Gays in the military: a democratic perspective

Although many Republicans apparently smell blood over President Clinton's proposal to lift the ban on gays in the military, the truth of the matter is that the issue has the potential to be the political equivalent of dynamite for both parties. For every chance that Democrats might get tagged as "out of the mainstream ultraliberals" as a result of this battle, there is the equal possibility that Republicans will further their image as "close-minded right wing zealots."

Without a doubt, President Clinton and the Democratic Party together face numerous hazards on challenging the military's longstanding ban on homosexuals within its ranks. Numerous national polls show the American public virtually divided on the gay issue, with support for ending the ban slowly eroding as the debate has become more focused. Key swing voters like New Confederates, Papal Tigers, and Rusty Bowlers are more set in opposition.

Still, as even my Republican colleagues recognize, the gays-in-the-military issue is unlikely to be the decisive factor in the 1994 elections. Even in the South, where disapproval of President Clinton's initiative runs strongest, the political impact of this issue is considered less severe than many Republicans hope. As Hastings Wyman, editor of the Southern Political Report, noted in a recent article for Roll Call, support for the ban is not likely to be decisive since southerners "don't appear to respond to anti-gay rhetoric as a reason for casting their votes in most elections."

In fact, if the Republicans fail to exercise sufficient care in setting up their opposition to the proposed policy change, their handling of the issue could further cement their extremist image on social issues. Just as the GOP convention last August served to solidify the party's right-wing image during a time when it needed to attract the crucial economically conservative, but socially moderate swing vote (i.e., Green Lites, Youngbloods, and Sorority Sisters), the Republicans' actions on this current controversy could prove to have similarly dire consequences on their attempt to broaden their appeal.

The Democratic Party already enjoys a clear advantage over the Republican Party on social issues. In a December 1992 NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, 36 percent of Americans said they agreed with the Democrats' policies on issues like abortion and gay rights, while 31 percent disagreed. Voters disagreed with the GOP's policies on these social issues by a solid 39 percent to 27 percent margin. Notably, younger women and Independents were most likely to support the Democratic Party's position on the social agenda. The one comforting thought for Democrats during the course of this debate is that Republicans are notorious for overplaying their hand. Indeed, it is very likely that the GOP will emerge from this controversy seeming shrill and intolerant, thereby facilitating the already-strong links between the Democrats and these key swing groups, and firming up the support of a key component of the Clinton coalition.

With regard to the swing groups that are generally less supportive of the president's actions on the gay issue, it is unlikely that this is enough by itself to earn their opposition. The backing of voters like Rusty Bowlers and Papal Tigers has the potential to erode if President Clinton is perceived as putting his social agenda ahead of his economic agenda. In essence, the compact between the president and these voters was based on his pledge to get the nation's economic house in order, and their vote will judge against this standard.

Amid the heated battle over the president's decision to lift the military ban on gays in early February, one editorial breathlessly pronounced that "Clinton risks a political defeat from which his presidency might never recover." The funny thing is, many pundits were predicting similar dire consequences for the Democratic Party in the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm. The only thing we know for certain is that the political world will be a much different place in November 1994 and 1996 than it is today.

While the gays-in-the-military debate holds obvious pitfalls for President Clinton and his party, it also holds less obvious, but equally important challenges for the GOP. Namely, has the Republican Party learned its lesson from 1992 and stand ready to practice a more inclusive brand of politics? And equally as important, does the GOP have the broad-minded and forward-looking mindset that is needed to bring a fresh approach to the array of new and complex problems facing the country (which Bill Clinton used to great advantage in 1992)?

Before Republicans become too eager to use the gay ban as ammunition to drive a wedge in the Democratic Party, they would do well to consider whether they are in fact shooting themselves in the foot.

Fred Yang is vice president of Garin-Hart Strategic Research Group, a Washington, D.C.-based Democratic polling firm.

COPYRIGHT 1993 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group