Wednesday, June 29 , 2016, 7:51 pm | Fair 65º

  • Follow Noozhawk on LinkedIn
  • Follow Noozhawk on Pinterest
  • Follow Noozhawk on YouTube

Lou Cannon: Election 2008 Edges Beyond Race and Gender

The Obama candidacy and same-sex marriage appear to be breaking through long-held suppositions

Economics trumps social issues and all else during times of financial turmoil. Even the consequential U.S. presidential campaign has been overshadowed by the worldwide economic meltdown that has devoured retirement savings and left the credit markets gasping for breath.

Lou Cannon
Lou Cannon

Nonetheless, the Nov. 4 election will mark a huge social change in America, with the election of either the first black president or the first woman vice president. Election Day 2008 could also be a watershed for millions of gay and lesbian Americans who seek marriage equality. Initiatives are on the ballot to ban same-sex marriage in Arizona, Florida and California, the latter home to nearly one in nine Americans.

In California, the key battleground, religious conservatives and other traditionalists are seeking to overturn a May ruling by the state Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage. (Same-sex matrimony was first made legal in Massachusetts in 2004. This month, the Connecticut Supreme Court brought the number of states that recognize such marriages to three.) The advocates of a same-sex marriage ban in California had wanted their initiative — Proposition 8 — described as a state constitutional amendment that would allow marriage only “between a man and a woman.” But state Attorney General Jerry Brown rejected that wording and decided Proposition 8 should be described as seeking to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.” Legally, this may be a distinction without a difference, but in a close election the wording of the measure could prove decisive.

Is the election close? A respected political survey, The Field Poll, this month found Proposition 8 losing by 17 points, but same-sex marriage tends to do somewhat better in public opinion surveys than at the ballot box. In 2000, when California voters approved an initiative banning same-sex marriage, the Field Poll showed that the measure would win with 53 percent of the vote. It received 61 percent. This was the initiative struck down by the state Supreme Court; Proposition 8 would overturn that ruling and write the same-sex marriage ban into the state Constitution. Another reason to be skeptical of polls showing Proposition 8 trailing is that supporters of the initiative have more financial resources than their opponents and hence more television advertising.

Still, even supporters of Proposition 8 concede that public attitudes on same-sex marriage are shifting. Although a Los Angeles Times poll after the state Supreme Court decision showed voters opposing same-sex marriage by a margin of 52 percent to 41 percent, they split evenly on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s decision not to support Proposition 8. Unsurprisingly, the poll showed that voters under 45 are more tolerant of same-sex marriage than older voters. Opponents of Proposition 8 hope that a surge of younger voters to the polls in behalf of Sen. Barack Obama will give them an advantage even though both Obama and Sen. John McCain oppose same-sex marriage.

Organized campaigns for equality tend to prevail in the United States — but hardly overnight. Women started campaigning for the right to vote in the 1840s; it took more than 70 years to pass and ratify the 19th Amendment. In 1896, a notorious decision of the U.S. Supreme Court upheld school segregation under the doctrine of “separate but equal;” it took nearly six decades before the high court under Chief Justice Earl Warren reversed itself and ruled that segregated schools were inherently discriminatory. Nearly every state once banned inter-racial marriage; 16 states still did so in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down such statutes. Legal protections for gays and lesbians are of even more recent vintage. Not until 1996 did the Supreme Court overturn a Colorado initiative that had barred municipalities from enacting laws to prevent discrimination against “homosexual citizens.” Not until 2003 did the high court, in overturning a Texas statute, decide that “intimate adult consensual conduct” between people of the same sex was constitutionally protected. Both decisions, incidentally, were written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan.

This columnist does not do predictions: I’ll wait for the verdict of the voters on the presidential election and all ballot measures. But the decisions favoring same-sex marriage by the California high court in May and by the Connecticut high court this month, both by a single vote, suggest that the legal system is moving, albeit slowly, toward recognizing that gays and lesbians are fully equal under the Constitution. This means they can marry whomever they please.

Full equality in a political sense also means that someone in any racial, religious or ethnic group — or any woman — should have a chance to win the highest office in the land. The conventional political wisdom in the mid-20th century held that the United States wasn’t ready to elect a Roman Catholic as president. It was widely believed that the only Catholic nominee for president — Alfred E. Smith in 1928 — had lost because of his religion. In truth, Herbert Hoover probably would have beaten any Democrat in that prosperous year before the stock market crash, but it’s also true that Smith’s nomination stirred up the Ku Klux Klan and exposed a cesspool of anti-Catholic prejudice. It took John F. Kennedy, the narrowest of winners in 1960, to demonstrate that a Catholic could indeed be elected president. Months earlier, JFK adviser Theodore Sorenson had written a now-famous memo declaring that Kennedy’s Catholicism would win him more votes than it would cost him. This proved prescient.

