranging interview…
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/buzzfeed-news-interview-president-obama#.gh7mDA0lj
posted by Houndentenor on
I believe a lot of politicians in both parties thought this issue could be resolved with a compromise position. As frustrating as I found that at the time, I do think they were well-intentioned if misguided. I still hear the “what’s wrong with civil unions” argument from people who are well out of the loop on the issues involved in a separate category with no recognition in federal or international law. I think most get it and I don’t doubt that the ones who do in the GOP would be happy for the issue to go away. That wish underestimates the tenacity of the religious right on this issue. Brownback just rolled back nondiscrimination rules for state employees in Kansas and there’s huge resistance in Alabama to the court decision. Thinking that gay rights will be resolved and settled by 2016 just shows how out of touch Stephen is with his own party. These big city Republicans really do need to go meet their cousins in the red states and get edumacated.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… there’s huge resistance in Alabama to the court decision …
I’ve been doing a lot of reading of Alabama newspapers recently, including the “Comments” sections. I am beginning to think that the marriage issue brings together the elements needed to create a “Perfect Storm” situation, combining a number of factors that build upon one another.
Opposition in Alabama seems to be grounded in conservative Christian opposition to G/L marriage, but also seems to be amplified by the state’s historic aversion to “subjugation” to the federal government, conservative opposition to the power of the courts, and, lurking around in the background, race (the District Court judge issuing the order, the President and the Attorney General, who will order in the federal marshals if it turns out to be necessary, are black).
Outside of Mississippi (and perhaps Georgia) I doubt whether the amplifying factors are in play to quite the extent that they are in Alabama.
It might be that the amplifying factors are unimportant, in the sense that the result would be no different if the only factor involved was conservative Christian opposition to G/L marriage, but I wonder.
posted by Don on
Unfortunately, there is no middle ground with those who remain opposed to gay marriage. Maybe a handful. But not the organized opposition. There never will be. Tony Perkins wasn’t going to listen to the president’s evolution and ponder the merits.
I can see the truly principled position Stephen is taking. He lied about what he was really thinking and that makes “us” look bad. I don’t really think so. While I try to avoid moral relativity, this is such a glaring example that it has to be pointed out.
The “other side” has claimed this will lead to man/dog marriage, recruiting of children because we can’t reproduce, polygamy, and the end of civilization as we know it. While these are “sincerely held beliefs” they are lies nonetheless. And they haven’t stopped saying them.
While I agree with Hound on his point about “not caring what they really believe, but what they do,” I would say without a doubt that Cheney, McCain, and a TON of key republicans have deliberately hidden how they really feel about this issue. (Especially the dainty dandy of a senator from S. Carolina) Should we haul them out as well?
As Stephen regularly points out: ignoring “your side’s” behavior when pointing out the “other side” is just bad commentary.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The District Court in Mobile issued the following order this afternoon:
The court’s order is directly binding only on Probate Judge Davis, but it clears the way for plaintiffs in Alabama’s non-compliant counties to bring Section 1983 suits, and one by one bring the non-compliant Probate Judges into federal court, order compliance, and if compliance is not forthcoming, to find them in contempt and jail them.
I hope that the order will bring at least some of Alabama’s 44 non-compliant Probate Judges to their senses. But, whether or not that happens, the path to marriage equality in Alabama is certain, if not necessarily swift.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Two changes in Alabama since the District Court’s most recent order was issued: (1) Mobile County is now issuing marriage licenses, bringing the total of counties in Alabama in compliance with the District Court’s order to 24; and (2) Shelby County is now issuing licenses to straight couples, but not G/L couples, bringing the total of counties defying the District Court’s order to 19. As I understand it, 24 counties are still not issuing licenses to anyone.
We’ll see how this progresses on Friday. The situation would be helped considerably if Governor Bentley would exercise some leadership instead of, well, what he has been doing. Maybe now, looking down the barrel of what’s coming, he will.
posted by Jorge on
Is that so?
