POLITICS MAY 11, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
When Lyndon Johnson endorsed path-breaking civil rights legislation in the mid-1960s, he knew that he was irrevocably changing the Democratic Party. As he was affixing his signature to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he reportedly remarked to an aide that he was “signing away the South for 50 years.” President Obama’s decision to endorse gay marriage may yield a similar outcome by weakening beyond repair his party’s links with less educated, socially conservative white voters.
(For the record: what follows is a purely political analysis, not a critique of Obama’s decision on the merits. Many years ago, after sustained reflection, I decided that there were no arguments against same-sex marriage that I could regard as compelling, and I’ve publicly stated that conclusion more than once.)
Early last year, I noted that Obama’s political advisors were tilting toward what I called a “Colorado strategy” for the reelection campaign. Their focus was on an emerging new Democratic majority—a coalition of young people, minorities, unmarried women, and upscale professionals. This tilt would come, I noted, at the expense of the “Ohio strategy”—my shorthand for an effort focused on retaining support from white working class voters.
To be sure, this tilt toward Colorado as the electoral template was intended as a matter of emphasis rather than a flat-out rejection of Ohio alternative. After all, Obama won both Colorado-type states and Ohio-type states in 2008. It seemed reasonable to suppose that he could fortify the Party’s new beachhead in the Rockies without jeopardizing his standing in the heartland, the traditional key to presidential contests.
The issue of gay marriage will test that optimism. Consider Ohio. The most recent Quinnipiac survey, conducted before the gay marriage announcement, showed the presidential race tied—Obama 45, Romney 44. (Adding Rob Portman to the Republican ticket moved the race to a dead heat, 45 to 45.) If the prospect of gay marriage antagonizes older conservatives more than it mobilizes younger liberals, Ohio could shift back into the Republican column.
Or take North Carolina, one of the two rim-South states that the 2008 Obama campaign wrested from the Republicans. The state just passed—by 61 to 39 percent—a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. This suggests that about one-fifth of Obama’s winning 2008 coalition disagrees with him on the issue. It’s hard to know how many of these voters will regard the president’s support for gay marriage as a deal-breaker. But common sense suggests that it is likely to be more than enough to swamp Obama’s 14,000-vote victory of four years ago.
One thing is clear: Obama’s decision aligns the Democratic Party with the demographic future of the country. Young adults overwhelmingly support gay marriage, and they’re sure to win the fight by outliving their older adversaries. The only question is whether the future is now. There’s reason to believe it may not be: In 2008, Obama received 20 percent of the conservative vote, accounting for about 7 percentage points of his overall 53 percent share of the popular vote. (By contrast, McCain received only 10 percent of the liberal vote, accounting for only 2 points of his overall share.) Conservative democrats, in other words, provided the decisive margin in the last election—a margin that it’s not clear can be compensated for with additional liberals.
Ron Brownstein recently reported that “Obama’s senior advisors see the announcement as essentially a political wash,” one that changes the composition of the president’s support but not its overall level. If a single national vote decided presidential elections, this would be a significant claim. But because presidential elections are an aggregate of state contests, the location of support also matters. Alas, as I look at the shrinking roster of swing states, I find it easier to foresee electoral college losses than gains.
William Galston is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution an a contributing editor for The New Republic.
10 comments
Meh... I'd wager that the 20% of Obama's Tar Heel supporters who disagree with him on same-sex marriage are overwhelmingly black evangelicals. They aren't going to abandon him over this. What's more, one of O's biggest reelection hurdles is a fall-off in turnout among the young voters who voted in unprecedentedly high numbers in 2008. This marriage equality stance might be expected to help energize the young quite a bit. I vote in NC. Obama won the state in '08 with the backing of the 18% of the population that is African-American, the educated professionals of the Triangle and the State's exploding Latino population. His support among white, native Southerners was negligible. His support for gay marriage changes nothing.
- AaronW
May 11, 2012 at 3:12am
I hope Aaron is right and Galston is wrong. Given our experience of both, I shouldn't be surprised. Perhaps someone in Ohio will remember that Obama saved the auto industry. Perhaps they can be reminded. A successful political strategy depends on making different pitches to different audiences and doing it skillfully enough that you don't trip yourself up. But then, Galston has not had a notably successful career as a political adviser.
- roidubouloi
May 11, 2012 at 8:07am
My only comment is that it's unfortunate that Galston feels the need to include that disclaimer - his second paragraph. Unfortunate, but understandable. It's not only conservatives who are afraid to tell the truth. Good for Galston. When it comes to political partisanship, the force of symbolism far outweighs the facts. Let's hope Obi-Wan Kenobi is a liberal.
- rayward
May 11, 2012 at 8:53am
As to North Carolina, Obama doesn't need that. It was icing on the cake in 2008. I am kind of with Aaron on this one in that his support really changes nothing (or not much) and I base it on a different reason. Fox News put up a blurb that Obama has declared War on Marriage but quickly took it down, only a screen capture gave evidence of it. If Fox news, the propaganda network of the GOP, is reluctant to go after Obama on this, then maybe it is not such a winner for the Republicans after all. Essentially Obama has the same public position as Dick Cheney does, he is not coming out for a federal law in support for gay marriage, in this Democrats still have it both ways. And Galston is ignoring the Libertarian wing of the Republican party, if the Christianist base makes a big deal of this, then it could drive a wedge between them and the party.
