Pundits who cast stones at social conservatives for the ‘08
thrashing need to look west.
Barack Obama won California handily, carrying most of the coastal
counties by huge percentages. But Proposition 8, an amendment
defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, passed
by almost half-a-million votes (52 percent to 48 percent)
statewide. The initiative carried the day even though same-sex
marriage was already legal in the state (courtesy of judicial
fiat) and despite the
linguistic gymnastics of California attorney general Jerry
Brown.
In Arizona, a marriage amendment passed 56 percent to 44 percent,
a remarkable turn-around considering the state shot down an
amendment in 2006. John McCain won the state easily. So, marriage
amendments passed in deep blue California and moderate red
Arizona during a wildly Democratic year (to say nothing of the
results in Florida,
another state that went for Obama). That says something about the
bi-partisan nature of the issue.
If only California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger realized it.
Appearing on CNN during the weekend, Schwarzenegger made no play
at moderation or fence straddling and instead
suggested that the California Supreme Court overturn
Proposition 8.
“It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end,” he said. “I
think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing
to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in
that area.”
Let’s be clear on what this means. A Republican governor is
encouraging a state supreme court to legislate from the
bench and overturn the will of the people — not for the first
time, either. To legalize same-sex marriage, the California high
court had to overturn Proposition 22, an initiative passed in
2000 that enshrined the traditional meaning of marriage in
statutory law. A move by the California supremes to strike down
Proposition 8 would be the second time the court overthrew the
will of the people.
As the LA Times describes it in a supposedly straight
news story, Schwarzenegger “appears to have evolved on the
issue.” I don’t know about evolved, but he has had a few mood
swings. He came out (pun very much intended) in opposition to a
marriage amendment before. Lest you think him consistent, he also
vetoed legislation passed by the state assembly that would
have legalized same-sex marriage. Now, he’s pushing a judicial
intervention to accomplish what he shunned the legislature for
doing before.
That’s the confusion we get when Republicans nominate and elect
moderate to liberal politicians. Remember the euphoria in 2003
when Arnold was first on the ticket. Even conservatives heralded
the event as a positive step for the GOP — just imagine
the possibilities a Republican governor in California would
bring, they told us. Well, now that Arnold has gone left of many
Democrats, we know.
Those who argue it’s better to have a leader who agrees with you
on some things than a leader who agrees with you on none need a
perspective shift. Successfully electing a moderate to liberal
candidate to office — whether for president, governor, or
dogcatcher — invariably tilts the party to the left. Better to
be true to principle and remain an opposition movement than sell
out and get a candidate who continually undercuts the
conservative cause.
The silver lining of McCain’s loss is that it gives the
Republicans a chance to revive the principles that lead to
revolutions in 1980 and 1994. McCain would inject even more
liberalism into the party and would have equivocated on the
pressing domestic concerns of our time. That was evident when he
supported the bailout package and was mute at the now infamous
meeting at the White House in September.
Candidates like Schwarzenegger are going to be the future of the
party unless conservatives realize that a win on election night
doesn’t necessarily translate into a win for conservative
principles.
