Some Wedge Issues

Sherrod Brown, now running for the Senate in Ohio, notes that the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation that would repeal restrictions on funding stem cell research. This, you recall was the story that tortured our boy King for so many months prior to 9/11. The Senate simply hasn't taken it up. Bill Frist, MD is of course gearing up for a play to the far-right Christianist base in a 2008 election run, and his personal agenda has become the agenda of the Senate. There's no way he's going to let a stem cell research bill through. After all, it would be criminal to kill 6 blastulae in order to possibly save millions from diseases and injuries.

Rep. Brown rightly calls out his opponent in the Ohio Senate race, the supposed moderate Mike DeWine, to tell us where he stands on this bill:

I was an original co-sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 in the House. My opponent, Republican incumbent Mike DeWine, opposes embryonic research under all conditions, and has helped block the vote in the U.S. Senate.

Senator DeWine has changed his position on other issues. I don't see any reason why he can't do the same for stem cell research.

Ohio families shouldn't have to wait till next January for a new U.S. Senator to vote the right way. We need to change course today.

Expanding stem cell research is our best hope to develop treatments for cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer's, hemophilia, juvenile diabetes, and many, many more conditions.

This has also become an issue in the Senate race in Missouri, where Sen. Jim Talent first supported, then dropped his name off an anticloning bill (what? We had an anticloning bill? In the US Senate? Do these people base public policy on David Cronenburg movies?) that would have outlawed certain stem cell research. He's trying to walk a tightrope and his opponent Claire McCaskill is slamming him for it.

Democrats are using the stem cell issue as a wedge, and in a good way. They are playing to people's hopes instead of their fears. The hope of radical medical breakthroughs far outweighs the concern for a few blastulae. This is a circumstance where Republicans are running for cover simply because Democrats are explaining what the real issue is.

Meanwhile the gay marriage ban, which Republicans used as their wedge issue in 2004, is suddenly running up against some difficulty within the party:

It's true that Senate Republican leaders, including Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, have slated a floor vote on the amendment for early June, in hopes that grateful religious conservatives will show up to vote in November. But the overall party message is mixed. Laura Bush told Fox News last weekend that same-sex marriage should not be used "as a campaign tool," and Mary Cheney, the vice president's gay daughter, told CNN Wednesday that "writing discrimination into the Constitution of the United States is fundamentally wrong."

Bush has said virtually nothing. Actually, on the eve of his second term, he said he was averse to pushing hard for an amendment, so in a sense he is simply being consistent.

To religious-right leader Gary Bauer, the president's underwhelming effort is "inexplicable." Bauer said the other day that Bush "should be calling members of Congress, twisting arms, making public statements, rallying the troops. This issue is extremely important to his base. This administration needs to get its base back." He warned that if Bush doesn't crusade against gay marriage, "this is just going to be one more thing that keeps people at home on Election Day."

The problem is that moderates are running from the party in droves, and the metrics of this election requires moderate votes. Republicans have to split the eye of a needle, which is no easy task with the War in Iraq already threatening to destroy their Congressional majority.

GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said Friday: "We can't afford to alienate moderate voters any more than they are already alienated... . Issues have a shelf life. Gay marriage passed everywhere [on state ballots] in 2004, but today, a lot of people look at that issue and think, 'It is so over and done.' Our party base is already fracturing, and if we emphasize gay marriage now, it would create new divisions."

Why are so many moderate Republican voters feeling alienated? Party strategist Craig Shirley suggested, "There is a fear, among some in the party, that the Republicans are being identified too much as a theological party." With good reason, apparently: Fabrizio estimates, based on his own surveys, that half of today's Republicans are "theocrats" who want government to "promote traditional values by protecting traditional marriage," as opposed to wanting less government intrusion into personal lives.

In a sense, this split sums up the dilemma for Santorum this year: If he pushes hard on issues like this, his "theocratic" base may respond favorably - yet that could hurt him badly in the politically moderate, vote-rich suburbs of Bucks and Montgomery Counties.

When you base wedge issues on hopes, they remain relevant until the hopes are realized. When you base them on fears, they fizzle out as soon as people figure out that there's nothing to be afraid of.