Arkady
President
Hillary Clinton recently had a tense exchange with an NPR interviewer regarding her flip-flop on gay marriage. It basically came down to whether Clinton changed her political position because she'd changed her opinion about the issue, or whether the timing was about the change in how the position played, politically (in the 90s, being pro-gay-marriage was a political liability with most Americans, now being anti-gay-marriage is, and Clinton, like a great many major Democrats, swapped positions right around the time of the tipping point).
I think most of these gay-marriage late arrivers would rather have us think their timing was all about honest development of their personal views, rather than political convenience. Either possibility is plausible, and I don't think we have any way of knowing which is the case for any particular politician who happened to swap sides at or after the public "tilt." But, I actually find the latter possibility to be more appealing.
Think of it this way. There are only a few possibilities for a politician who swapped gay marriage positions about the same time it became a political asset rather than liability:
(1) The person was no more nor less morally insightful than the average American, so he or she became enlightened about gay marriage only when there was enough cause in the cultural zeitgeist to enlighten even a completely mediocre mind.
(2) The person was less morally insightful than the average American, so he or she remained secretly opposed to gay marriage even after the majority were on the other side, but swapped positions publicly for political convenience.
(3) The person was more morally insightful than the average American, and became secretly supportive of gay marriage before mediocre minds arrived at that position, but kept it quiet while it remained a political liability. He or she did this because it was not a major enough issue on which to expend precious political capital, given how few people it impacts, when that same political capital could be spent elsewhere on some issue that would help more people in bigger ways. So, he or she swapped positions only after it no longer amounted to an expenditure of political capital to do so.
All the politicians who swapped around that time, including Clinton, seem to want us to assume they're in the first category. But I'd be much happier to think they were in the third. I think the kind of person who didn't realize gay marriage was morally right until just recently is morally and intellectually stunted. I can forgive a member of the poorly-educated, provincial masses for how very long it took them to be enlightened on this. Most of them just didn't have much reason to know better. But it's harder to excuse someone like Clinton or Obama for maturing, morally, no faster than the homophobic majority of the herd.
I think most of these gay-marriage late arrivers would rather have us think their timing was all about honest development of their personal views, rather than political convenience. Either possibility is plausible, and I don't think we have any way of knowing which is the case for any particular politician who happened to swap sides at or after the public "tilt." But, I actually find the latter possibility to be more appealing.
Think of it this way. There are only a few possibilities for a politician who swapped gay marriage positions about the same time it became a political asset rather than liability:
(1) The person was no more nor less morally insightful than the average American, so he or she became enlightened about gay marriage only when there was enough cause in the cultural zeitgeist to enlighten even a completely mediocre mind.
(2) The person was less morally insightful than the average American, so he or she remained secretly opposed to gay marriage even after the majority were on the other side, but swapped positions publicly for political convenience.
(3) The person was more morally insightful than the average American, and became secretly supportive of gay marriage before mediocre minds arrived at that position, but kept it quiet while it remained a political liability. He or she did this because it was not a major enough issue on which to expend precious political capital, given how few people it impacts, when that same political capital could be spent elsewhere on some issue that would help more people in bigger ways. So, he or she swapped positions only after it no longer amounted to an expenditure of political capital to do so.
All the politicians who swapped around that time, including Clinton, seem to want us to assume they're in the first category. But I'd be much happier to think they were in the third. I think the kind of person who didn't realize gay marriage was morally right until just recently is morally and intellectually stunted. I can forgive a member of the poorly-educated, provincial masses for how very long it took them to be enlightened on this. Most of them just didn't have much reason to know better. But it's harder to excuse someone like Clinton or Obama for maturing, morally, no faster than the homophobic majority of the herd.
