Right-wingers instantly settled on “Flip-flopper!” as their principal line of attack after President Obama declared himself in favor of gay marriage — the word “war” was taken out of that Fox Nation headline, but it went from “Obama Flip Flops, Declares War on Marriage” to “Obama Flip Flops on Gay Marriage,” and Rush Limbaugh whined the same talking point (“So when Obama flip-flops, it’s called ‘evolving.’ When Romney evolves, it’s called ‘flip-flopping'”).
But here’s the thing: we’re used to seeing people change their minds about homosexuality. An awful lot of older Americans had to go through an evolution of thinking before they were able to see gay people as fully human and worthy of respect. (That’s true even of people who are gay themselves and who internalized society’s contempt.) Fewer young people have had to go through this (although it’s not as if homophobia is nonexistent among the young) — but even young people who’ve never had a struggle on this issue have watched plenty of people struggle and evolve, quite possibly including their own parents and grandparents.
You can’t say the same thing about, oh, say, the bailout of Detroit, or universal health care coverage with an individual mandate, or many of the other things Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on. Nobody grew up hearing picked-on kids being called “auto bailer-outers,” only to realize years later that auto bailer-outers are human beings worthy of respect. Obama’s changed position on an issue that taps into deep feelings people have about themselves and others; Romney flip-flops on … well, pretty much anything.
And even when Romney flip-flops on more profound issues — gay rights in general, abortion — he’s self-righteous on both sides of the issue. Here he is on abortion in 2002:
He’s self-righteous on the other side now — as he’s been self-righteous on multiple sides of multiple issues. Obama used to oppose gay marriage, but he was never a self-righteous opponent. It’s different.
So, no, the “Obama flip-flopper” dog won’t hunt.
(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)
****
UPDATE: Paul Waldman of The American Prospect has very similar thoughts.
The latter would describe the Log Cabin Republicans.
The biggest difference between what Obama did and Romney’s flip-flops is really trajectory. Obama;s announcement follows a logical trajectory from his earlier positions. There is internal consistency between his position on civil unions and his now support of SSM. His current position is built on a foundation of his prior positions. That is why it isn’t a flip-flop.
Romney, OTOH, has positions which have no logical consistency with prior ones. They are diametrically opposed and have no relationship to each other. Thefre isn’t even anything he can point to, other than electability, that justifies his changes.
One person’s changes (Obama’s) represent growth. The other’s (Romney) represent lack of any true core.
bingo
He has also consistently opposed state bans on Gay marriage and refused to defend the DOMA.
IMO Obama looks stronger because, unlike Romney, even if you say he was just responding to people who were saying he was unprincipled, at least he responded.
And he did it in an authentic way. He says he came to a conclusion that civil unions were inadequate. Even if you are a cynic, he seemed to be genuinely bothered by the issue and bothered that his integrity was questioned. He knew it was time to decide.
IMO
Yes. One thing movement conservatives had going for them was that they stood up for some unpopular positions. A lot of voters respect that, even when they don’t agree with them.
It’s more like he admitted to what he believed all along, actually. Which brings a certain level of cynicism to his prior behavior. It’s not much to work with, though, if you’re Mitt Romney. His best bet is to accuse Obama of attacking, waging war, on people’s basic Christian beliefs. It’s not that Obama has some minor character flaw like flip-flopping or being calculating. He’s EVIL!!
“It’s more like he admitted to what he believed all along, actually.”
I’m not so sure of that. As I listen to Obama on the topic, nearly all the time he has been careful to mention that some people tie the word “marriage” to religious traditions and he speaks respectfully about people coming from that perspective. At one time I think Obama had personal views consistent with that perspective as well.
But I don’t think Obama has ever spoken against equal rights. He thought that a valid solution might be to provide all rights due those in “marriage” to people in “civil unions”. The Illinois law is based on that model IIRC. Obama may have seen that as a way to make some incremental progress.
I think Obama now realizes that all the discussion about “civil union” is becoming moot. There are too many entrenched interests against that as well and there is not much to be won incrementally there anymore. The “civil union” strategy obfuscates more than helps in winning rights for gay couples.