*Shrugs.* I always had him pegged as the opposite. I suppose that does make me look bad. So I’ll smear some mud on him and make him look worse. The power is worth the sacrifices that must be made. Such is the price of politics.
But the more interesting question is why Stephen thinks that the President’s behavor reflects on the gays and lesbians who were involved in the fight to marriage equality.
That is an interesting question. Do you think I maybe hit the mark?
I would say without a doubt that Cheney, McCain, and a TON of key republicans have deliberately hidden how they really feel about this issue. (Especially the dainty dandy of a senator from S. Carolina) Should we haul them out as well?
There’s being disingenuous, and there’s keeping a stiff upper lip.
I’m not sure there’s a difference, but I favor the latter. There’s just something wrong about telling someone you think they should be kicked out of their church because they’re having sex outside of marriage [that’s not the real life example I’m thinking of, but it’s close enough], but you shouldn’t pretend you feel hunky-dory about it, either. So what I do is try to split the middle. People make their choices for a reason. I do that out of hopes the balance will shift, but when you sit out on a social conflict, there’s always the risk that the balance will shift in the “wrong” direction.
We are starting to see which Republican fence sitters were leaning for the fence to fall which way.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: But the more interesting question is why Stephen thinks that the President’s behavor reflects on the gays and lesbians who were involved in the fight to marriage equality.
Jorge: That is an interesting question. Do you think I maybe hit the mark?
I don’t know, Jorge, and that’s an honest answer. I’ve been on IGF for a decade, and Stephen has always displayed an acute sensitivity to how things will “play” in the conservative political arena, almost always opposing anything that he suspects might make gays and lesbians look like anything other than model citizens.
At the same time, Stephen has seemed to very concerned that gay conservatives don’t do anything — like raise hell with the politicians taking anti-equality positions — that might cost gay conservatives “a seat at the table” in the Republican Party. His (and by implication I suspect gay conservative) mindset in that regard is almost dead opposite the mindset of gays and lesbians who were pushing change in the Democratic Party. I can remember many occasions when gays and lesbians in the party directly confronted (“told off” or “called out” might be more accurate) foot-dragging Democratic politicians.
You put those two things together, and it is easy to see an alternate explanation about why he might be worried about whether this, that or the other might “reflect badly” on gays and lesbians.
I suspect that Stephen doesn’t give two nickels about whether the President’s political calibrations about marriage equality might reflect badly on the gay/lesbian movement as a whole. I have read enough of Stephen, in fact, to suspect that he secretly cheers anything that might make “progressive gays and lesbians” look bad. I think that he is worried that the Axelrod kiss-and-tell might somehow “reflect” on the so-called “moderates” in the Republican Party, upsetting the careful calibrations that candidates like JEB Bush are making to staddle the issue for 2016, somehow sounding anti-equality enough to make it through the primaries will not sounding so anti-equality as to turn off the general electorate.
The need to “straddle” was behind President Obama’s indefensible and shape-shifting 2008 statements on the question, and you can bet that Tony Perkins & Company are going to hammer the point home in the fight between religious/social conservatives and the Republican “establishment” looking forward to 2016. I think that is what has Stephen sounding so worried.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t know, Jorge, and that’s an honest answer. I’ve been on IGF for a decade, and Stephen has always displayed an acute sensitivity to how things will “play” in the conservative political arena, almost always opposing anything that he suspects might make gays and lesbians look like anything other than model citizens.
That’s not too different from my own goals, but nailing the right balance with any accuracy is extremely difficult.
At the same time, Stephen has seemed to very concerned that gay conservatives don’t do anything — like raise hell with the politicians taking anti-equality positions — that might cost gay conservatives “a seat at the table” in the Republican Party.
