THIS may get my blogger license yanked, but I haven't the faintest clue whether Barack Obama's endorsement of Dick Cheney's 2004 position on same-sex marriage hurts or helps his re-election prospects, or hurts or helps the fight for marriage equality. For all I know, Mr Obama has summoned the wrath of Jehovah and a horde of locusts is descending upon the South Lawn even as we speak. What I do know for certain is that Mr Obama's announcement made me a little cranky, and in much the same way it made Radley Balko cranky:
Obama's statement doesn't change a single policy. He has basically adopted a federalist approach to the issue. To my knowledge, gay marriage also happens to be the only issue in which Obama embraces federalism. Obama apparently believes the states should be able to discriminate when it comes to marriage benefits, but if they allow cancer and AIDS patients to smoke pot, he asserts the supremacy of federal law, and sends in the SWAT teams. What a twisted set of priorities.
[...]
As leadership goes, it's little more than acknowledging the direction the wind is blowing. It hardly merits a new chapter for Profiles in Courage.
Still, I think it was the right thing to do, and I'm glad he did it. One only wishes his views on other civil-liberties issues were evolving, or evolving in the direction of justice.
Having declared my total ignorance of the net cash value of Mr Obama's flip-flop about legal gay nuptials, I will say that it seems quite sure to distract American voters somewhat from the economic recovery, such as it is. And one would expect this to force Mr Romney to spend rather more time than he'd like awkwardly imitating a conservative culture warrior. So Andrew Sullivan argues:
If this is a choice election, and social issues are salient, then Romney's in trouble. Every day he loses his economic message, his referendum on Obama gets shunted back a bit. So no surprise that Romney would rather not discuss immigration, gays, or marijuana.
I'm rather less confident that the salience of social issues ultimately redounds to Mr Obama's benefit, but I do think Mr Sullivan is on to something, and that Mr Romney's reluctance to serve up a second helping of primary-season red meat does suggest that the long, justice-bending arc of the universe confers upon savvy conservative Democrats certain advantages.
The cosmetic significance of Mr Obama's Biden-biddened evolution is that it allows a molecule's breadth of breeze to pass between the contenders' substantive positions on immigration, gays and marijuana, which are, otherwise, practically identical. Angling for the same median voter, the left and right candidate can generally be expected to more or less converge on most controversial social issues, all while winking to their more vehemently partisan supporters with coded rhetoric. However, in advanced liberal democracies, social change goes almost all one way: from right to left. The hazard for the Republican is to get too far on the wrong side of history—too far from the median voter—by sticking to the immutable conservative principle that granny's ways were the best ways. The hazard for the Democrat is to position himself too close to the hated mincing freaks at the far edge of tectonic cultural drift. As the centre shifts liberalward, as it's wont to do on social issues, the Democrat can tack to the middle by confessing enlightenment while also winning the fawning applause of his partisan base. If this is timed right, and it is best by far to err on the side of caution, both flanks of support, centre and left, can be reinforced. The Republican, in contrast, can move to capture the shifting centre only by abandoning his far right to the harsh judgment of history. It's not surprising that Mr Romney, who isn't working with much if any slack, isn't eager to mouth culture-warrior tropes at a time when he needs to butter up the median voter with his sensible centrist appeal.
So doesn't this all add up to advantage Obama? I remain agnostic because I don't feel well placed to accurately judge Mr Obama's timing. Apparently he'd planned to do this a bit later, and maybe he should have. As belated as his announcement may seem to some of us, it's not at all clear that it won't at this juncture do more to energise Mr Romney's previously enervated base than to rally the centre and left to Mr Obama's banner. I guess we'll have to have an election.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
The right thing to do is the thing that has the right effects. More specifically, deontological analyses of communications are weaker than consequential analyses, because the purpose of communication is to have an effect in the listener. The only real judgement you can make of a communication is its effects. So without knowing what the effects are, you are in a *very* weak position to state that it was the "right thing to do".
The only thing Obama's statement means is that neither party has brought out their Etch-A-Sketch.
(Both are still pandering to their base.)
NPWFTL
Regards
For those of you who think this is much ado about not very much, I would suggest that the more tactile gay rights story right now is the testimony of several Cranbrook School Alumni who many years ago saw a younger feminized boy restrained and assaulted by a lad named Mitt Romney.