He had views with some nuance, but the nuance no longer holds any practical value for moving forward.
Tend to agree. As I mentioned above, his thinking followed a logical, internally consistent process. My own thinking followed much the same process. For a long time I thought civil unions would be enough. Then I decided it wasn’t. The distinction of marriage being a religious thing and civil union being, well, a civil thing is not something people connect to.
it takes more than once to make a flip-flop charge stick, and the narrative has to fit the person and the public perception of the person.
The R “base” doesn’t see Obama as someone who will or needs to change a position on a dime. They see him as totally evil and without scruples. Flip-flopping means nothing to them. Essentially, who cares what they think?
“Base” Independants (former rational conservative Republicans) discount anything the RW noise machine says. I honestly don’t know if Obama being in favor of Gay Marriage will make a difference to his putative position of last week. I should think it won’t matter too much.
True Independants (Centrists) will not pay any attention to Fox and Company. Besides, a huge majority of them are not opposed to gay marriage (note that I DIDN’T say they supported it). That road has been dredged too often.
Romney really sucks as a candidate.
I can’t believe the GOP have nominated ANOTHER candidate that virtually no one within the party likes.
Really?
I’d like to see some stats on this.
This sounds like an excuse for why Obama rode the fence on this issue for so long. The stalling has been a big problem for Obama with LGTB folks because Obama is a member of a minority which has suffered much discrimination- so Obama’s fence riding on the issue of equal rights for all has understandably been frustrating.
This is all politics in its most lame form; Obama is not old, he’s not a fundy Bible beater, he did not need to “evolve” his thoughts on this issue (what nonsense).
I have to think Obama’s statement “I thought civil unions would be good enough” really went over swell with the LGTB community. Wow.
Great timing with his announcement yesterday, too. Today he has a fund raiser at the Hollywood home of George Clooney; ground zero for liberal sensibility.
Puma sighting!
I think it’s worse. I’m not one to call Obama’s progressive critics racist — and I’m not saying Superpole is racist. However, he/she is repeating a fairly racist critique (similar to one made by Michael Moore on Daily Kos one time): that black people somehow should be looked at under more scrutiny over their support of gay marriage.
I’ve got plenty big beefs with Obama. But whining about him on the day when he publicly reverses himself to come onto your side? GEEZ. The doob smokers would be dancing in the streets if Obama did that for them lol.
Yes, I’m a realist, and I voted for Obama.
I’ve been around long enough to recognize/call-out political phony baloney when I see it. I’ve also been around long enough to see the democratic party change- in the total wrong direction, lowering the bar more and more.
Keep in mind the partisan game going on- which unfortunately seems to be more important than actually getting something(s) done to improve our naion, and the context being the democratic party is supposed to be wayyyyyyy better than the repugs.
If people don’t like my take, it’s OK. Let’s ask LGBT community if they are OK with Obama supporting DOMA; never mind, we don’t have to ask:
So the issue is the LGTB community got on board and supported Obama in 2008- then had to wait over three years to get the rights they deserve.
Are they “racist” for demanding their rights?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5090503-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Attacking the messenger- typical, but disturbing since so many “progressives” engage in this.
I’m simply asking for proof of the statement:
Opinions aren’t facts– that’s right wing territory.
If you or the diarist can provide some surveys/polling showing people over age fifty being accepting of gay marriage, great-I’ll stand corrected.
The trend to accept gays/gay marriage is there- for younger people who are much more tolerant than their parents/grandparents.
“An awful lot of older Americans had to go through an evolution of thinking before they were able to see gay people as fully human and worthy of respect.
Really?
I’d like to see some stats on this”
How about this: “Members of the baby boom generation (aged 47-65), for example, opposed same-sex marriage in 1996 by more than 2 to 1. But in the latest poll, the margin had narrowed to 42% to 48%. “
I’m glad Obama finally came out and said something. But giving the credit/blame to his children because they had pals at school with same-sex parents bothered me. I expect him to have enough imagination and empathy and brains to come to a decision on his own. And, since this has been an issue for many years, why did his position take so long to “evolve”? Obama is a relatively young man; there are “old geezers set in their ways” who figured this out more quickly than him.