A few birds and one stone.
By Miguel Guanipa (04/27/06)
On a recent press release senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) lamented that after perusing through the schedule of “pet” issues from the right wing like Estate Tax reduction, a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration and the establishment of a federal definition of marriage, he felt the Republican Leadership’s priorities were perhaps somewhat skewed as to what exactly constitutes issues that should take precedence on the senate floor debate.
Does a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage have a higher priority than a debate on high gas prices? asked the senator somewhat indignantly. To which he himself responded with an emphatic “No!”
This type of loaded rhetorical ambuscade leads me to believe Senator Reid must’ve dealt his share of blows under his opponents’ belts during his younger years as a career boxer.
In asking that question the senator was first of all implying that the Republicans were more consumed with appeasing a small fringe group of noisy puritans rather than addressing the pressing concerns of the majority of Americans who are getting fed up with gasoline prices continually on the rise. This was a very cleverly devised question by the senator’s speech writers, for it cuts deep into the psyche of both social and fiscal conservatives in one stroke. It was also a subtle stab by the feisty senator at the old “divide and conquer” strategy.
Of course both liberals and conservatives would like lower gas prices, but it is also a fact that the majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. So for most conservatives it is not a question of either or, but rather of both.
The trick is in how the question was framed. Were a conservative to frame a similar question he may ask: Is it more important to squarely address the issue of homosexual marriage (one that is bound to have lasting negative repercussions on the traditional family; arguably the single unit responsible for the preservation of society), than to have cheaper gas?
Naturally most tax payers would not settle for anything less than both issues being addressed in a satisfactory and expedient manner. The price of gas we put in our SUV’s is important, but so is the future of the children in those SUV’s, whom we place at a risk by making them the heirs of a world where people are free to marry someone of the same sex, or, as recently reported in Israel, a dolphin for that matter. The chances of either union supporting the perpetuity of the species are equally dim.
Had we drawn a similar parallel three decades ago between any other pressing fiscal concern and the controversial issue of a woman’s Reproductive Rights, we may not have fared so well in the outcome either. 40 million plus abortions later I’m not sure we are in the same frame of mind to respond too hastily on the side of economic succor rather than moral impetus.
Unfortunately, many Americans are also plagued with the same kind of myopic perspective which demands immediate satisfaction for the issues of the moment and ignores problems which will only be felt decades down the road, and which only their children will have to face.
But what Senator Reid was simply trying to do is to stoke the coals of sectarian anger by portraying conservatives as being distracted with trivial issues such as what people do in their bedrooms rather than concentrate on the more pressing matters at hand such as offering relief to consumers at the gas pump.
Makes one wonder that Democrats must think so little of Republicans; they see them as perpetually bemused with deliberating such questions within an equally convoluted mindset. As if they are constantly conflicted with how issues like Peace in the Middle East, addressing the allegations of torture at Guantanamo Bay, illegal immigration and the ever present issue of Homosexual marriage are equally rivaling for their undivided attention.
Nevertheless, Senator Reid’s provocative meddling does raise an interesting question; will the American public someday reach a point at which they are so unduly burdened by economic hardships that they are by sheer necessity compelled to put aside their moral convictions in order to ease their burdens? In other words, at which juncture does money trump values?
This is a question few liberals rarely bother to be confronted with but love to castigate greedy executives with; and one that probably explains Senator Reid’s shameless political pandering masqueraded as genuine concern for the struggling American consumer.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Miguel Guanipa
