Pres. Obama and other pols didn't change Americans' stance on gay marriage; it was the reverse

[bigtree]

One take (here at DU) on David Axelrod's revelation in his book that Barack Obama was 'bullshitting' opposition to gay marriage in 2008 has been that there was something crafty or politically smart in his apparent decision to put forward a different view of his position in the campaign than he did 1996 questionnaire while running for the Illinois state Senate; namely that he was in favor of 'civil unions', rather than marriage.

The rationalization goes along with the view that revealing his 'true' position would have doomed his campaign against John McCain. Further, the reasoning behind the 'smart politics' defense of his said softening of his position supposes that there was actually something politically courageous, strategically brilliant, and stealthy in his epiphany a few years into his presidency.

I've written here that, we don't need to dwell too long on the utter immorality and political timidity of the president's earlier position which he had said was 'evolving' over time. There was no justification to be had for his insistence on sticking to his position against marriage equality and rights for gay Americans. There isn't any mitigation of those views to be had in his welcome and correct support of many other precepts of our LGBT agenda. There wasn't any justification for waiting so long to express this change of heart, I wrote -- no letting the powder dry; or waiting for the next election; or defending his reelection could justify maintaining such a selfish and hurtful stance.

Yet, I reasoned, there wasn't any more need to dwell on those transgressions when he made a decision to move forward to help change attitudes and the law. There's no more need than there was to dwell on the faults of President Lyndon Johnson -- a man who ushered in a new era of civil rights for black Americans and others; yet, couldn't keep himself from calling blacks 'nigras.' -- after he had his own epiphany and embraced the civil rights fight; enlisting every instigation of democracy he could manage to further the historic progress he ultimately achieved in making the federal government responsible and accountable for the defense of those rights.

What the President did with his statement -- just a couple of paragraphs; a few sentences -- was to make himself the primary target for those who would oppose these rights he advocated. through election years, President Obama was forced, challenged to defend his position on marriage equality as integral to the defense of his entire candidacy. This President had already demonstrated his capacity and ability to express empathy, compassion, and understanding on many issues in ways which welcomed all Americans to join in and participate. Indeed, President Obama used this issue as a measure of our commitment to each other; employed his defense in ways which ultimately united many of us. It's hard to understate the importance of this sitting president's embrace of these basic, but denied, rights.

What today's revelation by his campaign manager, David Axelrod, says to me, however, is that I was completely wrong to view his decision outside of petty, self-preserving political calculation. In fact, the very idea that he modified his public view for a political campaign is extremely abhorrent to me. It's that exact type of political calculating and timidity which I think represents a great deal of what's wrong with much of our Democratic party politicians' behavior; it's this kind of political hedging and prevarication which, I think, turns so many Americans away from participating in or supporting our political process.

It's just the worst kind of politics. Consider, if you will, what effect it could potentially have if our political figures took firm, principled stands and ran their campaigns around those, rather than modifying their positions to avoid backlash from bigoted republicans and others. What if they actually lead Americans in these campaigns, instead of stage a careful, frightened defense? I think they could accomplish a great deal with that attitude and stance.

Look at the state of support for gay marriage among those polled before and after his 'epiphany' in that interview which has been cited as a turning point in public opinion, as Ezra Klein reported in 2012:

... it’s not clear there’s been any movement that needs to be explained. The Washington Post/ABC News poll, for instance, showed 52 percent of the country thought gay marriage should be legal in March, before the president’s comments, and 53 percent though it should be legal in May, which was after the president’s comments. Polling from YouGov also showed no change.

As we know, the president didn't actually propose legislation to make gay marriage legal (although he did, thereafter, call for the repeal of the so-called 'Defense of Marriage' Act). What he now appears to have done, in his 'change' of position is what other politicians did slightly before and after his remarks: jump on the bandwagon of the growing movement in states to make marriages legal. With Axelrod's revelation, his remarks appear as politically craven as his earlier ones; made for his own petty political purposes.

Sure, we can suppose that he actually cared enough about the folks who were/are subject to this amazingly archaic and regressive discrimination to speak out (after his VP Biden jumped ahead of him). Barack Obama appears to be a sensitive fellow and I'm certain that the lives of the LGBT friends and associates around him must have weighed heavily in his decision to publicly out his political self. Still, right now, I can't decide who I think is worse on this, the president or his campaign adviser. Political smarts isn't what I'm inclined to attribute to their actions. Political cowardliness is one attribute which comes to mind.

[dissentient]

1. Totally agree with you, that makes it worse, not better

Maybe this guy thought by revealing this, it would put Obama, his boss, in a better light.

Nope, what a mistake. To admit the president was outright lying about his view makes it worse.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. ,

,

[closeupready]

3. WE did it, and I mean we in the GLBT community, because we fought.

Despite all the setbacks (like Shrub's press conference dedicated to denouncing the first winning court case in Massachusetts and in order to initiate a Federal Marriage Amendment), we fought back. I think it is that simple.

