Manufacturing a mandateBy RODNEY CROOMELeading government and media figures are keen for us to believe that the electorate has moved to the right on "moral", minority and gay issues. But the claims are exaggerated and do not mandate a wind back of basic human rights. Liberal Senator, Guy Barnett, believes that "gay marriage took its place alongside the economy, national security and world terrorism" in returning conservative US and Australian governments that have "commonsense values that appeal to the middle ground". Former Age editor, Gregory Hywood claims "the celebration of the traditional family is clearly an electorally popular notion." The Australian agrees. It asserts that Howard and Bush's victories explode "the assumption that proper politics should focus on minority interests.....The political winds are shifting (towards) the economic and social stability of the traditional family unit". In turn, the reflexive response of at least one Labor MP has been that "we have to use the God agenda, the fear agenda and the patriotism agenda. We have to beat these bastards at their own game". But before the two major parties throw pluralism, secularism and the gay community overboard they need to heed voices of caution. Most of the assertions of a general rightward shift on traditional values and gay rights are based on a US election exit poll showing 22% of voters made "moral issues" their number one voting priority, and on the success of 11 state ballots against same sex marriage. Senior US electoral analyst, Dick Meyer, has dismissed the 22% result as meaningless. "If the (exit) polls had been worded or constructed only slightly differently, moral values would not have been the top issue. We're building a worldview out of a small, odd vista." The Economist argues that the 22% figure actually represents a decline in the electorate's interest in "moral values". "The 22% share is much lower than it was in the two previous presidential elections, in 2000 and 1996. Then, 35% and 40%, respectively, put moral or ethical issues top, and a further 14% and 9% put abortion first, an option that was not given in 2004. Thus, in those two elections, about half the electorate said they voted on moral matters; this time, only a fifth did." This is consistent with polling which tells a very different story to the US state marriage ballots. It shows that a rapidly increasing majority of Americans (61%) including a majority of Bush voters (51%), support formal recognition for same sex couples. Australia doesn't have the benefit of such detailed polling. But the most authoritative survey shows the community fairly evenly divided on gay marriage, 38% in favour, 44% against. Meanwhile, reform of Australian state laws to recognise same sex relationships has broad and increasing public support. Clearly there is no evidence of a general right-ward shift on moral, minority or gay issues. The best we can say is that issues like gay marriage were successfully deployed by conservatives in Australia and the US to galvanise evangelical Christians in some of Australia's key marginal seats and America's swing states. So why is the idea of a wholesale rejection of social and sexual pluralism becoming gospel? Put simply, it de-legitimises outstanding minority claims on justice and provides government with a ready-made justification for ever more extreme policies. In Australia the Government has already signalled these policies will include banning same-sex couple overseas adoption and allowing states to limit access to fertility treatments. Conservative Christian lobby groups are also demanding the Government move to censor gay content on the internet and on television, and stop government funding to gay support programs. Worst of all is the possibility that the Howard Government will build on its legislative same-sex marriage ban, passed earlier this year, with a constitutional ban paralleling George Bush's constitutional marriage amendment. The non-gender specific definition of marriage in the Australian Constitution gives the Government another excellent opportunity to corral key constituencies with fears about the definition of marriage being undermined by "activist judges, future Labor Governments or renegade states". As in the US, a constitutional same-sex marriage ban would also give the far right the cover it needs to halt a proliferation of partnership registration schemes like the one which already exists in Tasmania. Drawing the Government towards these policies will be a desire to sustain its popularity with conservative Christian voters. Because of their discipline, enthusiasm and capacity to proselytise, conservative Christians are an immensely valuable constituency the Coalition cannot afford to lose wholesale to, say, Family First. But like all extremists, politicised evangelicals and fundamentalists have a long list of demands and are easily disillusioned if these are not met. The one great brake on the resulting rightward pull will be a broader electorate indignant about its fundamental belief in tolerance being sidelined. In a warning that applies equally to Australia's right-of-centre parties, US conservative, Andrew Sullivan, notes, "The Republicans should be wary of over-playing their hand. If they believe the entire country is the religious right, the backlash could begin very soon."
Sources:
Go to
RAPID RESPONSE EMAIL: What do you think? Sunday, December 5, 2004 |