6 June 2006Julian Borger
George Bush declared his backing for a ban on gay marriage yesterday in what sceptics said was part of a broad campaign by the US president to win back disillusioned conservatives and divert attention from the Iraq war.
With five months to go before congressional elections, Mr Bush and his party have slumped in the polls, pummelled by the flow of bad news from Iraq, high petrol prices and a series of political scandals. But the Republicans are just as worried about disillusion spreading among conservative activists, whose high turnout clinched the party's victory in 2004 and who have their own list of grievances.
Addressing those concerns, Mr Bush has deployed national guard troops to the Mexican border to help keep out illegal immigrants. The first 55 arrived yesterday
Republican leaders in Congress also plan to put forward a ban on flag burning and vote to abolish inheritance tax.
The highlight of the swerve to the right came yesterday, when Mr Bush met a group of conservative activists to pledge his support for their proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. He also devoted the weekend's radio address to the nation to the issue.
"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," the president said. "Government, by recognising and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."
The federal marriage protection act is intended as a response to a 2004 decision by the Massachusetts supreme court, and a similar ruling expected in Washington state, to permit same-sex weddings. But it stands no chance of winning the two-thirds vote it requires in the Senate and House of Representatives, let alone ratification by three-quarters of the states. Its proposal in the Senate and its White House backing is rather an act of political symbolism on an emotive issue.
"Unless in the constitution ... we secure the definition of marriage, a judge somewhere, sometime, will redefine marriage for all of America," Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a social conservative pressure group, told ABC News yesterday.
Democrats derided the measure as a distraction from more serious problems and a desperate effort to stir up socially divisive issues to stave off defeat in November. "A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry, pure and simple," Senator Edward Kennedy, the party's leading voice on social issues, said yesterday.
In attempting to appeal to its conservative base, Republicans risk alienating centrist voters by focusing on political symbolism in wartime. The need for a law banning flag burning has been questioned in a country where flags are rarely burned - the New York Times called it "a solution in search of a problem, if there ever was one".
Meanwhile, the abolition of inheritance tax, before the Senate this week, will only benefit families with estates worth more than $4m (£2.1m).
"Most people are more concerned about performance issues, over Iraq and the economy," said Andrew Kohut, of the Pew Research Centre polling organisation. "In terms of issues these are pretty far down the line of concerns [of the public]. The question is ... whether this can re-energise the conservative base and make it more likely to vote in the mid-terms."
Polls suggest the Democrats could win back the House of Representatives in November, if not the Senate, and a hostile Congress could render Mr Bush virtually powerless. Much will depend on the readiness of his core supporters from 2004 to go to the polls for his party.
Despite the flurry of activity some conservatives remain sceptical. "He's trying to do the bare bones minimum," Richard Viguerie, an activist and author of a book titled Conservatives Betrayed, told the Guardian. "He has to convince conservatives that we have a stake in his presidency. Right now we don't."
