Barack Obama, Yes. Gay Marriage, No.

National Review Online: Despite Electing The Most Liberal President Ever, Voters Don't Look All That Progressive

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Jonah Goldberg.

---

Behold the cultural contradictions of progressivism.
Barack Obama’s victory was a huge win for self-described progressives. Arguably the most liberal presidential nominee in American history, Obama has given some very old ideas an aura of new coolness. Congrats on all that. Hope it works out for you.

But something interesting happened on Election Day that didn’t get much attention. Bans on gay marriage were on ballots in several states, and they all won. In fact, gay marriage bans have ultimately passed in all 30 of the states in which they were on the ballot.

The ban in California was particularly intriguing. Proposition 8 would have failed in the Golden State if it were up to white voters, who opposed it by a 51-49 ratio. What carried it over the top was enormous support from black voters, with about 70 percent of them backing it. Hispanics also supported the ban by significant, though smaller, margins. In Florida, where a similar ban required a 60 percent margin, Amendment 2 just barely passed, getting 60 percent of the white vote. The cushion came from blacks, who voted 71 percent in favor, and Latinos, who voted 64 percent in favor.

In other words, Obama had some major un-progressive coattails. The tidal wave of black and Hispanic voters who came out to support Obama voted in enormous numbers against what most white liberals consider to be the foremost civil rights issue of the day.

Put aside the substance of the gay marriage debate; what’s fascinating is how these returns expose the underlying weakness, or at least vulnerability, of progressivism.

As a matter of practical politics, contemporary liberalism amounts to a coalitional ideology, while conservatism remains an ideological coalition. The Democratic Party is the party of various groups promising to scratch each other’s backs. Gay rights activists and longshoreman coexist in the same party because they promise support on each other’s issues.

The Republican Party is different. It says to voters, if you believe seven, eight or even ten out of the ten things we believe, you should be a Republican. Obviously, there are coalitions on the Right and ideologues on the Left, but I think the generalization remains valid.

But sometimes a tactical orientation can be confused for an ideological principle. That’s why the Left places such high value on unity, solidarity, and a no-enemies-on-the-Left mentality. That’s why Obama preached endlessly about unity and the evils of being “divisive” or “distracted” from what really matters.

Another example of a tactic masquerading as a principle is contemporary liberalism’s fixation with the idea that the working and middle class should “vote their interests,” by which they mean vote for the most government goodies. This was the point of Obama’s “bitter” and “clinging” comments last summer. Those poor deluded souls in western Pennsylvania don’t understand that their real interests lie with Obama’s economic agenda.

For all the liberal protests claiming that Obama’s “bitter” comments were misunderstood, his remarks were, in fact, mainstream on the Left. For instance, Thomas Frank, something of a guru to angry liberals, wrote in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? that, “People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about. This species of derangement is the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests.” And, he added at great length, it is the reason so many deluded working- and middle-class Americans vote Republican (or at least why so many did when Frank wrote his book).

This has always struck me as hypocritical, pernicious lunacy. Legitimate election issues are those issues voters decide are legitimate. Americans who cling to religion and guns don’t do so out of bitterness, but because they consider such things central to their understanding of the good life and resent what they perceive as hostility to their lifestyle from their own government. And no liberal opposes voting on values issues - including gay rights - when they think they’re right or if they believe it helps get liberals elected. Liberals denounce rich people who vote their interests as “greedy” and celebrate limousine liberals who vote against their own interests as heroes. And at least some of the folks who voted for Obama did so not because of their pocketbooks, but because of the symbolism inherent to Obama’s candidacy.

Regardless, Obama clearly succeeded in convincing enough Americans that a vote for him was in their interest. But he was incapable of convincing even his biggest supporters to vote their interests as he defined them and nothing else. That’s because Americans are defined by more than their paychecks, a fact I expect Barack Obama will come to appreciate more and more in the days ahead.