Hmm, I’d caricature Mr. Miller as being very concerned that gay conservatives don’t ever support other gays people raising hell with politicians, etc., but I do think there is a necessary distinction between radical and liberal, between social and political. I never see Mr. Miller celebrate those liberal actions that are likely in the long run to make people realize that gays and lesbians are model citizens.
You put those two things together, and it is easy to see an alternate explanation about why he might be worried about whether this, that or the other might “reflect badly” on gays and lesbians.
Okay.
The need to “straddle” was behind President Obama’s indefensible and shape-shifting 2008 statements on the question, and you can bet that Tony Perkins & Company are going to hammer the point home in the fight between religious/social conservatives and the Republican “establishment” looking forward to 2016. I think that is what has Stephen sounding so worried.
Ah!
Too much drama, too much uncertainty for the presidential election.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The truth is surely that if the polls had shown a majority of Americans continuing to oppose gay marriage, Obama would have remained in opposition as well.
Probably, but maybe not.
President Obama, like most politicians, calibrated his positions to stay within the mainstream of political reality.
At the time when President Obama “evolved” polls were just coming up to the 50% point — the Pew Research poll from May 2012 showed 48% in favor, 43% opposed, 10% unsure. Within a few months after President Obama “evolved”, the polls began to show a majority in favor of marriage equality. The polls reflected a shift in most demographics after the President’s statement, most markedly among African-Americans.
However, even though the polls did not yet show majority support for marriage equality, President Obama faced a reality within his own party. Gays and lesbians had been at work in the party for years, and at the time President Obama “evolved”, roughly 70% of Democrats favored marriage equality and 23 state party platforms had adopted 2012 planks supporting marriage equality. He was under a lot of internal pressure to “evolve”.
He did so, probably because at 48-43 it was “safe” to do so, but the position of his party on the issue was almost certainly a factor, as I see things.
I’m not arguing with the idea that politicians follow public opinion — they do, and that’s a fact — but I am suggesting that politicians have to take two opinion realities into account — public opinion and party opinion.
When the two are more or less in sync (as was the case with the President’s shift in public position), it is hard to tell which was the change agent.
When the two are out of sync, however, party opinion often (usually) trumps public opinion — witness the Republican DADT repeal vote, which was strongly in opposition to repeal at a time when roughly 70% of Americans favored repeal. The reason that Republican politicians voted against repeal was that the Republican base remained in opposition to repeal, particularly that part of the base which votes most heavily in Republican primaries.
I wonder how this is going to play for Republican politicians going forward, as public opinion reaches 60% support for marriage equality but Republican Party opinion remains opposed.
Will Republican politicians give more weight to party (that is, primary election) or public (that is, general election) opinion?
Right now, we are seeing an attempted straddle (“I oppose same-sex marriage and point with pride to my long record in that regard, but I respect the rule of law while respecting the religious freedom of the many Americans who, like me, disagree, etc.”), but I don’t know if the straddle will be enough to shed the Republican Party’s well-deserved reputation for being anti-equality.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It looks like yesterday’s District Court order is having a positive effect in Alabama. As of noon on Friday, Freedom to Marry is reporting that 42 of Alabama’s 67 counties are now issuing licenses to straight and G/L couples.
I am assuming that Freedom to Marry will continue to update the list, but I don’t know.
Meanwhile the Washington Post reports that Probate Judges in eight counties are continuing to issue marriage licenses to straight couples but not G/L couples and are determined to make a stand:
We can expect Section 1983 actions to be quickly filed in those counties with reasonable dispatch, I suspect.
The good news is that Probate Judges seem to be coming around, and that Picket’s Charge V.2015 seems to be headed the way of Picket’s Charge v1863.
posted by Houndentenor on
“Obama followed the polling.” Again, Duh! That’s what politicians do. If we’re going to bemoan that there’s a long list of them to denounce. In fact there are very few of them that don’t and they tend to be on the loony fringes of either party or the folks who know they aren’t going to get elected anyway.
