PRESIDENT BUSH actively opposes gay marriage, cloning, abortion, and euthanasia. He’s for sharp limits on stem cell research. Thwarted by Congress, he’s establishing a faith-based initiative by executive order. Most of his prominent judicial nominees are conservative and pro-life. Social and religious conservatives are thrilled by Bush’s policies and by their access to White House officials and, occasionally, to Bush himself. They feel, says Richard Land, a Southern Baptist leader, that Bush “is one of us.” But the president doesn’t trumpet his stands on social issues and hasn’t sought to use them as wedge issues against Democrats. He’s mentioned his opposition to gay marriage a total of twice and then only in response to questions from reporters. Bush’s speeches on abortion, cloning, and stem cell research stress the lofty theme of the sanctity of life. “As your president I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world,” he said two years ago. Bush doesn’t condemn his foes on social issues. On abortion, he said last year, “we need to treat those with whom we disagree with respect and civility.”
Bush’s high-minded approach raises a crass political question. Karl Rove, Bush’s chief political adviser, has noted the failure of roughly four million religious conservatives to bother to vote in 2000. Those who voted were overwhelmingly pro-Bush, but the president may need a stronger turnout of social conservatives to capture competitive states like Iowa, which he lost narrowly in 2000, and to assure victory again in Florida, a state with 1.1 million Southern Baptists.
Gay marriage is the most obvious issue for appealing to social and religious conservatives. But Bush isn’t likely to exploit it. One reason is the consensus at the White House that any politician who dwells on homosexuality, pro or con, turns off voters and loses support. Another is the absence of any immediate threat of gay marriage gaining legal status. And unless the Massachusetts or New Jersey supreme court declares gays have a constitutional right to be married, the issue’s not coming to a head in the foreseeable future. This only encourages Bush to remain silent.
The president’s two comments on gay marriage came after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states may not ban private sexual relations among gays, when also a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision was rumored to be imminent. Last July 2, he declined to endorse a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, saying White House lawyers would look at the matter. “What I do support,” he added, “is the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.” He went further at a formal press conference on July 30, saying “we ought to codify” that marriage is restricted to a man and a woman.
Bush and some religious conservatives may clash on precisely how to do this. The White House is inclined to back the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which says marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” It doesn’t specifically outlaw gay unions or domestic partnerships. Dissatisfied, a group of influential religious conservatives are drafting an amendment that would cover unions and partnerships. Bush is likely to balk at that.
The president has run into trouble with social and religious conservatives once before–over the rules for carrying out Bush’s AIDS initiative. The conservatives wanted to extend the so-called Mexico City policy, which bars funding for overseas groups that promote or perform abortions, to the AIDS program. At a White House briefing, religious conservatives complained. They got some concessions, but Bush firmly refused to apply the Mexico City policy. Later, however, he extended it to all other State Department programs.
On abortion, Bush has more than satisfied social conservatives. “He’s been steadfast,” says Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America. The president will soon sign a ban on partial-birth abortion, a measure President Clinton repeatedly vetoed. Earlier, Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, and he’s ready to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act if it passes Congress. In his 2000 campaign, Bush said he favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion. But it’s a distant hope, and pro-life leaders don’t expect him to fixate on that now.
Bush’s ties to conservative Christians were initially cemented by his frequent expressions of his own evangelical faith. He “talks about it comfortably,” uses the right language, and “evangelicals recognize he’s one of them,” says Land. After the president addressed the Southern Baptist convention by video last year, James Merritt, then president of the group, declared: “He may be a Methodist, but he’s the most Southern Baptist president we’ve had in a long time.” (President Clinton, by the way, was a Southern Baptist.) Just last week, Bush told Brit Hume of Fox News he prays “a lot,” including in the Oval Office. “I would never use God to promote foreign policy decisions,” he said. But regarding Iraq, “I ask for strength and wisdom and I pray for calmness when the seas are storming and I pray a lot for families who have lost a life.”
Will all this lead to a massive turnout of religious conservatives next year? Maybe, maybe not. There are 19 million conservative Christians in the electorate, but only 15 million voted in 2000. More than 80 percent voted for Bush, which has made the president and his aides understandably eager to attract the other 4 million. A religious factor is working against corralling them. Many conservative Christians are apolitical. “They don’t get up in the morning and rush to get the paper to read the political news,” a Bush adviser says.
But two other factors that held down the evangelical vote in 2000 may no longer be in play. The view of Christians that “the things of this world,” including politics, are corrupt and to be avoided was no doubt confirmed by the Clinton presidency. Bush has changed that. And the last-minute disclosure in 2000 that Bush had been arrested years before for drunk driving cost him with Christians–possibly as many as 500,000 votes, according to the estimate of a Republican strategist. That, too, is no longer relevant. Still, a surefire strategy for reaching uninterested evangelicals hasn’t been discovered. Yes, Bush could harp on his opposition to gay marriage and partial-birth abortion, both popular Bush stands. But that’s not his style.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
