ELECTION SWEEP FOR MARRIAGE?: Michael Triplett replies to Maggie Gallagher

I know this is the conventional conservative wisdom, but I don't think there is any evidence that "values voters" care about marriage. They may care about keeping gays out of marriage, but that's not the same as being "for marriage."

The reality of the Rove strategy was to run on anti-gay sentiment and THAT, undoubtedly, was successful. The anti-gay marriage initiative campaigns were not waged on a "we need to save fragile marriage" platform. They were focused on stirring up anti-gay sentiment and attempting to exploit anti-gay feelings among white evangelicals, hardline Catholics and minority voters to both vote for the amendments and for Pres. Bush. There was very little discussion of marriage and the problems of the American family and what happens to children raised in marriage. In fact, I would argue it is both disengenuous and in bad faith to say those were the bases of the campaigns. Instead, the campaigns were designed to fan the flames of anti-gay sentiment, targeting the most anti-gay communities possible--African Americans, Latino, and white evangelicals--in key areas--the Florida Panhandle, Ohio, New Mexico and Colorado.

Despite predictions, this tactic did little to move African Americans towards Bush. Those numbers increased by 1 to 2 percent. About 50% of white Catholics voted for Kerry,despite this tactic. It did, however, bring out the 4 million evangelicals that stayed home in 2000 so it clearly was a successful tactic.

We don't really know what "values voters" stand for or even mean. Values clearly don't mean tolerance or acceptance. It clearly does not mean being opposed to war, concerned about poverty, or opposition to capital punishment. The weeks and months ahead will likely help us figure out what those voters meant or intended. What is certain is that it wasn't about a concern for the marriage movement or marriage issues.

posted by Eve at 7:11 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home