Mitt characterized the assault as "hijinks" implying that assaulting classmates with less physical and social capital is an activity which may be placed in the category of youthful amusements. One wonders if the recipient class is ever consulted in this. And in apologizing for "going too far" Mr. Romney implies that there is some level of gay bashing which may be considered appropriate. So his crime, if any, was merely in miscalibrating the laugh out loud terror. "Oops, my bad."
I don't know about WW, but that is the story which left ME a little cranky.
Yes. Here is the link to the 5,400-word story by Jason Horowitz in today's Washington Post about Mitt Romney's prep school "hijinks" in 1965:
Mitt Romney’s prep school classmates recall pranks, but also troubling incidents
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmat...
That dog ain't gonna hunt.
The bullying was despicable, but was a very long time ago, Romney was an adolescent, and he acknowledges bullying is wrong.
You know what Obama did when he was in school? HE ATE A DOG!
because eating a dog is so much worse than harassing an actual person
Having spent significant time in an Irish boarding school for boys in my teen years, the allegations against Romney, even if true, are of a rather meek and mild nature.
The culture of boarding and prep schools is to often defer to the upperclassmen to enforce the school's dress policies and codes of conduct and comportment.
If the best you can do is place blame on Romney for the man's death from cancer 40+ years later, it is a testament to your despiration much more than Romney's character.
You know what Obama did when he was in school? HE ATE A DOG!
Well, I guess THAT dog ain't gonna hunt.
NPWFTL
Regards
In my book by a lot. In fact, I'd put people who eat humans above people that bully dogs.
He ate dog meat when he was living in a country where it is normal to do so. And it was given to him by his parents so I guess he had little choice. Anyway, our attachment to dogs is just a cultural thing - the Indians are attached to cows but how many people suggest that someone should not be indian prime minister because they've been to McDonalds?
"our attachment to dogs is just a cultural thing"
Nope. Humans bred dogs across the millennia to be our allies and friends, to be an integrated part of our pack.
Eating dogs is betrayal.
That story reminded me of high school. I can't run for office if that kind of stuff disqualifies candidates. We did the same exact thing to someone though he didn't harbor any hard feelings. It's a dickish thing to do and most kids did it in high school. So I won't be voting for high school Romney. Fortunately, he's not running.
That, sir, is not an argument.
If this were Crenshaw High instead of Cranbrook, and Mitt were a black adolescent manhandling a white girl, you all would be singing a different tune. Something on the order of "irredeemable thug" or "try him as an adult" or maybe "stand your ground". Certainly not "hail to the chief".
And don't even try to justify this as innocent prep school behavior. I'm sure Mitt's teachers were fawning over the lad's intelligence, maturity and leadership at the time. But an intelligent mature kid would have known right from wrong. And a real leader would have welcomed the new different kid. Mitt assaulted him.
And what does Mitt's violence tell us? (1) that he is a product of homogeneity, fearful and intolerant of difference, (2) that he is a coward, unwilling to face an adversary on fair moral or physical grounds, but willing to ambush him with a posse, and (3) that he is the product of privilege, confident that no retribution would ever dare approach the hem of his robes.
That's all I need to know about Mitt Romney. Character counts, and I'm done with this guy.
Humans bred dogs across the millennia to be our allies and friends
"Animals are our friends...but they won't pick you up at the airport."
-Bobcat Goldthwait
NPWFTL
Regards
Para 1. "Mitt were a black adolescent manhandling a white girl..."
Depends on want you mean by "manhandling?" Rape? I don't care the race, I wouldn't vote for a rapist. Not a logical comparison by you.
Para 2. "Don't even try to justify this as innocent prep school behavior."
Which part of "despicable" don't you understand?
Para 3. "fearful...intolerant...coward...unfair...ambusher...robed"
All that stereotyping about who Romney is now from his immoral bullying as an adolescent.
Para 4. "Character counts, and I'm done with this guy."
You were never not done with this guy.
Plus, way to play the race card on another commenter at The Economist. Lame.
I think you may be right. MSNBC host and MLK protege, the Reverend Al Sharpton, declared just this week that the GOP has declared WAR on black people:
It’s war on black people, it’s war on women, it’s war on immigrants… We have got to turn this around and start targeting in Missouri those legislators that want to roll back our right to vote!”
*
My apologies. Sharpton said that on March 16th - well before he and the Trayvon Martin family urged peace on 20th anniversary of the L.A. race riots.
