Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Mitt Romney Pandering Has Reached Epidemic Levels – Infection Has Spread to All 50 States

RomneyLogic:   Gay Marriage is Wrong,  Gay Civil Unions is Wrong,  Sure Gay Couples Can Have Children

How Does That Make Sense?

One of the many negative things about Mitt Romney is that he is running his campaign to be President the same way he ran his other political campaigns.  Mr. Romney looks at an issue from a marketing standpoint, and adjusts his thinking and beliefs to what he thinks will sell the baloney policy positions the best.  So if supporting the basic rights of gay and lesbians is a winning strategy in a Senate campaign, he supports that.  If coming out (pardon the pun) strongly against the rights of gay and lesbians is a winning strategy for obtaining the Republican Presidential nomination, then that is his position today.

But history (and the electorate) are moving against Mr. Romney on this issue. (The Pew survey found that 46% of Catholics support the right of gay Americans to marry!).

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

Percent who...Oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally 574335 Favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally472001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120120%20%40%60%80%Highcharts.com
In 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a 57% to 35% margin.
Today, the public is about evenly split, with 47% in favor and 43% opposed

So what is a market savvy person who has no core values to do?  How can he appeal to both sides?  In Mr. Romney’s case he has decided that while he opposed gay couples, married or not, he does support their right to adopt and raise children.

And if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child -- in my state individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that's something that people have a right to do. 

So in the marketing driven mind of Mr. Romney here is a way to soften his opposition to equality, even if the position is so logically inconsistent as to generate laughter rather than applause.  See if a person is opposed to recognizing a gay couple as a family, and if a person believes that only a mother and a father of different genders can raise children than it is ludicrous to say you support a gay couple raising children but do not support recognition of their family relationship.

Mr. Romney's position here might be attributed to what is called the 'Modern Family' effect.  The television show Modern Family is very popular and features a gay couple who have adopted a child.  That family is shown as a very normal, very loving, very happy family, basically people to be admired and supported, not condemned.  So Mr. Romney cannot condemn them despite the fact that he condemns conferring any legal rights or benefits on the family itself.

In a country with an objective independent press Mr. Romney’s appalling lack of consistency and outright pandering to every side on an issue would be recognized for what it is.  But Mr. Romney has been doing this for so long that it seems the mainstream press is inured, maybe suffering from pandering fatigue.  And as long as Mr. Romney can get away with this, why should he stop? 

1 comment:

  1. It seems to me that Willard condemns conferring any legal rights or benefits on anyone who is not rich. Not to call him a horse hoppin', ego maniacal flimflammer. No, not that.