2004 was a year of flip-flops

By MARTIN SCHRAM
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE
Looking back, 2004 was the sort of campaign year that could make you flip.
Especially if you are a politician.
Take a close look at some key campaign slogans, arguments and policy fighting-word mantras of 2004 -- and then compare them with their roots. You will find that the rationalizations dished by America's politicians and the political influencers have come full circle. Which may be one reason why liberals and conservatives sometimes looked ridiculous as they frantically chased their own tails.
Just look at where the candidates, spinners and influence-seekers wound up in their sloganeering on major issues of Campaign 2004 -- and compare it with where those same arguments began.
States' rights
Consider the emotional arguments about "states' rights." In 2004, "states' rights" was the rallying cry sounded mainly by liberals who were pushing their favorite solution for legal same-sex marriages. Their rationalization was that the question of whether to legally permit marriage of gay or lesbian couples is the sort of civil right that should be left to the 50 states to decide for themselves. Conservatives who were opposed to legalizing any homosexual marriages argued that this was a matter of national values that must be governed by one national policy that defines a marriage as only a union of male and female couples.
But in the 1950s and 1960s, cries of "states' rights" were played on the flip side. It was the conservatives who made "states' rights" their mantra, as they argued that it should be up to each state to decide whether to permit segregation of the races in public accommodations and schools. It was the liberals and moderates who championed the argument that civil rights was an inherent right that had to be imposed upon all states.
Consider now the battles over deficit spending. Liberals rallied round the argument that the federal budget deficits are driving the national debt to record heights. And the Democratic team of John Kerry and John Edwards arguedin stump speeches that it is unconscionable for the federal government to bequeath this debt to our children and grandchildren to repay. Conservatives countered that these deficits are not to be feared, but are just a manageable byproduct of tax-cutting policies that are key to America's prosperity.
But listen now to what the original conscience of the conservatives, the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, used to say about the deficit spending brought about by Democratic-controlled Congresses, especially President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs, championed by liberals. "With all the excuses Congress still manages to come up with in support of big spending, the nation is headed for financial disaster," the Arizona Republican wrote in "Goldwater," his autobiography. "It's a damn disgrace. The Congress has now put Americans about $2.5 trillion in hock. That's about $10,000 for every man, woman and child."
Fundamentalist agenda
Consider next the wailings of liberals who decried the way Christian evangelical clergymen such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have injected themselves into American politics in pursuit of their conservative fundamentalist agenda, which includes the campaign to ban all abortions.
But then recall the crucial leadership roles played by clergymen such as Martin Luther King, Andrew Young and, later, Jesse Jackson in forging the civil-rights movement that contributed so much to correcting wrong-headed laws that deprived so many Americans of their rights.
Consider the activist role of a number of Roman Catholic bishops in Campaign 2004, as they said they would not give communion to politicians who advocated policies opposed by the church. There is evidence that their strong position may have had its desired effect. President Bush received 46 percent of the Catholic vote in 2000 against the Protestant Democrat Al Gore. But Bush did 2 percentage points better in 2004, winning 48 percent of the Catholic vote against his Catholic opponent, Kerry. The Massachusetts senator said that, as a Catholic, he personally opposed abortion, but would not allow his religious views to affect his enforcement of U.S. laws and court decisions.
That was the position that U.S. Catholics overwhelmingly cheered -- when it was first enunciated, not by Kerry, but by John F. Kennedy, in that historic speech in Houston before Protestant clergy on Sept. 12, 1960. He vowed that he would make decisions on issues including birth control "without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise."
X Martin Schram writes political analysis for Scripps Howard News Service.