For example, does anyone actually think that Bush was being honest in 2004 in the debate when he said he didn’t know if homosexuality was a choice. Really? He just knew he couldn’t say that obviously it was not without alienating his base. And did Bob Dole really think there wasn’t enough evidence linking smoking to cancer in 1996? That one was the most embarrassing example I can think of because Dole is a very smart man and better than that. He said what his pollsters and handlers told him to say. I’m sure others will think of plenty of examples involving politicians in both parties. This is the state of our politics. This isn’t an exception. It’s the current MO of the politicians.
posted by Jorge on
Obama followed the polling.” Again, Duh! That’s what politicians do. . . . In fact there are very few of them that don’t and they tend to be on the loony fringes of either party or the folks who know they aren’t going to get elected anyway.
Hey! Just because they don’t have a chance to get elected doesn’t mean they’re not important. They can push the cowardly ones toward sanity if they get enough support.
I disagree with you anyway. I think the sane politicians who have opinions still end up losing.
Obama’s “clarification” confuses the heck out of me… twice. I’m just going to go back to thinking he’s always been an old fogey.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Obama, being a smart politician, had to say he opposed same-sex marriage in order to get elected and (eventually) support marriage equality.
You sound like that is a bad thing.
Consider the alternative: President Obama didn’t take political realities into consideration, and John McCain was elected President. Strong opposition to DADT repeal instead of successful DADT repeal. Strong federal support for DOMA in court filings, instead of reasoned arguments against DOMA. No executive orders expanding equality in federal regulations relating to medical care, employment and so on.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As of the end of the working day in Alabama, the situation has changed markedly for the better: 50 counties are issuing licenses to straights and G/Ls; 6 counties are issuing licenses to straights but not G/Ls; 7 counties are still not issuing licenses; and 4 did not respond to media inquiries.
We are getting down to the remnant now, the hard core defiant.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s not difficult to imagine a pro-choice candidate winning the presidency. But imagine, if you can, a president whose position on abortion “evolves” after the election. Imagine this president advocating that all innocent human life is worth protecting. Imagine that she appoints judges to solidify her new pro-life attitude. And then imagine that the president’s top adviser informs us that the president was a pro-lifer all along. I imagine that would be a pretty big story.
The difference in reaction suggests that the issue of abortion is very different than the issue of marriage equality, despite the long running arguments of conservatives that the two are identical or so similar as to make no difference.
I would also quietly point out that David Harsanyi is making a false comparison.
President Obama did not, in 2008, take the hard line position of Christian conservatives, the position that all recognition of gay/lesbian relationships was illicit.
He made clear that he believed that gay/lesbian relationships were deserving of equal treatment under the law through marriage-equivalent civil unions. He stated his opposition to both Section 2 and Section 3 of DOMA. He strong opposed a federal anti-marriage amendment. He spoke out against state anti-marriage amendments in at least two states that I recall. And so on.
In short, the President spoke about equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians. His position could not possibly have been confused with the social conservative position, although it was a confused and indefensible position, constitutionally. But the President did not put himself in a position remotely similar to that posited by David Harsanyi. It is for that reason that David Harsanyi’s comparison is a false comparison.
I have never expected precise or logical thinking from social conservatives, and David Harsanyi’s commentary does not give me any reason that I should change my expectations on that score.
Let me simply repeat what I said at the opening of my first comment in this thread: Anyone who didn’t think that the President’s positions on the issue of marriage equality were carefully calibrated to stay within acceptable boundaries of public opinion is hopelessly naive. Let me add to that this statement: Anyone who is shocked by Axelrod’s kiss-and-tell revelation is either gullible or stupid.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But I can also see why his being duplicitous is so unsettling.
Stephen, no matter how much noise you and your social conservative compatriots try to make about the President’s 2008 campaign positions, the simple fact is that Americans don’t care. Americans know that politicians calibrate.
Your post, with ever more insistent adds and changes, is becoming a parody.