[arnold carter]

I am a black man that beleives that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I didn''t vote for Barack Obama because I don''t agree with some of what I call "Vital" issues that he supports. Some things to me are "Non-Negotiable" such as Same-*** Marriage and Abortion. It is my gut belief that if the majority of blacks that voted for Obama were honest they would admit that they did so because he is "Black" which in my opinion is "Racism". Which they have said for years was a "Whiteman Problem". Dr. King said that "a day was coming when men would not judge a man by the color of his skin but by the content of his character". Well that day has not come yet. Black people proved that in this election. The majority of them voted for a man because of the color of his skin. I know that they won''t admit it but it''s the truth none the less. Just be Honest

[samthetvcat]

---"This has always struck me as hypocritical, pernicious lunacy"---

I don''t know how representative of the GOP this particular pundit and his line of thinking is, but it seems to me to be not very productive to be stuck in the mentality of seeing cause for derision rather than opportunity.

Like if latinos voted in overwhelming numbers for the minority candidate but still voted to ban gay marriage, shouldn''t the GOP be feeling optimistic that maybe they can''t be assumed to be locked into the Dem party as a core group?

Because Latinos also voted overwhelmingly for Hillary in the Primaries, which also tends to point to the fact that they''re maybe more socially conservative than their votes for Barack Obama might tend to suggest.

Maybe the GOP need some fresh thinkers or something . . .

[deathofusa]

Ok ***, repeat after me YES WE CAN! Say that 3 times a day and all your problems will go away! Ha ha ha. You probably voted for Obama too! ha ha ha. My doctor said that when we do not have medication in this country anymore, he will be handing out prescriptions that read: Note to Patient, please repeat 3 times a day "YES WE CAN" and you are going to be healed. ha ha ha.

[elz523]

Thomas Frank, something of a guru to angry liberals, wrote in his book What%u2019s the Matter with Kansas? that, %u201CPeople getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about. This species of derangement is the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests.%u201D And, he added at great length, it is the reason so many deluded working- and middle-class Americans vote Republican (or at least why so many did when Frank wrote his book).

This has always struck me as hypocritical, pernicious lunacy. Legitimate election issues are those issues voters decide are legitimate. Goldberg



Here you go again with your straw man argument. Here''s the thing Goldberg, liberals think those in the middle and the working class who vote to provide ridiculously low taxes and other benefits for the rich are voting against their interests. It has nothing to do with gun and religion.

The right wing has exploited these voters for years by giving lip service to the anti-abortion movement, while asking them to support their plans for trickle-down economics. You notice the Republicans had majorities in Congress and controlled the White House for years nothing changed on the abortion side. That was not by accident. The Republicans do not want the anti-abortion movement to succeed. If it does they lose the only significant voting block they have.

[Mccarthyaw]

What part of "separation of church and state" do you not understand? Religious institutions have NO BUSINESS getting involved in this.

Here''''s the solution. EVERYONE gets a Civil Union. Then, if you want to get "married" in your church or wherever, GO FOR IT!! Just don''''t deny my civil rights, D*A*M*M*I*T.

1920''''s: Blacks 3/5 of a human being
2008: *** and lesbians 1/2 of a human being.

Posted by jcnbma1 at 07:50 PM : Nov 08, 2008

Yeah, that is really what needs to happen. In the eyes of the government, every couple who wishes to be together gets a civil union.

If you want to get married, which is in the eyes of god, you go to a church. Solves everything.

[podon1473]

thats the problem with ths country the people of same *** is getting trash on. there right are being violated. its peoples right to who they want to be with not the voter or the courts. if the laws was past a while back ago the law should stay for gay men and women to get married.just like the blacks did back n the 60s and 70s ok rember we fought for black freedom ok.that the problem people dont give a *** one bit. my wife is bi and i am broud to be with her i am a male.i suport the gayright marrage they are every right to be married to one other.ok what happened if no one was allowed to get married then what would u do ?

[podon1473]

see now that we have a new president dose not mean grap. gay men and women are humanbeings like us do u think. becouse ur pastor tells u to vote yes on 8 u listen ur dumb founded if u do and ur church is a cult then. god may say that stuff in the bible.rember we fought for a lot of black for them to have right like us white people so why cant *** have rights to get married.cali people are dorks

[scrapmancrh]

leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Back in those time''s, they''d take out the person''s doing this sin and stone them to death, but since Jesus came into the picture, his blood wash''s away all sin''s so we don''t need to do all the old punishment''s, but that don''t make them alright, love the sinner, not the sin! If gay''s want right''s, they should all go to an island together and not be allowed mixed with the non gay''s and also corrupt our children''s mind''s which is in all reality, child abuse!

