Usually, the Republican Party’s “marriage” to the religious right movement is one of convenience. Lately, it’s become increasingly inconvenient for both.
The GOP’s base is frustrated because the party has ignored most of the movement’s initial, post-election demands — Arlen Specter was confirmed as the Judiciary Committee chairman with unanimous GOP support, the new co-chair of the Republican National Committee is not sufficiently anti-abortion, and Bush has publicly indicated that he would not lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. The party, meanwhile, is frustrated because it sees the movement as getting “uppity” at a time when lawmakers have more important matters on their minds (i.e., gutting Social Security).
So, the religious right has decided to play a little hardball, offering Republicans a deal: if the GOP wants Social Security privitization, the GOP better start working on gay marriage.
A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush’s plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The move came as Senate Republicans vowed on Monday to reintroduce the proposed amendment, which failed in the Senate last year by a substantial margin. Party leaders, who left it off their list of priorities for the legislative year, said they had no immediate plans to bring it to the floor because they still lacked the votes for passage.
But the coalition that wrote the letter, known as the Arlington Group, is increasingly impatient.
Radical movements are like that sometimes.
Truth is, this public squabble — the activists no doubt leaked their letter to the New York Times to make a point — is being exposed for what it is: an intra-party fissure that further jeopardizes Bush’s Social Security scheme.
In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House’s decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.
The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition.
“We couldn’t help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side,” the letter said. “Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue.”
The letter continued, “When the administration adopts a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda, it becomes impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings.”
In other words, the religious right doesn’t care about privatizing Social Security, but they’ll be good little soldiers and play the Republicans’ game — as long as their demands are met.
This will not just go away and, until it’s resolved, it’s a significant problem for the White House. The Arlington Group includes religious right heavy hitters like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Paul Weyrich, the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the American Family Association.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, declined to talk about the letter, but said, “The enthusiasm to get behind his proposals is going to require that he get behind the issues that really motivated social conservative voters.”
Asked to estimate the level of discontent with the White House among the group on a scale from one to 10, Mr. Perkins put it at 8.
I wonder if they know how amusing it is to the rest of us to see far-right ideologues at the grassroots level express such deep frustration with far-right ideologues in government.