[F4lconF16]

17. +1000

It was the LGBT community who did this. We should take care to remember that. Same with Lyndon Johnson: yeah, he passed the Civil Rights Act, but only after intense pressure.

[JoePhilly]

4. President Obama will get a great deal of credit. Deal with it.

Anyone listening to him closely knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He provided lots and lots of hints. If you paid attention.

He also knew that if McCain won, DADT would STAND. (Odd you don't mention DADT, or changes he made for LGBT federal workers)

Obama correctly determined that in order to win, and to then obtain the right outcome, he needed to couch his language on the topic as a candidate. It helped no one if he lost (Unless you think McCain and Romney would have ended DADT, or improved the situation for federal employees).

And so, you've provided lots and lots of words up in the OP. When the actual history is written, all of those words (or words similar to them) will be replaced with a *, if mentioned at all.

DADT and DOMA will fall on Obama's watch.

And for a decade or two, the RW will BLAME OBAMA, loudly, for having allowed it to happen.

Meanwhile, my sense is that for much of that time, you'll still be complaining that while it did happen, it didn't happen the "right way".

Good luck with that.

[bigtree]

5. I don't give a damn about his legacy

...and he isn't running a campaign anymore.

What I care about are the people who are affected by this discrimination. Period.

I see that you're still intent on viewing this in a political light; with your desire to have Barack Obama get political credit, rather than consider the potential benefit in a candidate who takes a principled stance, instead of a politically calculated one.


Here's my post celebrating his statement, at the time:

Forward, United, To The Fight For Equality

excerpt:

"There are, however, transformational moments in our history which usher in progress which can't be reversed or erased. I believe that President Obama's announcement, in his calculated interview released today, that he now fully supports marriage equality, is one of those earth-moving political decisions which will usher in a new generation of civil rights for those individuals in the LGBT community who have been deliberately denied basic citizenship rights because of who they love; who they choose to have sexual relationships with; and, who they choose to marry."

[JoePhilly]

7. You clearly care. You brought Obama up in your OP.

Now you want to pretend I made this political discussion?

I simply described a fact. Obama will get a good deal of the credit.

And trying to claim otherwise is silly.

And again, I didn't bring him up, you did in your OP.

[bigtree]

10. you read into it your own political predilictions

...I'm not to account for those in any way.

Nothing I wrote is intended to speak to enhancing or tarnishing his legacy. on this issue, I don't give a damn. Of course, as is the habit of many on this board, I'm certain you will continue to pretend that you can speak for me.

If I'm addressing that, at all, my view can be found in the praise I've made (and retained in this very post) for the importance of a sitting president making that appeal and in the inclusive manner in which he made his embrace of marriage equality. That credit I gave him, and repeated, seems to have flown right by your head as you were so intent on labeling me.

What I'm speaking to in this post is political calculation and prevarication for petty political purposes of avoiding republican criticism. It's a timidity which I don't believe deserves praise or credit for some brainy pursuit.

[Skittles]

31. good luck battling with table legs, bigtree

[cui bono]

9. Why so hostile?

You are taking all this way too personally. Obama is just a politician who happens to have been elected president. The fact that you are worried about his legacy and think that stating that it will be great is really showing another DUer what's what and that you say it all in such a mean spirited manner shows that you have lost the plot.

It's not about one man... it's about the policy.

Good grief.

[cui bono]

13. My reply was to Joe... not you!!!

I agree with your OP. I feel the same. It's worse if he lied on purpose. As I said in another thread it makes him part of the purposeful oppression of gays if he lied for his own political gain.

[bigtree]

15. long night at work, cui bono

I stay up way too long to post here sometimes.

Nice to find agreement.

(maybe some sleep would be in order)

[cui bono]

18. I can relate to that!

Sweet dreams!!!



(don't forget the little butt scratch, it really helps you nod off!)

[TheKentuckian]

22. Your entire logic is based on an unsupported premise "Obama correctly determined"

Personally, I think his position on the issue had no effect one way or the other. Whatever tiny portion of people that would have not voted for him if he supported gay marriage probably offset by dampened enthusiasm, the stray "fuck it" cross overs, and pissed people staying home or writing in probably offset and would come no where near closing the margin in any event.

Assumed incorrectly, I sez. The difference is don't promote that strongly held opinion as fact. Obama won so he must have been right is lunkheaded logic that in no way proves that what happened was the only possible path at all, just one of plausibly many.

I think it is a joke for anyone to pretend stating opposition to gay marriage saved the 2008 election. You think those against even believed it when he openly supported civil unions which they like little or any better.
Where are these millions of lost votes coming from that would flip the election? I think they are a figment.

