Often, we become so detached from
the original meaning of political catch phrases that we forget to evaluate whether or not they still have
value. The past informs the present, and the term “social issues” is one of
those terms, repeated ad nauseum to the point that we forget its origins. The
term describes an array of controversial topics from crime to illegal immigration
to gay marriage and abortion. No matter how varied the topics were, they were
all rounded up into “social issues,” because conservatives found a way to make them
revolve around one thing: social order.
Being “hard on crime” has always
translated to comforting those suburban white voters who find poor inner city
blacks threatening. Immigration makes our nation increasingly more diverse,
whittling away at the political power that has long been concentrated in our
majority white population. Positions opposing gay marriage and abortion are,
supposedly, designed to keep the nuclear heterosexual family intact.
There is a
reason why one of the men who coined the term in 1970, Richard Scammon, said
social issues were issues that appeal to the average voter, who was decidedly
“unyoung, unpoor and unblack.” In Scammon and Wattenburg’s book, “The Real
Majority: An Extraordinary Examination of the American Electorate,” they argued
that conservatives owned social issues, and if the Democratic Party intended to
survive it needed to focus on issues that concerned voters in middle America.
Economic issues ruled American
politics for the first half of the century, the two argued, but priorities were
changing. Concern about increasing drug abuse, violence, racial tension and
sexual promiscuity helped Nixon win the 1972 election by a landslide. He stood
in opposition to abortion and became “hard on crime,” which appealed to blue
collar voters George McGovern needed to win the election.
Fifty-seven percent of people
polled by Gallup in November 1972 supported the death penalty, increasing from
only 50 percent in March of 1972, suggesting that fear of crime and social
disorder grew in those years, fueling a need for law and order.
The Nixon campaign’s strategy of
focusing on social issues was a recipe for success that Republicans continued
to use to their advantage in 1980, 1984 and 1988. In regards to abortion, Reagan helped
popularize many of the talking points conservatives continue to use today. In
his 1984 Louisville, Kentucky debate with Walter Mondale, Reagan established
which party was on the right side, the moral side, of the issue:
“I believe
that until someone can establish that the unborn child is not a living human
being, then that child is already protected by the Constitution, which guarantees
us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all of us.”
Both parties
took ownership of the phrase and brought it into the popular political lexicon.
But, in the near-term, that was a mistake on Democrats’ part. Because
Republicans brought the term into existence, it was defined by their agenda. A
debate couldn’t be had, because foundation of the conversation on social issues
was founded upon what were thought to be distinctly Republican principles – The
protection of the white middle class nuclear family from disorder, crime and loss
of moral character.
If social
issues were defined by the opposition to abortion and punishing criminals with
no hope of serious rehabilitation, Democrats would continue to be on the
defensive as long as the term was used, and largely, they have.
Once the economy took center stage
again in 1992, Democrats’ used their command of economic issues too woo voters.
Clinton tried to walk the line on abortion by stating that he was not
“pro-abortion,” because he sought to make abortions rare, a tactic Obama
repeated in 2008, but one that, again, cedes the conversation to Republicans
and assumes Democrats must operate on their turf.
Nevertheless, social issues became
a topic of conversation again when George W. Bush won reelection in 2004 and
the media perpetuated the idea that “family values voters” decided the election
based on one exit poll question. You know the Republicans have won the
perception game when national news reporters interpret “pro-moral values” as
opposing abortion and gay marriage.
It became a catch-all for any issue
adversely affecting people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ people, poor people and
women. After the Reagan era and the emergence of the religious right, these
groups carried other connotations as well: Lazy, entitled, criminal and
promiscuous. Social issues also became code for tangential issues, or issues
that don’t affect white middle class America. The demographics of the U.S.
hadn’t changed wildly enough to convince the press that these were anything but
“niche” issues. Social issues remained second-tier for this reason, with
presidential debate questions on national security and the economy taking
center stage.
Journalists hadn’t considered the
economic ramifications of women not having safe, affordable, or legal (in case
Roe vs. Wade were overturned) access to abortion. Only four short years ago, I
recall being the only person in a room full of reporters to ask a newly
announced candidate for U.S. Senate where he stood on abortion or gay marriage.
The pattern continued for the remainder of my reporting on U.S. Congress and
Senate races that spring.
The conversation has come a long
way since then. Although both Democrats and Republicans kept a safe distance
from the topic of abortion and gay marriage in 2008, and continued to remain cautious
in the 2010 elections, the truce didn’t last for long.
Now Democrats have reclaimed the
content of the debate on these separate issues, and presented their point of
the view as the moral and humane one. As
a Republican-led House and many statehouses across the country continue to
cater to what they believe are the fears of middle America, middle America
itself is changing. Reproductive health care in its entirety is mainstream now.
Having premarital sex is mainstream. Being gay is becoming more and more
mainstream.
According to Gallup polls, 89 percent of
Americans believe contraception is morally acceptable and 50 percent of
Americans support same sex marriage in comparison to 27 percent in 1996. More than
7 million unmarried couples are living together in contrast to 450,000 in 1960.
Now that the concept of morality has shifted for a large number of the
population, conservatives find themselves on the wrong side of it.
The Democratic Party’s choice to invite
Sandra Fluke to speak at the convention shows the degree to which Democrats
have embraced social issues, especially women’s reproductive care. The White
House’s slideshow, “Life of Julia,” shows Julia standing in a pharmacy, ready
to buy birth control covered under the president’s health care plan. I can’t
imagine either of these events happening in 2008.
As the country’s social mores
continue to change, Republicans strive to maintain their last frontier,
“decency,” only to find that Democrats have redefined it. Democrats have
steered the discussion on these issues, separately, however, not as a pack.
What were once considered background issues are now at the very forefront of
the president’s, and the Democratic Party’s, agenda.
That is why I believe the term
“social issues” has become useless and should be retired. We don’t rope all of
these terms together now because they’re important enough to stand on their
own. Democrats aren’t siphoning off these issues, trying to hide them as if
they are the collective red-headed stepchildren of the party platform. For
politicians of all stripes, it is finally sinking in that women are 50 percent
of the population, not a niche group, Latinos are a huge voting bloc, that most
Americans know at least one LGBTQ individual and the legalization of marijuana
is becoming less and less controversial.
It doesn’t
mean that Democrats have won ground for decades to come, or that the Republican
Party’s epitaph should be written. It means that Democrats have become successful
by gradually bringing these issues to the table one by one, taking control of
each argument piecemeal and flipping the narrative accordingly.
Republicans have helped enormously
in this regard, by raising these issues in the national news media all on their
lonesome, as Democrats waited the right moment to swoop in and take advantage.
The discussions began with Congress incumbents or challengers, or state
legislative bodies, moving to pass laws limiting abortion and birth control at
a rapid pace. Backwards comments on immigration from Mitt Romney, some during
the onslaught of way too many primary debates, and others made behind closed
doors, served Democrats yet again.
And most recently, a wave of
politicians came out in support of gay marriage, as if they all received the
same memo, shortly after the 2012 election made more cautious Democrats (and a
few Republicans) see the writing on the wall. Now, as the challenges of the 2016
presidential election for both parties become clearer, Democrats have to decide
if they want to erase all of the progress made in 2008 and start playing by
Republican rules again, or retire the term, and idea, of social issues, and
finally write their own agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment