by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 27, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

alking a tightrope, President George W. Bush telegraphed his support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a relationship between a man and woman. With San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Bush felt compelled to take a stand. Even Democratic front-runner John Kerry (D-Mass.) miscalculated the potential fallout from opposing gay marriages. His state's Supreme Judicial Court already ruled that same-sex unions violate the state's constitution, denying equal protection to gay couples. With Democratic primaries winding down and presidential elections drawing near, Bush badly misjudged the repercussions. He had nothing to gain opposing same-sex marriage. Leaving the matter to the courts would have made a lot more sense, especially because Bush has already consolidated his base.

     Same-sex marriages promise to be a thorny issue for presidential candidates. Kerry's hasty response leaves him vulnerable to court challenges, should gay marriages become protected by the 14th amendment. Instead of rushing to judgment, Kerry would be better off deferring to the states or eventually the courts. Committing himself prematurely, Bush alienates independents and crossovers who might have otherwise liked his foreign policy but find his social agenda offensive. Gay conservatives in House of Representatives—so-called Log Cabin Republicans—are at odds with Bush's plans for a constitutional amendment. Even Bush's rank-and-file don't like the idea of amending the constitution to define marriage. Taking a stand on controversial issues sometimes backfires by inadvertently alienating voters. Attacking the gay community isn't Phi Beta Kappa during an election year.

     Diverting attention to wedge-issues takes the focus off more pressing matters like foreign policy and the economy. When things go badly, smokescreens sometimes save the day by shifting the debate onto extraneous concerns. But it's difficult to control unwanted events. Take Social Security, for instance. Out of the blue, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan suddenly warns Congress about how today's whopping budget deficits threaten Social Security. With baby-boomers approaching retirement, Greenspan urges Congress to act decisively to save Social Security by cutting benefits. Greenspan sees the current $531 billion deficit worsening when boomers begin drawing benefits. “I am just basically saying that we are over-committed at this stage,” said Greenspan, opening up a can of worms for president Bush, already back on his heels defending his tax and economic policies.

     Seventy-six million boomers—evenly divided on the ideological spectrum—don't want to hear that their Social Security checks are going to bounce. Facing a tight election, no candidate can afford to alienate a generation rapidly approaching retirement. Responding to Greenspan's bombshell, Bush says he opposes any change in benefits “for people at or near retirement,” hinting that he'd supports messing with boomers' expected Social Security benefits. Bush's answer involves giving younger workers Social Security saving accounts to invest in the stock market. After the market's last meltdown, retirees would have watched future benefits evaporate into thin air. Instead counting on the stock market, beneficiaries must count on government living within its means and balancing its checkbook. Greenspan must figure out a better plan to save Social Security than reducing benefits and punishing baby-boomers.

     Giving generous tax cuts, subsidizing a controversial Medicare prescription drug benefit and funding an open-ended war on terrorism has taken its toll on the federal budget. Social Security's trust fund isn't supposed to bail out the government's fiscal mismanagement, causing soaring deficits and diminished revenues. “This has always been a political football, something that the White House and Republicans don't want to touch,” said Stuart Rothenberg, an independent political analyst, identifying Social Security as Republicans' Achilles heel in upcoming elections. Instead of prudently recovering and pinching pennies after Sept. 11, the White House has been on an unprecedented spending binge, issuing whopping tax cuts and giving more largesse. In an era demanding fiscal restraint, the government wildly overspent and now wants to sock-it-to baby-boomers.

     Spending too much time on wedge-issues like, same-sex marriage and Social Security, could hurt the campaigns of both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry. Both badly miscalculate voter reactions, going public with personal views about gay marriage. Neither candidate helped their cause staking out clear public opinions. If the Massachusetts' high court is right, same-sex marriage is already protected by the 14th amendment, shielding gays from “separate-but-equal” treatment, including domestic partnerships and civil unions. More than gay marriage, Social Security promises to give the White House fits, answering how the government ran whopping deficits, created too few jobs and was unable to meet commitments to baby-boomers. Unlike gay marriage, Social Security raises serious questions about fiscal mismanagement and how the White House plans to meet its obligations.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.