In the early 2000s, Republicans controlled all three branches of government and a decent number of state houses. And how did they handle abortion, the issue viewed by their base as a second holocaust?
By doing as little as possible.
For a supposedly pro-life party, Republicans understand that overturning Roe v. Wade could not be more against their interests. Sure, there was the somewhat deceptively named “Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act” and the occasional bill to outlaw abortion that never really went anywhere. So, it remains a rallying cry that divides single-issue voters, and that’s right where right-wing politicians want it to stay. If abortion were outlawed, social conservatives might not turn out at nearly the rate they do today, and all but the most genuine politicians seem to rank reelection chances atop their priorities.
Democrats might have had that opportunity to kick the can on gay marriage for a while if it weren’t for the Supreme Court. It’s an issue that younger voters passionately support and that could have convinced a generation that Republicans support old, bigoted policies, just as abortion framed Democrats as tolerant of fetus-killing (these stereotypes catering to select audiences, of course).
Instead, the issue is all but off the table on the federal level. Americans seemingly fight much harder to earn rights than protect them, perhaps a natural human tendency to take what we have for granted. Republican leadership isn’t tone deaf to the changing winds on the issue, clearly avoiding a strong critique of the court’s decisions. Short of blood red districts, don’t expect much anti-gay rhetoric, but do anticipate pro-gay positions slowly becoming assumed. Recall Civil Rights: Nixon, the GOP’s next standard-bearer immediately following the wave of mid-60’s activism, embraced equality for minorities and muted the issue, while a southern strategy still fueled some old hostilities (by some accounts, helping all the way through Reagan’s first election).
In the short-term, Democrats do have a few small advantages; for example, the shifting opinion on gay marriage might help flip a few state senate seats now wielding ample power over the issue. Democrats might even have a small edge in presidential elections – Supreme Court rulings should make supporting the issue a lot easier. But that will cease to exist once moderate Republicans effectively throw their hands up in acceptance. With the Supreme Court’s decision essentially implying a constitutional right to gay marriage, that might not take as long as previously thought.
Thus, SCOTUS’s decisions on gay marriage essentially avoided a debate Democrats were itching to have. Republicans, however, have their Achilles’ Heel: primaries, where the debate could come back. Imagine a 2016 where social conservatives coalesce around a vehemently anti-gay candidate (e.g., Rick Santorum) instead of more moderate politicians (e.g., Chris Christie). Republicans, then, would argue unpopular positions to appease their base all while SCOTUS gave ample legitimacy to the pro-gay stance.
Democrats should still celebrate SCOTUS’s decisions as a step towards justice and equality, but from a political perspective—an incredibly narrow and perhaps secondary perspective, of course—Republicans can breath a sigh of relief for 2014 and onwards. The issue seems closer to settled than ever, with many candidates no longer having responsibility on the issue. That’s not a good sign for liberals wanting to drum up support, while a small bit of micro-targeting could prove a boon for the right. Considering youth opinion, the issue might not be one in the near future, but for now Republicans have one less issue distracting them from talking about the economy.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.