[podon1473]

i think the people of cali need to grow up and get a real life and stop being losers becouse if gay men and women want to get married they should they are human beings. and the people that voted fo obama need to get real to now. it more like u people i racests. look what happen in the 60s and 70s with colored people and back way before are we fought for there freedom. GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!. NOW THERE fight for the rights. and its not fair the gay men and women i suport the gay men and women 1trillion%%%%%. so grow up people. ell they still can go to mass and england to get married.so there

[lanawonders]

Blame blacks for everything?...First of all, 70% or 100% blacks are still the minority...If the Homosexual community wants the black experience, then they should know that they need to fight for their rights, organize, protest, sway public opinion. Stop expecting the easy-route, don''t expect that ride on a coat-tail...And stop blaming others.

[pinkkitteh]

jumping the broom ,fyi- is a European pagan custom, not an African one. You people have no truck with actual history, do you? Marriage hasn''t "ALWAYS" been 1 male+ 1 female; it''s also been an interesting combination of 2 males 1 female, or 2 -50 females and 1 man....and you had to buy her first, but then you owned her for life. Glad they got rid of that rule, aren''t yall? During the Dark Ages, marriages were not only NOT sanctioned by the church, they were considered "earthly" contracts in direct opposition to God''s Will for Mankind. Marriages were perfomed on church STEPS, not IN the church, at all- they weren''t "holy" enough. It''s only our excuses for not doing what is RIGHT that change.

[noloyalisti]

That''s not saying much if he''s the most liberal ever. Obama is pretty much middle of the road, it''s just a big contrast between him and the right wing extremist wackos at the NRO and running the GOP.

Obama is still saber rattling about Iran and is in bed with AIPAC, the crazed fascist right wing Israeli lobby. He was talking about more drilling for oil and has not been a firm supporter of government single payer universal health care.

I guess when the government is owned and run by oil companies, arms manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies for so long, there is only so much one man can do.

[caldwellptr]

I guess we know what conservative / GOP ideology doesn''t stand for - Prop 8 takes away Freedom, adds government interference.

In a 1975 magazine interview, Ronald Reagan said: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

[lanawonders]

Does this mean...Blacks can Vote....But only how someone else tell them they must Vote?

[jtreynolds2]

Go to YouTube now and watch the North Carolina public school teacher browbeat her students who supported McCain. And get used to it.

[sincity_q]

Why the ** for the word g@y?

Good old CBS... ready to stuff the nation with any politics it sees fit to but without the guts to speak plain english.

[sincity_q]

First of all, let''s clarify things here...

To wit: *** are not a minority. They are a subsegment of society that has set themselves aside from several classes of the mainstream through a sexual preference that also runs counter to what nature intended.

(NOTE: Not interested in debating the issue of natural intention. If your exhaust pipe was meant for anything but exhaust, there would be potential for something coming out of it that wasn''t exhaust.)

Now, my personal feeling is that *** should be allowed to marry. God knows that the lesson here is to be careful what you wish for because... well, you might just get it! And there is an entire generation of divorce lawyers about to wet their britches to represent you!

But I can''t buy some inalienable right to wed. Nope... sorry.

[jolsonbear]

Actually I''m glad th at Gay Marriage is being defeated in every state.....As a Gay Man (not a real American) I no longer have to pay taxes. S*C*R*E*W the USA.

[jolsonbear]

If we based civil liberties on majority opinion, Barack Obama would be riding on the back of the bus.

[hypnotoad72]

Civil Unions = Separate drinking fountains.

Posted by jcnbma1 at 01:20 PM : Nov 08, 2008
----

If you say so. Now convince major religious leaders to re-write those portions of their respective religious texts that pertain to who can marry whom. I''ll get the popcorn, it should be very entertaining.