Analyses of why the Republican party lost both houses of
Congress in the 2006 election are still coming in and doubtless
will continue for some time.
One of the most interesting is by Republican pollster Frank
Luntz in a post-election "Addendum" to his book "Words that Work"
(Hyperion, 2007). Luntz argues that Republicans failed to
communicate any principles or vision, that they seemed "rudderless
... disjointed, out-of-touch, and adrift." He could have added
arrogant and corrupt.
Luntz argues that Republicans were not only inept but sometimes
simply wrong. He cites the bungled war in Iraq, intervention in the
Terry Schiavo case, fumbled Hurricane Katrina relief, the porkitude
of that Alaska "Bridge to Nowhere," and the poorly explained
Prescription Drug Benefit.
He could have cited others: The Mark Foley affair, the Jack
Abramoff scandal, the threat of warrantless wiretaps, the endless
delays in approving Plan B birth control, and the obvious lie that
"we" were making progress in Iraq even as military and civilian
deaths climbed precipitously.
As more than one centrist or GOP-leaning voter told me, "I'm
just so disgusted I'm voting straight Democrat." Not that the
Democrats offered any alternatives. All they had to do was say, "We
aren't them." In 1946 the Republicans won the first post-Roosevelt
election with the slogan, "Had enough? Vote Republican." This time
it was the Democrats' turn.
But where in all this were gay issues? Yes, seven out of eight
states approved gay marriage bans but those seemed to have little
impact on other races just as analyses of 2004 Ohio results
suggested that the anti-gay amendment had no impact on Pres. Bush's
narrow victory there. In fact, some have speculated an amendment in
Virginia helped 2006 Democratic senate candidate James Webb by
drawing Democratic black voters to the polls to vote for the gay
marriage ban.
However that may be, I want to offer a thought about how gay
issues may have played an unobtrusive, almost subterranean role in
the election.
For one thing, introducing the amendment banning gay marriage a
second time when it had previously failed reinforced the idea that
the GOP was controlled by the religious right. Thus it could be
viewed as part of a cluster of moralist, religion-based policies
such as opposition to Plan B and sex education, bans on abortion,
and the Terry Schiavo intrusion that made Americans uneasy.
Second, although most Americans oppose gay marriage, most
Americans also oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to ban it.
Thus the GOP's repeated efforts suggested a zeal for a federal
government solution where none was wanted and supported the
perception that the GOP was becoming the party of big and intrusive
government--as witness the warrantless wiretaps, suggestions for
national ID cards, intrusive airport searches, and ballooning
federal deficits--very much the sorts of things Barry Goldwater
warned about in 1964.
Although issues such as gay adoption rights, permanent partner
immigration, hate crimes laws, or a federal non-discrimination law
probably had little impact, the gay military ban probably did
play--again--a subterranean role. Most Americans now favor the
integration of gays into the military so the current ban even on
skilled gay personnel such as Arab translators made clear that the
GOP's homophobic policies were getting in the way of its other
avowed goal--an effective military. It is not that Americans are
zealous to have gays in the military but the ban added to the
general sense that there was something wrong with the conduct of
the war.
So it seems that gay issues seldom if ever determine who voters
will vote for, but they can play a kind of unobtrusive role as part
of a cluster of issues that can be related to overall perceptions
about the role or efficiency of government, the presence of
sectarian influence and questions of honesty, clarity and
transparency.
If this is true, gays need to explain gay issues in terms not
only of justice, fairness, and non-discrimination, but relate them
to clusters of issues that can touch Americans' basic concerns
about the proper limits on government, the dangers of overreach,
opposition to scientific knowledge, governmental prejudice against
citizens, mutually inconsistent policies, hypocrisy (corruption
while moralistic) and cynicism (tolerating Foley's behavior while
being publicly anti-gay).
This all requires a number of things: that gay organizations
find ways to raise their voices a little more, that they find new
clusters of issues to relate our concerns to, and that they manage
to persuade our congressional and gubernatorial supporters to speak
out more often and more clearly about our issues in the context of
these clusters of ideas.