[JaneyVee]

6. I call BS on Axelrod's statement.

I think PBOs views did in fact evolve over time. The difference is, despite his initial beliefs, he wasn't writing bills and legislation 24/7 trying to ban SSM like Repubs were and still are. He had beliefs which evolved but didn't try to impose his initial beliefs on others, hence his stand on telling DOJ not to enforce DOMA. So yes, I believe the gay community deserves the credit in changing his mind, and that is the great thing about having an open-minded president.

[Capt. Obvious]

8. Of course

But your ODS is showing or something.

Do you need to be shown the list?

[bigtree]

14. I forgot who I was addressing

smh

(my sincere apologies, CO)

[Maven]

16. He was a follower on this issue, not a leader

and the sad thing is: he could have helped lead.

Instead he helped perpetuate discrimination he actually opposed, for base political reasons. Shameful.

Thank you bigtree.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. You know, bigtree, I'm tired of hearing which straight folks did our work for us. Why don't you ask

LGBT people what we think? DU is full of LGBT people, with a wide variety of views on the nuances of Obama's views and evolutions. But we would all agree that the whole thing was done primarily and initially by us, from scratch fighting for life and love over death and ignorance. It took years and years and so much Democratic Party politics you would not believe. It also took big art, large demonstrations, truck loads of money and far too long.

[bigtree]

26. I get what you're saying, Bluenorthwest

...but it still burns me that he believed that moderating his public view from his reported ly more progressive one is seen by him, his campaign manager, and others as some brilliant strategy.

Is this only for marriage rights, or is there a whole host of positions that he believes are better modified to avoid criticism from the right wing in his public presentation of where he stands? Break that strategy down into other issues and you have nothing more than a dishonest, prevaricating politician. How far does he push that strategy for an issue? Does he reveal his true position all of the time, or does he leave the less progressive one under wraps indefinitely, until public opinion comes around?

I'm completely turned off by this kind of politics. i don't think it deserves any defense; much less the positive reaction Axelrod was apparently going for, as if to say that Barack Obama is more progressive than his public pronouncements suggest. It's a ridiculous and functionally useless strategy; not to mention dishonest.

[LexVegas]

20. An attempt to rehabilitate a past bigotry on his part. It should be good enought that he evolved. nt

[bigtree]

24. according to Axelrod

...he didn't actually 'evolve' - not unless you view coming clean on his true view and having enough cover from public opinion to tell the truth about his supposedly more progressive belief and contrasting that with his previous political dodge as an epiphany.

[Egnever]

21. Sorry but that is silly

In a perfect world maybe. But you are talking politics in america not perfect world perfection. Of course it would be great if everyone stood on their principles but all I can do is laugh at the idea it could be accomplished.

You are talking about adhering to principles against a party that hires people like luntz to craft the phrases used to deceive people. Patriot act! No child left behind...

The idea that hard principled stances would hold up even a small percentage of the time is just not approaching reality. Politics these days are poll driven affairs where the stances and statements are mostly planned out well in advance and there are reasons it is like this. Science! This isn't a new game.

When Obama was first elected only 38% of the US supported same sex marriage. He said what he did to get elected so he could change it. As have politicians since the dawn of time.

Pick your issue with minority support I can find you a politician who isn't telling you their honest opinion. They cant! When they do they lose.

Don't hate the player hate the game.

[bigtree]

23. that's a sad commentary on our democracy

...we should at the very least, expect to have an honest debate and presentation of views from candidates.

Elections are where candidates generate support for their positions. They should lead with their principles - not just knuckle under to the prevailing winds - otherwise all we have is a fashion show and no one is challenged to change anything.

You're right that this isn't a new game. In fact, it's been the same old game. We deserve much, much better from those who aspire to lead the nation.

[Egnever]

27. We get what we allow IMHO

Everyone seems to want a boy scout for a leader. Any appearance of weakness whatsoever is trounced on. There is no way you can run for any high level position in this country with any sort of blemish on your record and expect to get elected. This eliminates any chance of principled stances on anything.

We claim we want them but when one is taken it is picked apart or trumpeted to the roof tops if it is not a position held by the majority of people.

[bigtree]

28. I don't want a boy scout

...I want a leader. I think we deserve that.

We really will get what we ask for if we accept this kind of politically timid, finger-in-the-wind calculation from candidates.

[Egnever]

29. You want a leader till you disagree with them

Then they are disingenuous or a liar. In order to lead sometimes people have to be pulled to your positions not shoved. A leader IMHO knows the difference.

[bigtree]

30. that's nothing even resembling what I've said

...or believe.

Prevaricating isn't leading. It's political timidity, pure and simple. It's 'chess', or tiddlywinks.

[m-lekktor]

25. excellent post!

he came out for it when it was an easy thing to do and his political cowardice is being hailed as pragmatism.

[deurbano]

32. Agree, but I would add that I think Gavin Newsom may have had some impact.

Obviously easier for a politician to take that position in a city like San Francisco, but he already had political aspirations beyond mayor of SF, so it was still a risk...