|
The Sex War in 2004
The Republican operatives are banking that 2004 is going to be all about the War, and it probably will be, but Digby's got a recent post up in which he correctly says it's too early in this race to even know what the terrain of issues is going to look like in 2004. There's an early bet here, especially if we get Dean as the Democratic nominee, what one of those issues will be in 2004, and it's not the war that Bush/Cheney/Rove are hoping for either. On the heels of reading The Note today, the whole Santorum gay-bashing affair, and the outing of Mark Foley (R) in Florida's New Times, I'll review a post last year here, April 26th 2002, which included the following: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The cultural wars are nearly behind us, and if the GOP tried to re-ignite them, I think they would wind up burning themselves. Remember 1992, 1998 at the Ballot box? ...All Dean would have to do is quote Cheney, and how are the Republicans going to answer that? His are some of the most pro-gay statements ever spoken in the GOP. In fact, I think Cheney is partly responsible for the shift in national opinion on gay marriages:
In 1999, only 31% approved, 65% disapproved, and 4% had no opinion. By 2002, 40% "say they favor letting gay people form civil unions," 50% disapprove, and 10% have no opinion. That's quite a shift for just 4 years. At least 3% of Bush's minority Presidential vote total was from gay supporters, and it's not like he has a lot of leeway in who he can choose to alienate from that total, he's already got enough problems with his shrinking conservative base, and the Dems expanding multicultural base. I doubt very much that Rove, in a Bush vs Dean race, would make CU an issue. Besides, the liberal label only works on social issues when the candidate is also fiscally liberal. Otherwise, it's a losing issue nationally for the GOP. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Just a striking guess on the numbers, but I'd say that about 60-70% of Americans don't give a shit about this, and 15-20% are passionate about it on either side, but they are not going to change anyone of the 60-70% about a candidate on this issue, only turn them off. The losing Party on this issue is going to be the one who pushes the agenda. If its' the gay rights % that forces this issue onto the table, and the Republicans are able to claim a values posture, the Democrats will lose. If it's the fundamentalist preaching % whom are forcing this issue onto the table, and the Democrats are able to claim an inclusiveness posture, the Republicans will lose. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have a significant portion of their base who want a cultural war over this issue, and it's coming in 2004. Neither Party has DC insiders itching for this fight; but it's especially the case that this Bush administration does not want to go to the mat over sexuality issues (and much less, outlawing 'man on dog'). Since that's the case, and it's coming no matter what, then why not nominate Dean, bring it on-- a pre-emptive bid that would surely cause the fundamental preachers on the right to go ballistic with their attack. And further, the cultural imperialists on the right would then demand that Bush ("the verdict is still out") lead the traditional values attack on condeming the sinners. As we've seen, Bush/Cheney/Rove just don't have it in them to lead this attack. Hey, this might just be a redeeming moment for Bush, if he goes down in defeat without aligning himself with the bigots on the right. LBJ doomed the Democratic Party to the minority, when he aligned with the Civil Rights movement, because it was the right thing to do. I'm not so much pretending that Bush/Cheney/Rove would ever do the right thing; but they might, in spite of themselves, do so on accordance of their avoidance of the right flank's devisiveness in this cultural war. Jerome Armstrong on May 9 @ 3:25 PM
|