The Volokh Conspiracy - I'm a Pragmatist, You're a Panderer:

Jacob Weisberg, Slate's editor writes (emphasis added):

Any political party counts on having a few hot buttons it can push at those moments when it is a few points behind in the polls with not much time left till Election Day. These issues have certain characteristics -- a whiff of pandering, the flavor of insincerity, an aura of desperation. They aim to stir passion but have little, if any, effect on most people's lives.... Raising the minimum wage sometimes serves the same purpose for Democrats.

This week, George W. Bush smashed his party's biggest "Break glass in case of fire" box, when he called on the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman....

Weisberg goes on to argue why the issue is unlikely to work for Republicans, and he might be correct on that. (I should note yet again that I generally support same-sex marriage, and have signed letters opposing the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.) But later on he writes (emphasis added):

A second reason the issue won't work again is that Democrats have by now figured out how to handle the issue.... Democrats have honed their talking points on the subject: Marriage should be an issue for states (the federalist position usually espoused by Republicans); the amendment is discriminatory and would also ban civil unions, which most people favor (this is an unsettled question); and why tinker unnecessarily with the Constitution, especially while the Defense of Marriage Act is in force? This sort of framing works pretty well in most of the country. In conservative Southern states where they face a steeper climb, Democrats are even more pragmatic. For example, Harold Ford Jr., a black congressman who is seeking Bill Frist's Senate seat in Tennessee, has simply taken gay marriage off the table by supporting the constitutional amendment.

A bit of dissonance, it seems to me, between the characterization of the Republicans and the Democrats here. Yes, the Republicans are taking the lead -- but it's hard for me to see how the leaders are "pandering" or "desparat[e]" (or even have a "whiff" or "aura" of it), and the willing followers who are also trying to score political points by their position (as politicians are expected to do) are simply "pragmatic."

	[Eugene Volokh, June 13, 2006 at 2:55pm] Trackbacks I'm a Pragmatist, You're a Panderer: Jacob Weisberg, Slate's editor writes (emphasis added): Any political party counts on having a few hot buttons it can push at those moments when it is a few points behind in the polls with not much time left till Election Day. These issues have certain characteristics -- a whiff of pandering, the flavor of insincerity, an aura of desperation. They aim to stir passion but have little, if any, effect on most people's lives.... Raising the minimum wage sometimes serves the same purpose for Democrats. This week, George W. Bush smashed his party's biggest "Break glass in case of fire" box, when he called on the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.... Weisberg goes on to argue why the issue is unlikely to work for Republicans, and he might be correct on that. (I should note yet again that I generally support same-sex marriage, and have signed letters opposing the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.) But later on he writes (emphasis added): A second reason the issue won't work again is that Democrats have by now figured out how to handle the issue.... Democrats have honed their talking points on the subject: Marriage should be an issue for states (the federalist position usually espoused by Republicans); the amendment is discriminatory and would also ban civil unions, which most people favor (this is an unsettled question); and why tinker unnecessarily with the Constitution, especially while the Defense of Marriage Act is in force? This sort of framing works pretty well in most of the country. In conservative Southern states where they face a steeper climb, Democrats are even more pragmatic. For example, Harold Ford Jr., a black congressman who is seeking Bill Frist's Senate seat in Tennessee, has simply taken gay marriage off the table by supporting the constitutional amendment. A bit of dissonance, it seems to me, between the characterization of the Republicans and the Democrats here. Yes, the Republicans are taking the lead -- but it's hard for me to see how the leaders are "pandering" or "desparat[e]" (or even have a "whiff" or "aura" of it), and the willing followers who are also trying to score political points by their position (as politicians are expected to do) are simply "pragmatic."