I ate dog while living in Cambodia, knowingly, twice. Tasted like turkey, though the green curry sauce the second time was so wonderful and powerful that it could have been almost anything. I quite like horse, too. When I lived in Cologne, there was a butcher down the street that sold only horse. I remember walking to the store to buy some steaks with family and someone pointed out the beautiful steaks in the window of the Pferde Metzgerei and wondered why we didn't just buy those. The look of horror on their faces when I explained that Pferde was horse still makes me smile, even though it was not that unusual to eat horse in the States until quite recently. I remember listening to a couple of ethnic German women cackling about having put pork in a covered dish that they knew was going to be shared by ethnic Turks at an event at my daughters' school. Or when I was a kid the suggestion that someone might eat snail would have been a playground taunt, but now escargot is worth its weight in silver in selected markets near you.
Alan Bloom in "The Closing of the American Mind," suggested that conservative social culture is essentially defined by the negative, by what "we" don't do, what we are against. True, I can say, living straddling the cultural fence, even between Europe and the States, or France and Germany.
PETA is conservative?
Excuse me, but I believe you and RR both try to brush this off as adolescent behavior of long ago. Alec Leamas adds "boys will be boys" and other such bromides. So I ask again, if a gang of black youths ambushes a white girl, pins her down, cuts her hair off, and leaves her weeping, what would conservative America have to say about it? "Boys will be boys"? "Adolescent behavior"? "Hijinks"? or "Give him time, that kid is Presidential material"?
No. We want to try them as adults. We think one youthful misdeed tells us all we need to know about them, their past and their future. And we condemn it all.
Yet unlike them, Mitt Romney was born gagging on silver spoons. I had sincere hope that the enormous privilege of his upbringing might offer him the opportunity to embrace the world with a great generosity of spirit, like FDR, the Kennedys, Carnegie, or Gates. I have been waiting my whole political life for a true fiscal conservative with the sensitivity and character to unite this nation socially. I suppose Clinton was the closest, but now we get Mitt. How can you tie a nation together when your instinctive response to difference is amputation?
With this story all his patrician tendencies fall into context, and the moral foundation of his life is unearthed. From what I see, it does not look good.
It tells us he was in high school. the man is 65 years old. This had little to nothing to do with the man running for president
Provided the humans they ate were not killed by their eaters,I hope you mean like that soccer team in the Andes, not like Idi Amin.
But yes, my late doberman-German shepherd was kinder and nobler than many humans I know.If only she had had the ability to speak, she could have taught us a lesson or two about humanity.
He was lucky he was in Indonesia.I hear in Indochina they eat rats. In any case he was just getting ready for Washington politics.
But if they could they would and they wouldn´t do it expecting reciprocity.
"Excuse me, but I believe you and RR both try to brush this off as adolescent behavior of long ago."
I believe Stalin was in the seminary getting ready to be a monk in his teenage years. While at 15, St.Thomas Aquinas was an unsurpassed example of debauchery in his home town.
"With this story ...the moral foundation of his life is unearthed"
Seriously?
BTW, I am no fan of Romney.
Not planning to vote for Romney, or any Republican in November-- but dredging up something Romney did 50 years ago, while still a hormonal adolescent trying to fit in is a bit much. Yes, it was wrong, despicable behavior, but far outside the statute of limitations-- unless there's evidence of recent (say, the last 20 years?) physical gay-bashing by Romney, it shouldn't be an issue. Obama apparently experimented with drugs before he got his act together, and few (except for the screechingly reactionary media) make much of it. I also did some stupid things in high school, hurt some people I shouldn't have, and was victimized by others unjustly-- but it was an increasingly long time ago.
"I believe you and RR both try to brush this off as adolescent behavior of long ago. Alec Leamas adds...."
Despicable : deserving to be despised : so worthless or obnoxious as to rouse moral indignation. (Merriam-Webster)
I cannot speak for RR or Alec Leamas. Don't assign their sentiments to me.
Your earlier "You all would be singing a different tune" of prejudging and stereotyping that I would have a racist reaction has retreated to "what would conservative America have to say." I suppose that is progress.
How can you tie a nation together when your instinctive response to difference is amputation?
How indeed.
"I ate dog while living in Cambodia, knowingly, twice."
Shame on you.
