fling93 loves fishies

FMA a Political Mistake?

It’s interesting to see the different reactions of Dubya’s announced support of the FMA (constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriages, for those of you living in a cave). I’m not talking about the whole gay marriage debate, which has been going on for some time (and I weighed in here), but purely how people think of Dubya’s move in political terms. Specifically, whether it was politically motivated, and whether it will help or hurt him.

Because it’s an election year, most seem to consider it a calculated move designed to placate Dubya’s conservative base, which has been getting restless as of late. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post take that angle, and both generally seem to think it was a good move. The Economist thinks it’s too drastic a move for politics to explain it, which means Dubya is probably doing it for ideological reasons.

Me, I actually don’t see it as a politically savvy move, so I’m inclined to believe the latter.

The false assumption made by the New York Times and the Washington Post is that Dubya’s conservative base is homogenous. It isn’t. It’s made up of social conservatives (who generally don’t care as much about free markets) and fiscal conservatives (who generally lean libertarian, and thus support decreasing the size and influence of the government in both the economy and the private lives of citizens). To be sure, there is an overlap, but my impression is that this is relatively small.

While the social conservatives have been grumbling, they always grumble. They will always be positioned to the right of anybody who wins the White House because the winner always has to at least appeal to the center. But when election time comes, they will vote for Dubya over Kerry (or whomever wins the Democratic nomination), because he is the closest choice available to them. And as long as the outcome is in doubt, their turnout will be relatively high, so talk of “energizing” them is little more than just talk. Really, presidential candidates only need to placate them during a Republican primary, where their support is more in question.

The real grumblers as of late have been the fiscal conservatives who abhor deficits, tariffs, and expensive government programs. Supporting something that goes against libertarian ideals, increases federal power at the expense of states’ rights, and furthermore, mucks with the Constitution? This is only going to piss them off. Trying to satisfy the base by throwing a bone to the half he could count on and pissing off the half he couldn’t count on? This is not good politics. And I’m not the only one who thinks this. Calpundit and Sebastian Holsclaw have similar reactions from opposite sides of the aisle.

Of course, Democrats have a tough time positioning themselves on the issue (it’s hard to oppose the FMA and support civil unions in a soundbite), so I don’t think it’s going to hurt Dubya that much — unless the Democrats go after the fiscal conservative votes. But so far, they show little sign of doing that, instead tripping over each other on the outsourcing issue.

Personally, I think how the economy does in the next several months will really determine this election.