GOP faces ideological fissure
Ilya Beylin, The Stanford Daily, August 7, 2003

It's about time that 9/11 wore itself out as a topic of political conversation and that the American media and people refocus their attention on America.

Despite the insistence by the New York Times and company, the war in Iraq is long over; for the month of July, American casualty rates in Iraq were only slightly higher than in East Palo Alto.

With the new year approaching, and the Iowa primary scheduled for Jan. 19, the candidates vying for nomination are well on their way to defining the issues that will be decided in the 2004 election.

Historically, the pre-primary period generates a rich political discourse both within and between parties. During the period, candidates position themselves on the otherwise ambiguously broad political spectrums straddled by the two major parties. It’s an exciting time for political strategists, demagogues and thinkers.

However much the GOP may be united behind nominating George Bush, the pre-primary Republican debate shows signs of ideological fissure within the party.

For the last 50 years, the GOP suppressed its internal contradiction. Eisenhower skillfully combined the libertarian and isolationist past of the party with an increasingly socially conservative and interventionist policy.

Now that the Soviet threat is gone, the huddled coalition must emerge from its dark bunker. Those who still hide, terrified anew by 9/11, are intellectually irresponsible. Republicans must see each others' faces, recognize they are not brothers, and perhaps go off in separate directions. January could be the month of recognition.

Ethical issues--abortion, capital punishment, school prayer--usually prompt the loudest campaign quarrels. Often, these divide the two parties as much on the inside as from each other; there are plenty of pro-choice republicans and guillotine democrats.

This year, homosexuality will be a powerfully divisive issue.

During his Wake Forrest debate with then-Vice President Al Gore, George Bush articulated his position on gay marriage, alluding to the 1996 act signed into law by Bill Clinton:

"I think marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. I appreciated the way the administration signed the Defense of Marriage Act."

The act, for federal and interstate purposes, defined marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman." Last month, Bush reaffirmed his stance exciting controversy, disgust and vehement approval.

Since July 3, Bush has pushed the issue into the center of pre-primary politics. Most recently and famously, when asked about his opinion on gay marriage at a news conference, he responded that "we're all sinners."

His enigmatic condemnation puzzled the pundits: did he mean that it's sinful to be gay or was it an allusion to the humbling "let him who is without sin cast the first stone?" While most concluded that it was a clever way of playing both to the morally righteous and the libertarian right, few have yet grasped the emerging pattern of gay-baiting electioneering. Or maybe, like so many timid presidential hopefuls, media companies would rather skirt a subject that might alienate so many citizens, voters and subscribers.

Bush's statement on July 3 followed three events that happened earlier in June: 1) the Canada Supreme Court’s ruling that legitimized same-sex marriage; 2) the Texas Supreme Court ruling that the state's bigamy laws were unconstitutional because they compromised defendants' rights to privacy and 3) Democratic candidate's Howard Dean's accusations that the administration tricked America into an unwise war.

Howard Dean is the leftmost of the major contenders for the 2004 Democratic nomination. He also happened to be governor of Vermont in April of 2000, when that state became the first in America to recognize single sex unions.

Making the statements, Bush forced Dean and fellows to either disagree and adopt an unpopular stance or demure and risk losing voters to an actually liberal third party candidate. So far, Democrats have demurred, avoiding the politically poisonous bait.

Bush's strategy, however, is riskier than he may realize. Besides alienating the insignificant Log Cabin Republicans, it threatens a repeat of the 1992 election when pro-choice Republicans voted pro-choice rather than Republican and Bush Sr. lost the election.

Fiscally conservative Republicans who wish to minimize government intervention in the private sphere have long battled socially conservative Republicans praying to extend it. The debate over gay marriage can only speed this conflict's resolution.

There's evidence of friction at all levels of the party. Most prominently, between Bush and Dick Cheney, whose own daughter is gay. Cheney has openly supported the freedom of adults "to enter into any kind of relationships they want," and stated that civil union legislation should be left to the states.

While gay-baiting may be a winning short-term tactic, it isn't wise for the long term. Besides aggravating splits in the Republican Party, it utterly ignores the realities of social change and its direction.

Social conservatives maintain that society has been based on the family for thousands of years; that biologically, only heterosexual couples are capable of creating a child; that culture survived and developed because parents passed it on to children. They are right, except they're missing the last 100 years.

Now public education plays a significant role in children's acculturation. Now the nation's foster care places over one hundred thousand homeless children into adopted homes every year. It's understandable that alternatives to something as seemingly fundamental as family should inspire a backlash of outrage.

The sentimental romanticizing of the traditional family, however, ignores its sad reality today. If gay marriage or adoption of children by gay couples is diagnosed "unhealthy" for society, the same restrictions must extend to millions of heterosexual couples equally unable to sustain "normal" relationships or properly raise children.