"pork in a covered dish that they knew was going to be shared by ethnic Turks"
Shame on them.
All the other things about horse and turkey and snails are simply interesting cultural variation.
Suppose it was something that truly was just boys being boys. Maybe a wedgie. Guys pinning down a girl and giving her a wedgie is not the same as pinning down a guy to give him a wedgie. That you can't see the difference is truly bizarre.
"The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda."
"All the other things about horse and turkey and snails are simply interesting cultural variation."
From your cultural perspective. There are other cultures, and how they view dogs as opposed to horses and turkeys and snails says nothing about them. Your judgement of them, however, does say something about you.
Speaking of bullying girls. Dreams from My Father is the book that keeps on giving. Obama admits to shoving a girl who apparently liked him just to prove to his classmates that he didn't.
So to anyone who continues to bring up John Lauber against his family's wishes, I say "Justice for Coretta!"
"Your judgement of them, however, does say something about you."
Perhaps it is too horrible for you to accept I've provided a rational reason (betrayal) for condemning dog eating, and the cultural norms that condone it, so you must cling to the fiction that I arbitrarily condemn different cultural practices.
Address my argument by explaining why eating dogs is not a betrayal, rather than make lazy assumptions about me that I already demonstrated are incorrect.
IMO, the Philadelphia Eagles definitely need a quarterback who's a cannibal.
In China or Vietnam eating a dog is lunch or dinner.
And in S. Korea it is soup.
He didn't 'forget' he ate dog. And it wasn't some other kid's dog held down by a group of his pals.
Well, the eaten dog is dead, like the bullied student, so we can't get testimony from either victim to compare which is worse, hair clippings or Obama's stomach.
mmm I hear dog soup is good. The meat is sweet tasting.
Despite being a hedged comment, it is hard to say the statement was simply politicking. The numbers for gay marriage support, 50-48 last I saw, make it an incredibly divisive issue to comment on considering the people for gay marriage were, presumably, going to vote for Obama anyways.
Beyond that the recent economic numbers don't look so bad. Frankie Mae won't need money this year and gas prices look to continue to drop until the elections. The auto, financial, housing and construction industries all seem to be recovering to various degrees.
Obama could fight this election on economic terms and provisional the recovery doesn't nose-dive completely win.
I've heard of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I could even see combining the two into Freddie Mae, but where do you get Frankie Mae? Unless there's a federal corporation that I'm not aware of, which is distinctly possible.
I could even see combining the two into Freddie Mae, but where do you get Frankie Mae?
You can't join them together.
They Fannie and Freddie are of the opposite sex!
NPWFTL
Regards
Bloody iPhone. It does that. Perhaps more appropriate in response to a story about gay marriage but still not welcome. The Fannie to Frankie correct has happened to me before. I should have been more vigilant. Apologies.
"You can't join them together.
They Fannie and Freddie are of the opposite sex!"
So, you are for universal same sex marriage now, hedgie?
So, you are for universal same sex marriage now, hedgie?
Just pointing out how the writer was for a forced hetrosexual union.
NPWFTL
Regards
THIS may get my blogger license yanked, but I haven't the faintest clue....
Just because it's extremely unusual doesn't mean it will get you read out of the fraternity. That would only happen if most bloggers were self-aware enough to realize that their enthusiasm for being certain, right or wrong, was not a plus. But there's no real evidence of that.
Agree.
I'm just here for the jokes.
(Warming up for "live-blogging" during the Presidential debates.)
NPWFTL
Regards
At your age, Statler, warming up needs a whole 98.6 degrees.
My question is when did blogging require a license?
"but if they allow cancer and AIDS patients to smoke pot, he asserts the supremacy of federal law, and sends in the SWAT teams. What a twisted set of priorities"
Obama isn't strong enough to lead on these issues. Or he hasn't made the office of President strong enough to overcome the opposition. A deficit of leadership as they say. Perhaps he will lead from the front with a new mandate. Who knows.
Pard, he can make us gay marry with FBImams officiating.
If this is comedy, I don't get it. If it is a ludicrous statement against gay rights, I both don't understand and don't appreciate it.
The Rococo Inkblog Monster strikes again, and behold, angry projections followed with him.
With regard to presidential power, Obama has renounced none of the powers claimed by Bush including the right to do pretty well whatever he wants without judicial assert if he asserts terrorism.
