Scapegoating As Political Strategy

It is with great sadness that I feel the need to withdraw my support for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republican Presidential nomination. Mr. Huckabee has recently, in South Carolina, decided to lower himself into the mud pits of scapegoating while, at the same time expressing a desire to change the U.S. Constitution to conform to the Bible.

Huckabee is pushing hard for the "scapegoater" vote, and is emphasizing his desire to push through a Constitutional amendment to exclude gays from marriage. He rationalizes his position as wanting to save the institution of marriage (even though nearly half of all exclusively heterosexual marriages currently end in divorce in America). No, Huckabee said that he wasn't just picking on gays: the amendment would also exclude marriages between a man and a child, a man and an animal, or a man and three women (an inclusion that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann astutely pointed out was a bigoted dig at rival Mitt Romney's Mormon history). I'd like to ask Mr. Huckabee, since he thinks the Bible should be the basis for law here, whether the "preservation of marriage" amendment shouldn't also go to both prohibiting marriage between people of different faiths (strongly discouraged in the Good Book), and allowing the rich and powerful to have multiple wives (Kings David and Solomon among many others). And exactly whose interpretation of the Bible would the Constitution be changed to suit? Undoubtedly, to fundamentalist Baptist preacher Huckabee, it would be HIS interpretation.

Scapegoating gays who wanted to get married was very successfully used by the Republicans in 2004 to get Bush/Cheney reelected by placing a "marriage is only between a man and a woman' referendum on various state ballots (including the crucial swing state of Ohio). Suddenly, voters who couldn't care less about "trivial" issues like the exporting of jobs abroad, diminishing privacy rights, the Iraq War, or fighting terrorism stood up in large numbers (including many of the abovementioned divorced ones) to "save marriage" and keep homosexuals from getting married. This time around, the average Joe (or Sally) isn't as concerned about gays as they are about the new scapegoat for everything: undocumented Mexicans in this country. If there's crime, it's the illegal aliens' fault. If the economy falters, it's the illegal aliens' fault. If someone gets in front of them in line at the store or at the gasoline pump who looks Latino, it's the illegal aliens' fault. If they're out in public and hear people speaking Spanish and not English, it's the illegal aliens' fault. So most of the Republican candidates, with the notable exception of John McCain (to his credit), are dueling each other to see who can be the biggest demagogue on this issue. And this streak of meanness that I see people perk up and respond to in masses scares me a bit. So that's why I now give my backing to Arizona Senator John McCain for the Republican nomination. McCain has his own problematic positions on some issues, but he hasn't stooped to the low level that some of his rivals have. Reasonable people with differing opinions on difficult and volatile issues can often work together to find solutions to them which, although not necessarily the ones most desired by the different sides, nevertheless help to diffuse them instead of inflaming them. Civil unions for gays is one of these solutions that, at least in today's political climate, has been successfully instituted in some states. And I would like to suggest to others who are prone to scapegoating in dealing with their problems to look more within themselves for solutions and stop blaming other groups.