Reihan Salam is one of my favorite policy writers and he had some interesting thoughts about how the issue of gay marriage impacts Rick Santorum’s chances to win the general election. This caught me a little short:
But the notion that opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in bigotry is now so firmly entrenched that Santorum will have an extremely difficult time overcoming it. If we assume that some nontrivial share of persuadable voters are social moderates or liberals who are sensitive to charges of bigotry, we can assume that they won’t even consider voting for Santorum. That is, Santorum’s universe of potential supporters is limited to those who (a) share his views on same-sex marriage or (b) are indifferent to his views on same-sex marriage and (c) indifferent to whether high-status individuals associate them with bigotry.
My initial reaction to this line of reasoning was obscene. My more considered reaction is : The heck with the opinions of high status individuals to the extent they are relying on their status rather than force of argument. The heck with those voters who are determined to go against their own opinions is a secret ballot based on what “high status individuals” would think of them (if they thought about them - which they probably don’t.) And that goes regardless of the issue in question. That liberal leaning elites would have an extra-loud tantrum in the case of a Santorum nomination is not a reason to oppose a Santorum nomination. They are going to have some kind of tantrum anyway. If Santorum is the right candidate, he is the right candidate. I suspect that, to the degree the median conservative hears an argument like this, they become a little (and maybe a lot) more likely to vote for Santorum.
But that would be a mistake. As Salam writes, regardless of whether the Republicans nominate Santorum or Romney, the Republican presidential nominee will basically have the same set of social policy proposals. The concern, which I share with Salam) is that I don’t see Santorum as being very good at talking to people who don’t already agree with him or making the case that one or two differences are less important than shared policy preferences on other issues. As Salam wrote elsewhere, Republicans can’t win and shouldn’t try to win social liberalism-first voters. There is already a party for them. Salam wrote that Republicans could and should be able to win over voters for whom social liberalism comes second, third, or fourth. I think a committed social conservative politician can do that. Take a look at Bob McDonnell. The same poll that shows more voters supporting same sex marriage than opposing it also shows McDonnell (a strong opponent of same sex marriage) to have a 62% approval rating. Democrats tried to run the “crazy, right-wing Christianist loon” play on McDonnell in 2009 and it flopped. He didn’t give an inch on abortion or gay marriage, but he relentlessly focused on economic policy. McDonnell swept Virginia and has maintained high approval ratings. I would feel better if I thought Santorum had Bob McDonnell’s discipline and sense of the moment, but I don’t. So maybe a brokered convention gets us Bob McDonnell. I can dream.