- blackton
May 11, 2012 at 10:22am
From Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-11/obama-winning-investors-by-49-38-against-romney-in-poll.html "Investors in every region are betting on an Obama re- election. Seventy-four percent say he will either certainly or probably win another term, about the same as in January. Investors in Obama’s America have been rewarded. The U.S. stock market’s benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500 (SPX) Index climbed about 8 percent this year and is up 60 percent since Obama took office. " The economy, that is the perception of the economy will still be a more profound variable than a particular social conservative view, which more often than not is already aligned with the other party. Nothingburger.
- blackhat
May 11, 2012 at 11:23am
"President Obama’s decision to endorse gay marriage may yield a similar outcome by weakening beyond repair his party’s links with less educated, socially conservative white voters." In reality read "uneducated" for "less educated." I've had a lot of contact with "conservative" white voters, and they are intentionally and stubbornly ignorant. Some of them voted for Obama in 2008, but that was because they saw McCain running around America like a chicken with his head cut off after the economic crash, and they were seized with fear about their economic futures. Now that Obama has stabilized the economy and repaired some of the damage wrought by the fool that these people voted for in 2000 and 2004, they're ready to kick him to the curb. Socially conservative white voters are lost to Obama. The election in November could, indeed, come down to one vote in a particular state. That's why I appreciate the Dems leaking the story of Romney hacking off a gay guy's hair in prep school the day after Obama came out for gay marriage. It shows they're serious about winning. But the difference between Dem and GOP leaks is that the Dem ones are usually true and the GOP ones usually aren't (witness the lie in 2004 put out by the draft dodger G.W. Bush that Kerry was never in combat in Viet Nam).
- magboy47.
May 11, 2012 at 12:01pm
To the extent that hostility to gay marriage comes from African-Americans, I agree with commentators like Linda Hirshman (and disagree with the Bill Galstons of the world) that Obama's embrace of gay marriage is going to electorally harm him with this constituency. They will turn out for the first black President in practically the same numbers as they turned out for him the first time, especially as coded and not-so-coded racism will start to rear its head as the campaign gears up in late summer and early autumn. I also believe that there is little downside to Obama from older, socially conservative white voters in Ohio or practically anywhere else -- that demographic has now been sufficiently politically polarized at least when it comes to Presidential politics that older, socially conservative white voters who will vote for a Democrat for President probably already supported Obama in 2008 and will continue to support him in 2012 no matter what (these are generally folks whose fealty to New Deal liberalism is strong enough to outweigh their disapproval of abortion, gays or illegal immigrants -- and they are a firm minority of their age cohort, at least in Presidential elections where such issues are nationalized). The rest of the older, white voter demographic already dislikes Obama for various reasons, and will come out to vote against him no matter what. There might be some marginal loss to Obama among working class white voters between 30 and 50, who generally disapprove of gays and gay marriage. The problem here is that, like their older peers, this is a group that already tends to dislike Obama and those who voted for him in 2008 are probably partisan enough to vote for him in 2012 because simply because he is a Democrat and they hate their Republican bosses and their desire to eviscerate their paychecks more than they hate gays, blacks or Latinos. Again, those people are a minority in their cohort -- a solid majority of working class whites almost everywhere outside the Northeast will not vote for Obama for President no matter what. That said, there may be some marginal working-class white voters who may vote intermittently and could be targeted to vote Republican over gay rights issues, they way they were in 2004 in Ohio and other ballot-initiative states. Given the lack of anti-gay ballot initiatives in 2012 in competitive states -- and given the centrality of economics to this group over social issues in a year when job opportunities for working class whites continue to disappoint -- it is dubious that a lot of these people could be driven to the polls solely or primarily due to gay marriage this year. Too many of them are struggling to make a decent living for themselves to get so worked up about gays that they will take the time and trouble to vote on a Tuesday in November. That leaves one group for which more analysis is needed -- Latinos. This is a group of voters who generally disapprove of gay rights and gay marriage, and whose share of fervently anti-gay Evangelicals is growing. It's also a group of voters that doesn't share an unbreakable bond with Obama in the way African-Americans do, and could be amenable to anti-gay targeting -- not so much to vote for Romney instead of Obama but to sit out the election altogether, as many are wont to do. The real challenge for Obama from now until November will be to minimize the impact of his gay rights stance with Latino voters and to emphasize Republican hostility to Latinos and immigration instead. Perhaps it was no coincidence that the DOJ finally indicted Joe Arpaio yesterday -- the more stories like that take up the airwaves in the Hispanic media, the less time there will be of stories of gay marriage that don't play well with socially conservative Latino voters.
- wildboy
May 11, 2012 at 12:15pm
Very interesting article and comments. I fear the effect of the voter suppression laws passed in so many states targeting minorities, the young, and the poor; those who Obama will need voting to win re-election.
- Pnaut
May 11, 2012 at 11:32pm
Galston could be right, but he overlooks the likelihood that the turnout in North Carolina in November will be much higher than the recent vote there.
- bjones
May 12, 2012 at 12:04am
LOL
- subterra
September 26, 2012 at 11:18am