I'm for marriage equality but also civil liberties, the latter being an issue with this president and his predecessor. Konker's comment about Obama not having strengthened his office reminded me of that.
...and that´s one more reason to call him "Trojan Horse Obama"
Statler would have said, "It's a hetrosexual thing, you wouldn't understand."
NPWFTL
Regards
I guess if Radley Balko doesn't like the candidate who doesn't mind gay marriage, he'd vote for one that would ban it.
In essence, even if Obama doesn't change a thing about gay marriage in the country, can we at least give him some breathing room for things that he would NOT be able to do?
Or, better yet, would Americans, while they are at it, please kick Tea Party idiots out of Congress, so that that branch of government can actually start doing something, and so that Obama could stop fretting over the need to veto bills?
Man, you are cranky. Obama takes a step toward a policy you presumably favor, you're upset. If he hadn't taken the same step -- which brought with it significant political risks -- you would have been upset. I wish he had taken a stronger stand, too, but he's not a dictator. He can't impose his will on Congress or the states, and if he tried, it would probably prove counterproductive. He staked out a stand on the issue and indicated which way his vote would go if a bill somehow made it to his desk. Not perfect, but something.
Merch, I think you're being too generous with the president and too stingy on W.W. It's pretty smart to identify the federalism as a measure of Obama's strength on the issue. When has either party, when addressing civil liberties, not gone for a national solution? This could be the first time since 1863. I'll grant that even a feint this way is progress but also a feint.
41% of WV democrats voted for a convict in a Texas prison cell over Obama.
green lighting gay marriage doesn't court the middle when 50% of population are anti gay marriage. a percentage of the other half are indifferent. if you are indifferent you are for it by default and this will not affect them either way. people are not indifferent on an issue and if they specifically state they are against it, this will impact their voting decision.
obama is in trouble
West Virginia should never be used as an indicator for whether or not a President is in trouble, just saying.
Otherwise I'm not sure this has much of an affect either way.
But what they were exercised about wasn't gay marriage so much as the suggestion from Obama that coal (the heart of the local economy) might not be the energy source of the future. It was a purely economics-driven vote, and not one with generally applicable roots.
Except coal is a non-renewable resource, so it is actually a scientific fact that coal will not be the energy source of the future.
You know that, and I know that. But the people there are in denial -- coal is, as they see it, their life. And they won't admit even to themselves that their local mines will eventually run out. Let alone that it might be a good idea to be working on an alternative.
That depends on how you define "future".I mean the time frame, not making dystopian jokes.
Please explain in greater detail your assessment of Mr Romney as an individual with "a sensible centrist appeal."
The Economist has been very one sided in supporting Romney without justification. 3 issues ago (?) Romney was a batter and Obama a pitcher. Obama was terrible looking while Romney was normal looking. Just one example everyone can go and look at. The positive slant to Romney with no justification in the paper is almost as apparent.
For some time now, the Economist has been very shameless in its not-too-subtle cheerleading for Mitt Romney. I can tell why - the Economist ostensibly supports socially liberal policies to gain centrist credentials, but in any matters that touch money or British national interests, it is blatantly one-sided. No wonder the Economist is in love with Romney, the Wall Street candidate for the American presidency whose policies are insensibly to the right.
The respect that I have for this publication diminished after I came upon this revelation.
Romney's "sensible centerist appeal" has two possible roots:
- compared to the rest of the Republican field
- considering everything he's said since leaving the Governorship of Massachusettes to be totally unrelated to his real opinions.
The first is defensible. Not, perhaps, perfectly accurate, but defensible.
The second is what Romney must be praying he can pull off, in order to have a chance of winning in November. His freedom to maneouver in that direction is severely limited by his reputation with his base. And admitting to being a massive liar is not great electoral tactics either. But that he is hoping to (which is what Will actually said) is not an unreasonable assessment.
The Economist has backed both Democrats and Republicans over their existence. British politics are quite different than American politics such that it is difficult to be on the right in America if you are from a place where all parties support equality, public health care, Progressive taxation, etc.
Besides, supporting Romney vs Santorum (side note: iphone autocorrected to sanatorium...) or Gingrich is different than supporting Romney vs Obama. We will have to wait and see on that.
The Economist has backed both Democrats and Republicans over their existence. British politics are quite different than American politics such that it is difficult to be on the right in America if you are from a place where all parties support equality, public health care, Progressive taxation, etc.
