(Wikimedia Commons)
Alex Castellanos, a prominent Republican political strategist who you can see on CNN, said that Democrats “did win the culture war,” in an article from the New York Times (to be clear, not an article that he wrote, but one that he was quoted in). By “the culture war,” he really means the liberal vs. conservative social issues battles (mainly abortion and same sex marriage). The country is obviously swaying away from traditionally Republican positions on these issues to traditionally Democratic ones. These social issues are often considered “wedge issues,” issues that will divide an important voting block. The article’s main thesis is that, while Republicans use to be the ones exploiting these issues for political advantage, since public opinion has shifted on these issues, Democrats in the 2014 US Senate races are the now the ones using these issues for political advantage. For example, many saw same sex marriage as an issue that would scare some socially conservative hispanic voters (faith and family Democrats) away from the Democratic party, Democrats are using similar issues to scare socially moderate business conservatives (and especially the female ones or the male ones’ wives) away from Republican candidates. In short, Democrats are going on the offensive with issues that Republicans used to use against them in the same states.
What is especially fascinating is that public opinion has shifted so much that even Republicans in very culturally conservative states (such as Louisiana) are shying away from the issue (that being said, I don’t think Mary Landrieu, the Democratic candidate in that race, exactly wants her pro-marriage equality views to be blasted at voters either).
It is so interesting to me how far we have come since 2008 when neither Obama, Hillary, or John Edwards would support same sex marriage, even despite the pretty good evidence that at least one of them supported it privately. It is my speculation that neither Obama nor Clinton actually opposed it privately (as highly educated liberals I would expect them to support it), but opposed it publicly because they thought it would be a wedge issue that would divide the Democratic base (African Americans at the time, while voting over 90% for Democrats, staunchly opposed same sex marriage). Once, when asked by Ellen Degeneres whether a candidate that supported same sex marriage could win the presidency, Hillary responded “I don’t know.” To think that people are campaigning on this even in states like Virginia and North Carolina is insane.
So, the reason I posted this was 1) to introduce people to what a wedge issue is and 2) ask a few questions:
- In the US, there is a huge amount of single issue voters who vote based on primarily a candidate’s position on abortion In my opinion, social issues like this are accorded a huge amount of importance in politics—especially with younger people—relative to their actual policy implications (I think environmental issues would be the exception, but I classify those issues as economic issues rather than social ones). That’s not to say that these issues aren’t important, but, if we are to look at gay marriage, it is pretty clear that the tide is turning in the “right” (well, at least according to me and most of you) direction. Do you think there is too large of an emphasis on social issues in American politics? Should we take a word from Bill Clinton and think, “It’s the economy, stupid”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid? Or are social issues emphasized at an appropriate amount, or maybe not even emphasized enough?
- Why do social issue get so much emphasis and carry so much weight in American politics?
3 comments:
In my opinion, social issues are emphasized a bit too much in American politics. I think the buzz over where a presidential candidate stands on social issues can cause that candidate to take a standpoint that he/she may not actually support for the sake of popular support. This is exemplified by what you said about Obama and his cloudy stance on gay marriage prior to his election, as well as Mitt Romney and his changing views on abortion while he was in the presidential race. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/19/politifacts-guide-mitt-romney-and-abortion/
I think social issues carry an immense amount of weight in American politics because they are an easy topic to understand. It's very simple to develop on opinion on an issue such as gay marriage rather than something complicated relating to economic policy, a topic that requires more extensive research and isn't just a moral question.
I think a big reason that many people vote on social issues is that there is a sense that government can do more to change them. For issues such as gay marriage, the government is the one who will ultimately change the law. Economic issues, at least in a capitalist economy, have many other factors beside government policy. Though government policy affects the economy, especially with regulations,the market does not usually act solely on that.
I think that both of you make excellent points. I would add that not only are they easiest to understand, but it is easiest to understand how they relate to you as a voter (ex. the issue of gay marriage is going to be close to you if you know someone gay (or go to church), and the issue of abortion will be closer to you if you know a woman who has had one). Foreign policy is, as the name suggests, foreign, so it is hard to understand how it affects you as a citizen. And economic policy can be confusing and abstract. -Jordan Kranzler (for some reason, my last name isn't appearing)
Post a Comment