The Real Bridge to the 21st Century

The many Mitts Massachusetts conservatives debate legacy of former governor Mitt Romney FULL STORY

Download app iPad app info iPad app help

WORLD Magazine WORLD Popular Articles WORLD Movie Reviews Community News Desk Commentary WORLD on Facebook WORLD on Twitter

Election 2012 Roe v. Wade Books Issue Hope Award Daniel of the Year Marvin Olasky series Political Cartoons Movie Reviews Books Music

Classified Ad Listings Submit Classified Ad

I wanted to reach over and give Chris Matthews a wedgie. He kept referring to the 2004 Ohio marriage ballot initiative as a "wedge"� issue. The host of Hardball on MSNBC seems to think that social issues are all wedge issues. I call them "bridge"� issues.

Matthews and many other liberals take their cues from the Thomas Frank book What's the Matter with Kansas? Frank thinks that wily conservatives use "wedge"� issues like life and marriage to duped blue-collar workers so they won't vote their true "class interest"�"”with the Democrats. Frank is a Kansan and a liberal and cannot quite stomach the appeals conservatives make to pro-life and pro-marriage voters.

Well, Chris, calling them wedge issues is a way to diminish their importance, suggesting that they are not worthy of serious people's attention. But I disagree: These matters go to the heart of who we are as a nation. The right to life is "inalienable."� Tens of millions of Americans still believe this, even if our elites are confused about when unborn children are endowed with that inalienable right. A Harvard grad may think such questions are "above my pay grade,"� but regular Americans are not so perplexed.

We see in state after state that black Americans, Hispanics, and whites are coming together on the issues of life and marriage. This is why social issues are bridge issues. Those who urge Republicans to avoid these questions are the same folks who so often talk about "reaching out"� to minorities. Well, there's no better example of successful bridging in politics than the 2004 vote in Ohio to sustain marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

A lot of the GOP establishment was nervous about putting that measure on the ballot. Gee, might it bring out a lot of minority voters? Might that make it harder to carry Ohio for George W. Bush?

The results clearly showed that putting marriage on the ballot is why George W. Bush carried the Buckeye State in 2004. And the comfortable margin for Bush was so convincing that even John Kerry quickly conceded the state and the election.

There were the predictable howls from liberals. They tried to make a case that I, as Ohio secretary of state, somehow colluded with inner city Democrats"”many of them black"”to suppress minority voting in those communities.

Duh? Do liberals ever realize how foolish they really look? Black voters were not likely to have been disenfranchised in the very precincts where they live and vote by their own friends and neighbors. This is why nobody but the Michael Moores was silly enough to place any credence in these complaints.

Just look at what the marriage issue did on the ballot. In Ohio in '04, Bush won with 50.8 percent of the vote, but marriage scored a thumping 62 percent. Clearly, Bush was helped by the presence of marriage on the ballot. In fact, he would not have won without marriage on the ballot. His 16 percent of black voters in Ohio was his best percentage in this community in the nation.

Marriage on the ballot helped bring out almost 1 million more voters in Ohio in '04 than had voted in the state in 2000: 5.62 million vs. 4.70 million. Voters care deeply about these issues.

In 2008, John McCain never endorsed the pro-marriage Proposition 8 in California. His family and his campaign staff were opposed to it. Probably nothing could have saved McCain in that state in that year.

But Prop. 8 garnered 52.24 percent approval. That's in spite of the pro-marriage forces being outspent 10-to-1 by the faux marriage folks. McCain was going down to a 54 percent to 37 percent crushing defeat in the Golden State at the same time marriage was winning.

Black and Hispanic voters may have put Prop. 8 over the top in California, but it was important to all Californians that year. The presidential vote was 13.46 million, while the vote on Prop. 8 was 13.40 million.

These are truly stunning figures. I can tell you as a former secretary of state that it's virtually unheard of for a ballot proposition to come that close to the presidential vote totals.

This proves how much Americans care. And it shows that social issues are bridge not wedge issues. If conservatives want to win support in minority communities, I say for them to stand strong for life and uphold marriage. That's the real bridge to the 21st century.

Excellent article.

I thought the phrase, “the faux marriage folks,” was fitting too.

Report comment to moderator

I can’t add to what Joel Mark said above. But I’ll point out that the marriage issue in fact was a “bridge issue” even beyond what Ken Blackwell described. I can’t think of much else upon which Mormons, muslims and evangelical protestants could find complete agreemt on. Amid all the negative Prop 8 news you had to look real hard to find out how strongly the amendmt was supported by HBCs [historically black churches].

Report comment to moderator

I think what folks like Thomas Frank cannot concede is there are issues beyond pocket book and pay stub which motivate and inspire legions of American blue collar voters. What? You mean there are folks who figure maintaining marriage the way its always been [between a woman and a man] is way more important than whether steel is made in the US or China?

Report comment to moderator

I’d say the broad category of social concerns are also becoming somewhat of a wedge “group” of issues for Republicans. There’s a non-insignificant group of Republican voters for whom Michelle Bachmann’s recent decision to sign the “marriage vow pledge” actually makes them less likely to vote for her.

Report comment to moderator

BuddyGlass, there is a better party for them, then. I notice that you do not question the voting statistics.

—–

Excellent article. Good observations.

Report comment to moderator

“wedge” is used to refer to an issue that separates a person from voting according to their financial interests. I don’t think using this term diminishes their importance to the voter in fact it highlights its importance — they are so important that they place a wedge between the voter and the party that has their financial interests.

Just look at what the marriage issue did on the ballot. In Ohio in '04, Bush won with 50.8 percent of the vote, but marriage scored a thumping 62 percent. Clearly, Bush was helped by the presence of marriage on the ballot. In fact, he would not have won without marriage on the ballot. His 16 percent of black voters in Ohio was his best percentage in this community in the nation.

I don’t understand Blackwell’s logic. Clearly many of those who voted for “traditional marriage” also voted Democrat. IF we assume that every single Republican voted YES to the marriage question that still leaves about 11% of Democratic voters voting YES. Unless there are substantial exit polls focused on this question there’s nothing to indicate that having a values question on the ballot will increase the Republican vote total. McCain in California is a good example where a values question did nothing for the Republican so how can Blackwell assert it helped in Ohio. In fact given the statistical chances of an African American or Hispanic voting Democrat, values questions may well benefit the Democrat — there’s nothing in his column to indicate this isn’t possible.