Besides, supporting Romney vs Santorum (side note: iphone autocorrected to sanatorium...) or Gingrich is different than supporting Romney vs Obama. We will have to wait and see on that.
...and yet here you are.
I doubt the Economist actually supports socially conservative policies. In being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, it's in line with a huge percentage of voters, myself included. Fiscal policy, in particular entitlement programs, have always been the Left's Achilles's heel.
Admittedly, Obama's statement has no real policy implications: marriage equality doesn't extend to one more person on Thursday than it would have on Wednesday. But what should the President have done? Marriage laws, in general, are a state issue. The states regulate who can get married, and if 31 states (including my own, sigh) enshrine a backward view of it in their state constitutions, what can the President do to change that?
Of course, one is right to point out Loving v. Virginia as an example of the federal government rightly getting involved in marriage. That came to the Supreme Court through the federal court process and allowed SCOTUS to strike down Virginia's law as incompatible with the Constitution. Prop 8 (and other anti-gay-marriage laws) are making that trek now and may be in front of the Supreme Court soon... but is that something proponents of equality really want, given the makeup of the court?
DOMA is another, more horrid example of the federal government sticking its nose into marriage. Part of that revolved around federal benefits, a constitutional scope (if not constitutional application) of the federal government's power. Part of that regulated the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, constitutionality TBD.
So that leaves us with a few things Obama could have done differently:
1) Say that all Americans shared the same right to marriage. I agree, he should have used the word "right". Would anything have been different today because of that? Would it have changed a single policy?
2) Made this statement earlier. Well, yes.
3) Stopped defending section 2 of DOMA. I'm not aware of a time when the DoJ has defended it, but it's possible they have.
4) Introduced a Constitutional Amendment promoting marriage equality? That would be a good, long-lasting remedy, but would never pass and would bring President Romney and his undoubtedly gay-friendly policies to the White House.
5) Issued an executive order striking down DOMA (or at least the parts of it his DoJ has not stopped defending) and ordering the states to recognize gay marriage? Besides being a sure way to lose in November, it would be found unconstitutional in a heartbeat.
When President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation began a push toward addressing our nation's greatest sin, Secretary of State Seward (among others) chastised him for showing "our sympathy with slavery" and issuing a mere half-measure that freed only a small fraction of enslaved Americans. Seward was right. So was Lincoln. He didn't go all the way with emancipation because he was thinking about the political ramifications of doing so. Would abolition have been better served with a President McClellan, or with Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, etc. switching sides?
I thought that, until the recent announcement, I saw a parallel between BO on gay marriage and Lincoln on slavery: both were allowing themselves to be seen to be pushed by others towards a policy that they privately favoured but feared supporting publicly.
They're all flip-floppers now.
How does that help Obama?
Not that Obama wasn't already a flip-flopper. See Predator drone strikes, killing US citizens, renditions, etc.
But, by explicitly flip-flopping on national television, he has forfeited a rhetorical advantage over Romney. The flip-flopper criticism of Mitt will ring hollow, even on the individual mandate. Poor M.S.
Except that he fliped in the direction that the majority of the country has gone. While Romney, on this issue, has flipped in the other direction. So, advantage Obama.
And that's before we consider that Romney has much more of a reputation as a flip-flopper. Whether he deserves that may be debatable (although I think he's earned it). But there isn't any real question that he's a couple of laps ahead there. Unfortunately for his prospects.
"Romney has much more of a reputation as a flip-flopper."
Exactly what I'm saying jouris. And by dramatically flip-flopping on national TV, Obama hit the reset button on flip-flopping. Except for the reliable left, everyone else will tend to shrug off criticisms of Romney and his etch-a-sketching, 'cuz both candidates do that.
Three things:
If they had both done roughly the same amount of flip-flopping, or even just the same order of magnitude of flip-flopping, I'd tend to agree. But I think in this case the difference in degree is such to be essentially a difference in kind.
Second, Also, while you and I may be aware of just how much flip-flopping each has done, I wonder if the bulk of the voters have a clue. Actually, I don't wonder -- I'm reasonably sure that they don't know. What they do know is that Romney has the reputation; and, since all politicians flip-flop to some degree, this one isn't likely to cost Obama much with them.