Racial prejudice is even more potent than religious prejudice. Until the rise of Colin Powell, hardly anyone in America would have believed that the election of a black president was a near-term possibility. Powell chose not to run, but this year Obama has upended orthodox thinking and conventional wisdom by wresting the Democratic presidential nomination from the supposedly unbeatable Hillary Clinton and then taking the lead from McCain as the economy worsened. Obama supporters remain fearful, however, that in the secrecy of the ballot box many whites will vote their racial fears. The notion that race overrides everything else, insulting to America as well as Obama, has been given unmerited currency by media pundits who ought to know better. Some of them have uncritically latched onto a Stanford University study asserting that Obama’s race would cost him 6 percent of the vote.

Now, Frank Newport, who heads the Gallup organization and is one of the nation’s best pollsters, has come along with a 2008 equivalent of Sorenson’s memo. In a complex eight-dimensional analysis that is more sophisticated than the Stanford study, Newport found that slightly more people are likely to vote for Obama because of his race than will vote against him. This includes not only blacks but also some white voters who see this election as a chance to retire shabby stereotypes of American racism. As with same-sex marriage, younger voters are apt to be the least prejudiced. Newport’s study concludes that few voters will cast their ballots based on race and that voters who do will largely cancel each other out.

Let’s hear it for Ted Sorenson and Frank Newport. We’ve come a long way.

— Summerland resident Lou Cannon is a longtime national political writer and acclaimed presidential biographer. His most recent book — co-authored with his son, Carl — is Reagan’s Disciple: George W. Bush’s Troubled Quest for a Presidential Legacy. Cannon also is an editorial adviser to State Net Capitol Journal, which published this column originally.

Reader Comments

Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and must be free of profanity and abusive language and attacks.

By posting on Noozhawk, you:

» Agree to be respectful. Noozhawk encourages intelligent and impassioned discussion and debate, but now has a zero-tolerance policy for those who cannot express their opinions in a civil manner.

» Agree not to use Noozhawk’s forums for personal attacks. This includes any sort of personal attack — including, but not limited to, the people in our stories, the journalists who create these stories, fellow readers who comment on our stories, or anyone else in our community.

» Agree not to post on Noozhawk any comments that can be construed as libelous, defamatory, obscene, profane, vulgar, harmful, threatening, tortious, harassing, abusive, hateful, sexist, racially or ethnically objectionable, or that are invasive of another’s privacy.

» Agree not to post in a manner than emulates, purports or pretends to be someone else. Under no circumstances are readers posting to Noozhawk to knowingly use the name or identity of another person, whether that is another reader on this site, a public figure, celebrity, elected official or fictitious character. This also means readers will not knowingly give out any personal information of other members of these forums.

» Agree not to solicit others. You agree you will not use Noozhawk’s forums to solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites, without Noozhawk’s express written approval.

Noozhawk’s management and editors, in our sole discretion, retain the right to remove individual posts or to revoke the access privileges of anyone who we believe has violated any of these terms or any other term of this agreement; however, we are under no obligation to do so.

» on 10.22.08 @ 12:49 PM

Thanks, Lou, for your thoughtful overview of these two important issues.

For me, the same sex marriage issue (I prefer “civil union”, leave “marriage” to the churches), is important as a family value issue.  I think we need more advocacy of two-parent families for children.  If any two people are committed and willing to state that publicly, I’m all for it.  Divorce/promiscuity/adultery are larger enemies of family values than marriage is.

I happen to believe Obama’s policy ideas and thoughfulness will lead us to a better place than McCain’s temperment and thin plans.  I think Obama’s racial background, his complex and richly endowed upbringing, and his intelligence certainly inform his policies, but it’s also a great role model for many citizens.

We have all seen what the country looks like with a frat boy running it.  I have spoken with friends who have attended the military academies.  To place second to last in one’s class (as McCain allegedly did), takes a lot of effort and “maverickness”...but not the kind I want running the country. 

His maverick move of selecting Palin—who has many charming qualities and leadership skills—shows an utter disregard for the reality of McCain’s own health, the type of experience and attitude required to running the country (see the last eight years), and a emphasis on winning the election, not what is right for the country.

» on 10.22.08 @ 01:33 PM

Anyone remember Bill Clinton? Talk about a frat boy.

» on 10.22.08 @ 01:47 PM

While I don’t disagree that same-sex marriage is at least incrementally advancing toward cultural acceptance, I do have to take issue with Lou’s assertion that Yes on 8 backers have more money than the no side. The usual suspects on the Left are pouring millions of dollars into the battle.

» on 10.22.08 @ 02:32 PM

Regarding: “I prefer “civil union”, leave “marriage” to the churches”

So does that mean that anyone who is not married in a church or by a clergyperson no longer should be considered married under the law?

MARRIAGE is a legal status.  What religious institutions want to do about is is up to them, but their religious beliefs have no place in the California Constitution.

» on 10.22.08 @ 10:46 PM

Excellent analysis and much appreciated. BTW I can’t figure out how 2 people whether different sexes or the same sex will adversely affect or impact my marriage. Anybody with an explanation?

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >