What conservatives owe Dean & Gonzo

Much has been written about the impact Dean has had on this election--from his use of the Internet to his engaging younger, disenchanted voters into the political process. But the stunner of the Dean campaign was not its fall but its ascent--and its indelible impact on candidate Kerry. Who deserves credit for Kerry's reversals on the war, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, free trade, tax cuts, etc. than Howard Dean scaring the stuffing out of the New JFK by rallying the Democratic left? The Democrats, still gasping sighs of relief that Dean will not be the candidate is in store for a massive case of buyer's remorse when they realize that their candidate is more than a Bush basher but a New England liberal, a born-again left-winger thanks to Dr. Dean, and perhaps the next in a line that can be traced backwards through Dukakis, Mondale, and McGovern. They've found an anti-Bush but not an antidote. At least not one that the country supports: the country will find it difficult to sign on to a candidate that thinks that protectionism and tax increases are the solutions to economic problems. And while Kerry is now trying to play the anti-war card, he has offered no coherent alternative to what he would have done or what he will do differently.

This election will be in great measure a referendum on Bush, and it seems clear that he is vulnerable on that score--hence the current polls which at times suggest the Democrat could win. But what red state will Kerry win over with his Dean-influenced platform? You can bet that Bush will put the full court press on Florida and Ohio. A moderate, which Kerry could have become, had a chance to create a positive alternative option to Bush, but a radical liberal, which Kerry is now, may squander the Democrat's opportunity at accomplishing their main goal: removing Bush. Nader may cost the Dems some votes, but Dean will cost them some states. Conservatives should be grateful.

In the same vein, conservatives should give a nod to Matt Gonzalez. Many of us were stunned when a savvy "liberal Democrat," Gavin Newsom, found himself challenged so stridently from an even more liberal Green party candidate. Newsom came into office promising the world to everyone: he promised to improve the business climate of the city (which perhaps was what rallied the Gonzos) while pandering to every left-wing (or "progressive") special interest group in the city. If anyone had doubts as to which Newsom would show up at City Hall, they just had to listen to his acceptance speech--packed with pandering--making those of us who supported him hoping he'd make the city less hostile to enterprise feel like chumps.

I haven't made up my mind whether Newsom’s gay marriage srategy was a brilliant political move or a terrible miscalculation. On the one hand Newsom bolstered his progressive street cred in dramatic fashion, effectively muting criticism from the radical left. On the other hand, the spectacle of San Francisco blatantly breaking the law was begging for a reaction. One thing that is lost on many of the progressives who claim that they want true democracy and power to the people is that the people aren't with them on many of their core issues. The people don't favor affirmative action, partial birth abortions, and certainly not gay marriage. Why else have progressive used the courts, not the legislatures, to advance these causes?

In a reversal of fortune, the people will be heard, to the chagrin of the progressives. The images from San Francisco surely played a large part in Bush's decision this morning to support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual. And for those social conservatives who support this, they have, at least in some part, Matt Gonzalez to thank.

I think the lesson here is that anger and hyperbole may not be politically effective strategies. Despite my tone above, I have respect for the anti-war and pro-gay marriage positions. While I supported the Iraq war, and the ongoing war on terrorism, I certainly respect those that think this is strategically and/or morally the wrong course. I think these perspectives are vital in a successful deliberative constitutional republic. But too often the anti-war sentiment has been waged not on strategic, moral, or ideological bases but rather on raw ad hominem Bush hatred and on demagoguery from those who would lead us.

Likewise I have huge respect and sympathy for same sex couple who want to make a life long commitment to each other and want the same legal status as heterosexual couples. I support that. But absolutism on the "marriage" score ignores the legitimate perspective of those--far greater in number--who view marriage as a heterosexual institution. The compromise, for this decade at least, seems obvious: legal equality of civil unions while keeping the nominal institution of marriage preserved as it has been for millennia. There are earnest moral arguments against this position from both sides, which is in part why it is probably the best compromise.

I may be wrong, but I think the anger, absolutism and tone of the left--which have recaptured Kerry to the left and thrown down the gauntlet of social conservatives who will fight even civil unions--will bring Bush his second term and put equal legal status for gay couples at risk.