Finally, while Romney flip-flopping may be an issue (a huge one) for the Republican base, I don't see it being useful (even ignoring this) for the Obama campaign. Actually, the last thing they want is to bring more attention to Romney's positions when last in office -- because those are far less damaging than the positions he has been taking during the primaries.
P.S. I realize that those three are, to some degree, in conflict. But I think all of them are actually reasons to believe, that his statement on national television will not hurt him.
It must take a terrible suspension of disbelief to buy that polls indicating that "the majority of the country" supports homosexuals aping of marriage, when 32 states have successfully made affirmative efforts to define marriage as it has always been understood, most recently and notably swing state North Carolina, 61% to 39%.
cs r,
There is a difference between "flip flopping" and gradually changing one's public opinions. Mr. Romney's position on an individual health-care mandate has gone from nation leading (in MA) to absolutely against (what would he do on his first day in office?). He still defends his record in Massachusetts, but makes the weak argument that the individual mandate might be appropriate for some states, but not nationally.
Neither Mr. Romney nor Mr. Obama have been consistent regarding LGBT rights. Mr. Obama has, for several years, been moving slowly to the left on LGBT issues. Gradual movement is not the same as a "flip-flop".
None of this is to say that a quick change of opinion, or "flip-flop" is necessarily bad. As known facts emerge, I would hope that politicians adapt to them. Mr. Obama's recent statements on same-sex marriage seem to be in line with this sentiment. Mr. Romney's recent statements on the individual mandate do not.
Alec,
It would definitely be hard to believe polls indicating that a majority of American voters support same-sex marriage, when 32 states have affirmed one-man to one-woman marriage, if those 32 states had all voted last Tuesday. As it happens, only North Carolina voted on this last Tuesday.
The other 31 states that have outlawed same-sex marriage by vote have done so in previous election cycles. The national polls have only recently shown a majority or plurality in support of same-sex marriage. The trend is unmistakable, like it or not.
I'm curious: you write that "32 states have successfully made affirmative efforts to define marriage as is has always been understood." What do you mean by "always."? Marriage has had many definitions in human history.
Surely, you aren't referring to the Hebrew Bible, where marriage was often between one man and (more than) one woman?
"Obama has, for several years, been moving slowly to the left on LGBT issues"
Obama was for gay marriage as a state senator, then against it as a US Senator and President. Now he is for it again.
None of this is to say that a quick change of opinion... is necessarily bad.
Agreed. But we label politicians "flip-floppers" when they swap views for a political advantage, rather than a principled change of heart. It is the motive behind the change, not the change per se. And contra your assertion, the vast consensus of media opinion, despite its liberal bias, is that Obama's position on gay marriage is driven by political advantage.
It might be if I were under the illusion that a majority of those voting represented a majority of the population.
But as you may have heard, voting patterns vary rather widely between groups. And this is an issue where opinions vary substantially by age, which correlates with voter turnout. So a position can win an election if it is held by a substantial majority of seniors, even if it does not have majority support in the population as a whole. Which, I believe, it the case.
So, you believe that the more accurate measure for the sake of governing is a poll with questionable methodology rather than duly conducted elections?
Huxley,
Why would you trust a poll over and above the votes of the electorate? And why is last Tuesday the measuring point? I suppose you believe that support can only rise from last Tuesday?
I did mean "as always understood" in the Anglo-American context of our shared law (what is proposed to be changed), which has always required an act consummation in the form of penis in vagina intercourse to be valid.
Isn't the salient difference that Obama's "flips" in the 2008 campaign were "flopped" during his first (and God willing only) term in office? In other words, he took positions in order to get elected to the office, and then did the opposite? You know, what in civil affairs we might call a fraud?
In the matter of homosexual marriage, Obama flipped (1996 for), flopped (2008 against) and then flipped again (2012 for). That's more a flip-flop-flip than a simple flip-flop.
Alec,
"Why would you trust a poll over and above the votes of the electorate?" I wouldn't, if enacting law was the issue
But that wasn't the issue that you raised. You questioned the reliability of current polling, basing your question on the fact that voters from 32 states have enacted laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Many of these laws were enacted before national polls showed majority support for same-sex marriage. Sentiment on this issue is moving. Do I need to explain in more detail?
I appreciate your clarification of "as always understood." It would be foolish to suggest that Anglo-American law was, until fairly recently, aggressively anti-gay. Of course, in the second half of the twentieth century, Anglo-American law has become much more accepting of homosexual behaviour. I see no reason why it should not again be changed in this direction.
