Coming Out for the Good of the Country

He's been vilified as an opportunist, a politician who changed his position on same-sex marriage only after someone close to him made an impassioned appeal for the rights of gay couples to wed. No, I'm not talking about Senator Rob Portman (R-OH). I'm referring to Barack Obama, who only last year, only after his vice president came out strongly for it, publicly endorsed same-sex marriage. Obama shifted his position after failing to go all the way four years earlier when running for president. Back then he merely favored civil unions. That was his stance through the first three years of his presidency, till Joe Biden spoke up and forced his hand. 

Was it a political calculation? Of course it was. Do Democrats and liberals admonish him for it? A little, perhaps, but nowhere near the venomous reaction they have had to Portman’s about-face. 

Was Portman’s conversion from opponent to supporter of same-sex marriage a crass political maneuver motivated solely by his son’s coming out, or did he arrive at a more tolerant state of mind after deep reflection subsequent to learning of his son’s homosexuality? Should Portman be applauded for his change of heart or vilified for hypocritically altering his position only when he and his family were personally touched by the reality that affects maybe 4% of the population? Did Portman show leadership by changing his position based on new family data, or would it have been a higher form of leadership to be out front on this issue, without any personal motivating force?

One of the more ill-used terms in political dialogue is that of “flip-flopper,” used with devastating effect against John Kerry when he ran for president in 2004. Mitt Romney took many a hit during his recent campaign for his one-day-this, one-day-that rhetoric. But do we really want politicians to cling to outdated positions, to rigidly stick to dogma even when public sentiment has overwhelmingly shifted? Even before the public has changed its collective mind, don’t we want our leaders to lead? Don’t we want them to bring us along to a more enlightened world?

Yes, back in 1996 then congressman Rob Portman was one of the co-sponsors of the Defense of Marriage Act. It defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. As president, Bill Clinton signed it into law. Just as Clinton has changed his mind (and Hillary Clinton just announced her support for same-sex marriage), so has Portman.  

Should it matter why Portman now believes in equality? I don’t think so. Even if it’s part of a new charm offensive by Republicans as part of their effort to woo minorities, women and independent voters, I’m all for it. I’m all for Republicans going on the record in support of progressive ideas. 

Why? Because I don’t believe hard core rank and file conservative Republicans will sit idly by as plank after plank of their reactionary party platform is torn away. The GOP hierarchy today released a report on why they lost the 2012 election and what needs to be done to win in the future. They have to reach out to blacks, to Hispanics, to women, to LGBTs, to those struggling to survive on an absurdly low minimum wage, to those who need Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare. 

At the state level, however, conservative Republicans will continue to push bills that deny women rights, that deny workers rights, that befoul the environment, that allow guns in schools, bars and other inappropriate places, that discriminate against everyone but the wealthy. 

We’ll be left with a bifurcated Republican party. And like the gay community they do not want to sanction coming together, the GOP will not be able to consummate a reversal of its out-dated, outlandish moral and political positions.

Modern Orthodoxy

After the 2012 election, orthodoxy, actually the lack of orthodoxy, will prevent Democrats from either enacting or stopping Republicans from trying to repeal progressive legislation.

As the last two years have shown, who is president can have little effect on passage or repeal of laws (with the notable exception of presidential signing statements or executive orders that often circumvent the legislative process).

A successful legislative agenda is determined by a handful of elected officials, usually senators who can freeze government action through whim or conviction. While for centuries much of the world, civilized and not, went to war over real or imagined slights to kings, tribal chiefs or their emissaries, American democracy shielded us from these petty but mortal combustions. We are now engaged, however, in the political equivalent of a bloody battle for control of the state wherein one side gives no quarter and the other must fend off defections to a united front.

With the near total disappearance of a moderate wing of the Republican party, we have on one side of the battlefield an army of representatives rigid in their orthodoxy to an ideology demanding lower taxes, less government, fewer safety net provisions, and more freedom to act as one pleases unless those actions conflict with religious, mostly fundamentalist Christian, beliefs. In other words, no abortions, no same sex marriages, no gay rights, more Creationism classes.

Democrats, on the other hand, are splintered. Some resist abortion rights. Some favor gun rights. Some battle immigration reform. Some question universal health care. Unlike the GOP, Democratic leaders command little party discipline.

Which brings me back to my starting point. Republicans practice orthodox politics. You’re either a hard line conservative (becoming harder every day) or you’d better find a new line of work. They have shown a willingness to shut down the government, or at least limit its effectiveness by holding up key confirmations or stripping necessary funding from departments in disfavor. It takes just one senator, often done anonymously, to derail legislation or scuttle a presidential appointment.

And when legislation does get discussed in the Senate, it takes a super-majority of 60 to end debate, not a simple majority.

All this means that barring an unexpected Democratic tsunami victory in 2012, the Dems will be hard-pressed to advance their agenda in 2013 and beyond. Even when they had a super-majority in 2009-2010 the lack of orthodoxy revealed how disjointed Democrats are, how even one of their own could challenge party leadership and the president.

If Republicans gain control of the Senate, but not a super-majority, they won’t be as powerless because there always seem to be a few Democrats willing to cozy up to the GOP in the hope of notching a conservative record that could be defended back home come the next election.

Politics used to be known as the art of compromise. Now it is strict orthodoxy to dogma, no matter how damaging it might be to the welfare of the nation.