President-Elect-Not Romney signed the “NOM Marriage Pledge” in 2012, pledging to (a) support and send to the states a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, (b) defend DOMA in court, (c) appoint judges and an attorney general who will respect the original meaning of the Constitution, (d) appoint a presidential commission to investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters, and (e) support legislation that would return to the people of D.C. their right to vote for marriage.
You vocally supported Romney, and presumably voted for him. Did you vote for him because you believed he would do what he pledged to do, or because you thought he was calibrating his positions in order to mollify the base, and wouldn’t?
You protest too loudly, it seems to me, as Dale of the Desert pointed out aptly.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Not that objective analysis would persuade Stephen and his comrades in their bubble…
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/sep/05/barack-obama/obama-says-he-has-cut-national-deficit-half/
But then again, it’s never been a really honest conversation.
So much for being an alternative to rigid ideology.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. The “Obama canard” seems a bit like “he said, he said”. Someone who use to work with the President is saying one thing, but the President is saying that this person was confused about the difference between personal beliefs and practical nuts and bolts of public policy. Who is right? Why do I care.
The nuts and bolts reality is that political support for marriage equality was initially expressed by a minority of the electorate. In the campaigns it was something that some Independent and third party candidates supported, but it was not something that major party candidates supported.
Marriage equality was thus not really “on the table” policy wise. Other gay rights policy issues were on the table and could get the support of elected officials.
Domestic partnerships were on the table in certain cities in the 1970s and 1980s.
Civil unions were on the table not too long ago. President George W. Bush could have come out in favor of civil unions (and it would not have hurt much in 2004), but he choose to push for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions.
President Obama choose to “evolve”, where as President George W. Bush choose to cut and run.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Reason seems to be lacking in reason…
—It’s not difficult to imagine a pro-choice candidate winning the presidency.
Well, I don’t think we have actually had a president get elected that believed in “abortion on demand’ — if that is how we are going to define the pro-choice cause.
Furthermore the comparison used in Reason between marriage equality and abortion law does not really make much sense. (setting aside the fact that some conservatives have made the case that gay rights supporters should not break bread with the pro-choice camp)
Again, it is theoretical possible for a ‘pro-choice’ candidate to get elected to president (although they would probably have to support some restrictions). It was not possible for a president to support marriage equality and get elected.
This is (largely) why presidential candidates that did support marriage equality were not serious or viable candidates, until recently. The Green Party was (at least technically) on board since its conception in the 1980s, as was the Libertarian Party in the 1970s. One of the things that third parties can do quite well — in our system — is carry the torch for ideas that eventually get picked up by the two main parties.
—But imagine, if you can, a president whose position on abortion “evolves” after the election.
I think that Bush sr. had a sudden change of heart when Reagan tapped him to be his Vice President and who knows what he really believed as President . Who knows what Mitt Romney actually believed about anything (because he went from left to right in a pretty quick period of time and largely because it was a political necessity)
In fact I suspect that a great many elected officials have little interest in abortion law beyond what will get them elected and then re-elected. Most serious candidates that want to be identified as being pro-choice generally talk about a desire to have abortion safe, legal and rare.
Gay marriage was not something that a presidential nominee could support, if he or she wanted to be a viable/serious candidate.
posted by Houndentenor on
Papa Bush did a complete 180 on abortion rights once he was on the ticket with Reagan. He was running as a moderate in the spring of 1980.
People, even politicians, ought to be able to change their positions on issues. I don’t know why that’s so taboo, especially when the new position is the one we agree with. Shouldn’t we all rethink our views based on new information or arguments? The fact that we are expected not to just shows the absurdity of our entrenchment politics.
posted by Francis on
I’m reminded of something John Maynard Keynes (will Stephen object?) said once: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
“I reject your reality and I replace it with my own” — costar on the Myth Busters TV series.
posted by Francis on
I thought it was “and substitute my own”.