First published in the Chicago Free Press, February 21, 2007
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.