So apparently McCain’s strategist, Steve Schmidt, is recommending that Republicans drop their rabid opposition to gay marriage. I think the “rabid” part is right; it’s certainly not netting them any votes. Strategically, however, I think it’s wise for them to not just give in entirely; it’s hardly as though there’s a clear majority of Americans in favor of gay marriage, and giving in to something like that could create some serious rifts within the Republican Party. But, again speaking strategically, they might be wise to tone down their rhetoric a bit and switch over to a more passive opposition, like their approach to abortion. Now, on the merits Schmidt is absolutely right. The fight for equal rights for Americans of all sexual orientations (not just marriage, but protection against discrimination) is the civil rights struggle of the day. Sure, some people disagree, but that’s why there’s a struggle. But being right on the merits is never determinative of a policy clash, even one of basic rights.
It also opens up the question of whether views that are wrong and repressive merit malign neglect in the political sphere. Schmidt is suggesting that an elite consensus replace a very substantive mass division. I have real trouble believing that the Republican elite has deep personal convictions about gay marriage, just as I have trouble believing that they are deeply personally committed to the small-town lifestyle (or that the Democratic elite has a deep personal bond with the working class). Still, I wonder if all those Americans with horribly repressive views don’t deserve to have their views represented by their elected officials. The way to square the circle is of course to ask a little bravery of those officials and have them try to lead consensus… but a little bravery from elected officials could solve so many American problems.
On a semi-related note, absolutely everyone should read (or at least read about; I haven’t yet them) the torture memos released yesterday, which really dispel all remaining doubts about the torture regime. For eight years, the United States was a country that definitively tortured people. As Glenn Greenwald notes, the lawyers drawing up these memos noted that we were using methods the State Department defined as torture when other people did it. We found out detainee’s fears (like insects) and put detainees in tiny cages with them. We waterboarded people. We slammed them into walls, and kept people awake for 11 days straight.
I don’t know how Obama can see this and rule out putting people in jail. As Greenwald pointed out so aptly, we do have laws covering this. We even have precedent, trying Japanese soldiers for waterboarding. It’s clear that the people responsible for these memos, if you take our commitment to the rule of law seriously, ought to be imprisoned. I am more disturbed by Obama’s comment that the officials who actually carried out these acts ought not to be disciplined, since they were ordered to do so. The defense of “I was just following orders” was tried at Nuremburg, and found wanting. If following those orders carried legal consequences, then maybe the CIA would stop following illegal orders. This logic would be uncontroversial if applied to common citizens; it underpins our system of criminal justice. Isn’t it even more important to apply it to our government?
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.