The May 9th 2012 interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts will go down in history as just one more example of how transformative President Barack Obama has been, particularly with regards to LGBT rights. In some ways, President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality is the capstone achievement, or rather, a clear declaration of his pro-LGBT rights agenda. Despite the extraordinary symbolic significance Obama’s endorsement has for the LGBT community and Civil Rights more broadly, it is important to analyze any real policy implications Obama’s endorsement has. Further, it is important to discuss any political impact Obama’s endorsement will have, positive or negative, particularly in key swing States such as Ohio and North Carolina. As I will argue in this post, though President Obama’s position has been made crystal clear regarding his support for marriage equality, the political gains or losses of said endorsement will prove to be inconsequential at best. As Mitt Romney so ‘eloquently’ stated in a recent speech: “It’s still the economy, and we’re not stupid.”
First and foremost, though I am an avid supporter of the President, I would be remiss to not mention that this endorsement was probably not something that President Obama was eager to announce. Let’s be clear, the only reason that President Obama publicly announced his support for marriage equality is because of VP Biden’s interview on Meet the Press. If Obama had continued his ‘evolution’ on the issue, he risked damaging his brand, especially since his campaign is attempting to paint Romney as a panderer and flip-flop who will stop at nothing to get a vote. That being said, it is the timing of the endorsement and not the endorsement itself that is surprising to many. No one in their right mind would believe that President Obama, through his policy, has not done more for the LGBT community than any other President in history. Whether it was his order to the Justice Department to no longer uphold the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or his repeal of the discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy, no one would argue that the President is not for LGBT rights. The reason this endorsement is so big is not so much that it makes President Obama’s position on marriage equality unequivocal (one only looks at his policies to see where he stands), but rather the perceived risk his endorsement has on his reelection prospects given what is expected to be a very close election.
Though I acknowledge the political risk in a sitting President announcing his support for marriage equality, given the fact that this election will be largely decided based on economic policies, I disagree with the notion that Obama’s support of same-sex marriage will have a huge impact on his potential for reelection. Indeed, I am critical of the President for his faulty political calculus and his refusal to publicly endorse marriage equality earlier due to fears of alienating his base. Now, there was a time when such an endorsement would be a death stroke for Obama’s reelection bid (think of 2004 when Kerry loss Ohio primarily due to anti-gay voters rushing out to the polls as a result of homophobia), but again, given the importance of the economy, his support is a non-issue to most voters. If anything, it energizes young people and LGBT members who felt slightly disappointed by his lack of declaration of support.
So why are pundits so quick to say that Obama’s endorsement may cost him votes in key States? For one, Virginia and North Carolina, which Obama carried in 2008, are still not highly keen on the idea of same sex marriage (NC just passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships). Further, as previously mentioned, support for gay rights may have contributed greatly to John Kerry losing Ohio in 2004, which Obama now desperately needs to win in 2012. Another reason why individuals perceive Obama’s public endorsement as risky is the belief that it will alienate Black voters, who have historically held conservative positions with regards to homosexuality. However, I would argue that Obama’s position does not carry the political baggage that it did for the Democrats in 2004. In a recent poll, Americans rated the issue of marriage equality as being the 18th most important issue in this upcoming election. Number one? Jobs and the economy. With regards to the wedge between Blacks and the LGBT population, since 2009, the demographic group that has increased their support for same sex marriage the most was African Americans. Finally, rarely are there single-issue voters. Those who are staunchly anti-gay were not likely to vote for Obama in the first place (social conservatives). So to sum up this point, Obama will not be hurt (and may be marginally helped) by his endorsement of marriage equality. No doubt, this will be a close election, but gay marriage will not be a deciding factor. We have 6 months until the election. It is safe to say that it will most likely not be an issue widely discussed on election day. Then again, if the GOP choose to make this an issue, they will lose. Despite my reluctance to believe this will be a major issue in the coming election, it may positively influence voter turnout for Obama supporters.
As Democratic strategist Krystal Ball stated, often times we jump on the political ramifications that politicians’ statements may have, and not truly appreciate the gravity and historic nature of said statements. President Obama’s public endorsement of marriage equality is important, historically significant and long overdue. He is the first sitting President to publicly endorse marriage equality. If there has been any doubt that our President does not support Civil Rights for all, let them now be officially squashed. This is a big day for all of Americans. As Mayor Bloomberg stated: “No American President has ever supported a major expansion of Civil Rights that has not ultimately been adopted by the American people- and I have no doubt that this will be no exception.” Mr. Mayor, truer words were never spoken.
~KJSW
No comments:
Post a Comment