Standing Up for Something; Falling for Anything

The Left Coaster notes a NYT article that describes the bubbling resentment being stoked among fierce social conservatives. They were enormously clear after the election that they expected to receive their propers from Bush, so you can imagine that they're not happy to hear that the gay marriage amendment is being tabled indefinitely. So what are they threatening? To withhold support for Bush's Social Security plan.

Are they kidding? Have they read the papers the last week or two? They might as well have said they would no longer support Bush's plan to have us colonize Mars. If I'm Karl Rove, I've just been handed a silk purse for my sow's ear. The President's Social Security plans--assuming he had some, and they were essentially as was leaked--are nearly dead in the water. Private accounts funded by benefit cuts and intense short-term borrowing, has nowhere near the support it needs to pass either house of Congress. I wouldn't doubt that some kind of alternate accounts scheme might develop, but White House trial balloons so far have come back as string tied to a deflated blob of latex.

So instead of wielding their considerable pressure in order to force Bush to accomodate their homophobia*, they have made their prospective punishment easy to absorb. If they wanted to bring Bush to heel, perhaps they should have targeted the desire to make tax cuts permanent, or to oppose any judicial nominee who doesn't make abortion a litmus test. But if Social Security plans as proposed go down the toilet, the Dobson/Falwell influence swirls down with it.

Nothing prevents them from upping the ante in the future, of course, but refusing to support a plan that almost NO ONE supports anyway doesn't strike me as much of a hardball strategy.

Which makes you wonder...are they playing hardball only for show?

*yes, I agree that opposing gay marriage doesn't prima facie make you a homophobe. But the people and groups pushing the bans are very clearly motivated, IMO, by a simple fear and loathing of homosexuals.
--TJ

Comments

[Zap]

There's many interesting angles to consider. From personal experience and traveling in evangelical circles, I get the feeling the REAL battle for them is Roe V. Wade, not gay marriage. Sure they oppose gay marriage, and oppose it demonstrably. But the pro-life campaign has many more years of effort behind it, is supported by the simple logic of not killing innocents; and an opening to advance anti-abortion laws is palpable.

Could be Dobson is sabre rattling with social security to prove the threats were sincere. Opposition to irresponsible privatization should be welcome from all quarters, because a tweak here and a compromise there, and the GOP will unify to roll back another socialistic imposition of the New Deal. You're correct believing the current "plan" has flat tires, but it wouldn't take much to fill them up and get them rolling. Instead of criticising Dobson, show your rational side and give the man a cheer.

[Torridjoe]

Give the man a cheer? Are you high? Putting aside the possibilities that his threat is either plain stupid or enormously and disingenuously calculated, I'm supposed to applaud someone who says they won't favor something because they aren't getting their way on something else? If they honestly don't like Bush's SS plan, they shouldn't contemplate supporting it anyway. From that angle, if they DO support it but just want to withhold it to get their way--that's certainly worth no cheer.

I certainly understand the political quid pro quo mentality, but I don't have to stand and applaud it. Your vote is not a proxied chit, to be redeemed at the most inconvenient time from the redeemer (small r...!). At least it's not an explicit one, especially for a guy you can't vote for again. Perhaps legislators can get away with the "what will you do for ME" approach, but public interest groups should expect no favors simply as payback for their support.

[Zap]

Just stand and applaud quid pro quo when a no vote on Gonzo (that ratifies him anyway) should be a filibuster, but you'd rather store political capital for other issues (abortion)? You and Dobson have much in common.

Of course public interest groups should expect payback. That's what they're interest is all about. A politician supports their agenda. They rally support for the politician. Politician wins election. Payback due.

If Dobson is truly going to muster support against privatization, then applaud it. Read the letter without paranoia and cynicism. Many of the value voters who rallied against gay marriage and legalized abortion, don't have "saving" social security high on their list. This is a "threat directed at Bush" in your prejudiced total war mentality. We can disagree on one issue and agree on another. Dobson was clear that gay marriage was at the fore, and is now expressing disappointment that something less serious is. Applause due. So, no, I am not high, but you are duplicitous and hypocritical and denounce what little you can get.

See, you think this is ONLY about brining Bush to heel. I think it could be social security isn't important to these folks, and they are disappointed that it has top priority. Which, interestingly, IS WHAT THE LETTTER SAID.

[Torridjoe]

Ouch! Touched a nerve. :)

I don't see that Dobson is storing anything at all. Either he's unaware that Focus on the Family's opinion is the least of Bush's Social Security problems right now--or he knows it and doesn't care, sending a tough message to impress his rank and file but winking at George about it.
Either he's spending his capital foolishly, or he knows he 's probably not going to end up spending much on it at all.

And I think both the above conceptions and your further comments suggest that it's not really earnest opposition. It appears to be much more withheld support, which isn't quite the same thing. It's not necessarily that they give a rat's ass about SS; they just find gay marriage more important. So their position on SS doesn't seem to represent any princple; it's just a poker card.

I freely and enthusiastically applaud Bush's typical supporters who oppose him on Social Security. Bill Thomas has some kooky ideas of his own on the subject, but he is almost singlehandedly driving the coffin nails into the proposal this week, and I think that's great. Olympia Snowe has also been unequivocal about the distaste for Bush's plan. If I had to pick a Republican Senator to represent me, she'd be it.

We don't countenance the misuse of illegal drugs here at AlsoAlso, so my "high" comment was meant in jest. Sorry if I riled you; just speaking in my usual passionate way.

[Zap]

I wasn't riled by the allegation of drug abuse, but I did think I riled you?

I read the letter. I read the Cudgel piece. I think the two are barely related, and this type of paranoia is why the left cannot attract the right. Everything is seedy and underhanded.

Could it be that the Focus crowd have little interest in SS reform? Absolutely.

Could it be they have big interest in protecting marriage? Absolutely.

Could expressing their disappointment that one has priority over the other be just that? Yes.

Why all the Cudgel talk and spin? You're not making friends who are supporting your position, even if from a postition of indifference. Bush's SS plan is a spending nightmare. The last thing we want from Focus is support in hopes of a quid pro quo. And that is the last thing Focus has offerred.

If James Dobson walked across the Potomac, the left would say, "Look he can't swim."

One battle at a time. Period. He's not enthusiastic about bankrupting us further to privatize SS. Yay!

Gonzo made way for the most disgraceful, image destroying, national shame in decades. Filibuster him. Next issue.

You're right. Dobson isn't storing anything. He's being upfront. You're storing a filibuster as if there's limitations to them. That's not where I see commonality between you and Dobson, it's in the accusation of picking and choosing issues. An accusation to which you are admittedly guilty and Dobson is allegedley guilty (and I doubt to be). Simple morality would suggest each issue should be judged on it's merits, handled accordingly, and without quid pro quo.