This may get my commenting licensed revoked, but I like the title of the linked Gawker article:
Barack Obama’s Bullshit Gay Marriage Announcement
On this afternoon's special broadcast, Jake Tapper echoed that [federalist] point: "The president said he thought this was a state-by-state issue."
UPDATE: Biden apologizes to Obama over shotgun comments on gay marriage
Vice President Joe Biden apologized to President Barack Obama Wednesday in the Oval Office for jumping the gun on the administration's public embrace of same-sex marriage and forcing his boss's hand, a person knowledgeable on the contrite exchange told Yahoo News on Thursday.
You can't have a shotgun gay marriage,
because someone has to be pregnant.
NPWFTL
Regards
A century from now historians are going to look back at 2012, scratch their heads, and say something along the lines of:
"In the midst of a faltering recovery to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the topics du jour were North Carolina's decision to redundantly ban gay marriage and President Obama's announcement that he personally supported a politically-safe position. What the hell were they thinking?"
I think a century from now historians may wonder why the US did not join civilised countries in legalising gay marriage.
About the economy: many of the 'brightest' politicians are already working on it. I sometimes wish they didn't.
I doubt these events will even warrant a footnote. We don't talk about issue of military bonuses which was a major issue in 1932.
A century from now historians are going to look back at 2012, scratch their heads, and say something along the lines of:
A century from now historians are going to look back at 2009, scratch their heads, and say something along the lines of:
"He had the 13 most powerful CEOs of the banks in the Oval Office - by their short hairs - and he didn't do a damn thing!"
NPWFTL
Regards
Are you suggesting he should have played the Ivan the Terrible card and have them executed right there?
"We don't talk about issue of military bonuses which was a major issue in 1932."
Right.Nor the alleged "Business Plot" against FDR.
I wonder how much of this is the recognition and acceptance of the innate tendencies of a minority and how much is the spread of a fade.Somebody should do a serious study on which percentage of the population defines itself as gay and whether it remains constant or grows over time.
If it does grow, I hope it grows in the male section of the population and not in the female.We may eventually put in practice Dr Strangelove-Gingrich´s visionary plans.
Are you suggesting he should have played the Ivan the Terrible card and have them executed right there?
"...what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
NPWFTL
Regards
Indeed.
although..." Okay, a simple "wrong" would've done just fine. "
All right, hedgefundguy, I give. What does "NPWFTL" mean?
A few heads on a spike would be nice.
No one woud cry over the end of the Blankenstein monster.
Not to be published on facebook, linkedin and so on.A prudent move.
You may change your mind if the monster grants you those 100,000 for your Vegas research project.
I'll just smile, take the money and then lobby for his head to be chopped off and see what happens. I didn't say what my research project was, did I? ;)
Nihilistic panty whiffers for the lost?
"historians may wonder why the US did not join civilised countries in legalising gay marriage."
Are you implying that if we feel uneasy about gay marriage we are in the same boat that Attila the Hun and Conan the Barbarian?
Enough on gay marriage already!
But this was a post about the median voter theorem!
Hum, read as an unsolicited pro Romney rally...
Example, you stated you didn't search or weren't going to write about Romney's flips. Um...okay... Don't I pay a subscription for you took information up so I can make a decision? Sounds like my decision was already made.
Should have concluded with Q.E.D. then. Noob.
Wrong.
You're working in short-piece form of recent event journalism. Which means, that if people read a few paragraphs, figure out they've heard the argument already - they'll just post whatever they figure they think about the argument without reading further.
If you actually want people to hear an argument about median voter, your first paragraph or two should introduce the general point you're trying to make and then switch back to the case to the point.
It's not that the form in which you lay out the story is not valid. It is simply that under the circumstances most people wouldn't read it after a certain number of sentences they find predictable.
If you started with the, say, 1994 presidential election of Ukraine, even if less people would bother to even try to read your story, most of those who'd do it will make it till the end.
Really? The President of the United States makes a statement on a civil rights issue that no other POTUS has ever come close to, seems it's worth talking about.
Yes it is important but TE seems to be focusing over much on this topic.
Given how strongly it bothers you to talk about this I can't help but conclude that you must be repressing some "feelings" of your own... :-)