After the last election, the GOP base and the religious right thought their top priorities for domestic social policy would finally be taken seriously. After all, it was “values voters” who sealed the deal for Bush and Congress, right? It was finally their time.
Or not. This year, the far right hasn’t received much of anything from the party they claim to control. True, Republicans scrambled to intervene in the Terri Schiavo matter, but in terms of legislation, the Dobson crowd hasn’t seen nearly any of its priorities addressed.
What’s more, the conservatives’ top demand — a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage — has been shelved indefinitely by its leading congressional sponsor, Colorado Republican Marilyn Musgrave (via Demagogue).
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has put her measure banning gay marriage on hold as she launches her battle for re-election, waiting to see what voters and the courts think about the proposed constitutional amendment before she takes any further action.
The two-term Colorado Republican has new worries after GOP leaders rated her as one of the 10 most vulnerable Republicans in the country, even though she represents a heavily Republican district. […]
In an interview with The Associated Press, Musgrave said she is putting her trademark legislation banning legal recognition of gay marriage on hold as states and the courts battle over the issue at the state level.
Oddly enough, Musgrave and others insisted we couldn’t wait to see what states did; an amendment was needed immediately to protect the institution of marriage. If we waited, they said, it could be too late and civilization would crumble. Now, all of a sudden, with the polls looking bad and Dems feeling optimistic, the GOP is ready for a wait-and-see approach. How progressive of them.
My question, though, is how the Republican base will respond to hearing that the item on the top of their wish list has been taken off the table. Again.
Way back in January, the White House decided that it had used the religious right to get what Bush wanted (votes on Election Day), and it was time to give up on this constitutional amendment nonsense. The base was displeased, to put it mildly.
President Bush came under fire from some social conservatives yesterday for saying he will not aggressively lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during his second term.
Prominent leaders such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and many rank-and-file Bush supporters inundated the White House with phone calls to protest Bush’s comments in an interview published Sunday in The Washington Post. “Clearly there is concern” among conservatives, Perkins said. “I believe there is no more important issue for the president’s second term than the preservation of marriage.”
Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family said, “I am sure [White House] phone lines are lighting up all over.”
In the Post interview, Bush, for the first time, said senators have made it clear to him the amendment has no chance of passing unless courts strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states from recognizing same-sex marriages conducted elsewhere. Challenges to the act are pending in state courts from California to Florida.
“It was not articulated that way in the campaign,” Perkins complained.
Of course it wasn’t. If Bush told the truth, he couldn’t have strung along all those right-wing voters. As it happens, Republicans on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue are also playing the base for suckers. The right-wing activists were livid in January, and now eight months later, have been told to essentially wait until next year, at the earliest. Don’t call us, we’ll call you.
I don’t doubt that Republican officials actually agree with Dobson & Co. on the substance of these issues, it’s just that they’re not willing to put their future on the line to fight over them. That “political capital” is reserved wealthy benefactors, not religious activists (see bankruptcy bill, energy bill, Estate Tax, et al).
The question then becomes how long, exactly, these “values voters” are willing to tolerate the occasional crumb, while the other half of the Republican Party gets a windfall. Sure, DeLay, Frist, Rove, Cheney, and others will appear at their events and say all the right things, but it’s part of a manipulation strategy. Sooner or later, the right will look at their list of legislative accomplishments and realize that there isn’t much there.
As Marshall Whitman explained earlier this year:
The dirty little secret of the Republican Party is that behind closed doors the establishment has contempt for the religious right. And the GOP illuminati certainly do not leave their homes in the morning with a passion to prevent Jim from marrying John or to save a fetus from an abortionist. For instance, many have loved ones who are gay, or they may be gay themselves. The powers that be in the GOP are far more concerned about eliminating the estate tax for multimillionaires than halting the death of the unborn. Here is a thought experiment – if you really believe that the sacred institution of marriage is in dire jeopardy, would you make private social security accounts your top priority?
The GOP big wigs pay obeisance to the religious right because they provide the foot soldiers for their campaigns.
I think that’s true. But, at some point, those soldiers will grow tired of being used. And when that happens, who’ll vote Republican?