Fathers Can Decide The Election - Roger F. Gay

Fathers Can Decide The Election

January 25, 2004

by Roger F. Gay

A Gallop poll published in Newsweek shows John Kerry leading the president by 3-points – 49 to 46, signaling an end to the sense that George W. Bush is guaranteed a second term. It's beginning to look more like the race in 2000 in which every vote counted.

Both sides will have views on medical coverage, the time table for leaving Iraq, marriage, and the economy. But generally speaking – they're all for that. In a close race, those extra personally important issues that drive people to voting booths or cause them to ignore the election in frustration can force the final result one way or the other.

A classic general issue like taxes and spending will not decide the election. Positions are fixed. Democrats will spend more and tax more. Republicans will spend more and borrow more. Democrats will get more votes from people who pay little or no taxes. Republicans will do better among those who pay the bills. The strongest reactions to these big issues and whether we should have gone to war without U.N. approval are already built into current polls reflecting a relatively stable core for both parties. Elections are decided by those who swing.

Feminists have already asserted their historic claim that women will decide the election but nobody believes them. Hard-core, lesbian, man-hating feminists do not represent the majority of women. What they represent is a small but stable group of Democrat Party lobbyists who want Hillary to be president – not the swing voters who can change the outcome. They don't matter.

There are tens of millions of divorced and never-married fathers in the United States and just about as many stories of injustice. There are additional stories from men who are not fathers but are forced to pay child support for children that are not theirs. These fathers are not the only people who are aware that marriage and family issues are important. The crack in the institution of marriage has finally become so large that general public ignorance is no longer a political shield.

For decades, Democrats (along with at least one Republican president) led an assault against fatherhood, family, and American justice. They destroyed marriage and family legally, and eliminated family rights; basic human rights that all Americans should share. But recently Republicans have had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. Given the opportunity to address the problem, the Republican experience has been a great disappointment.

Republicans have failed to take a viable position. President Bush blames activist judges for the redefinition of marriage and wants to avoid family issues by leaving them to states. Sounds fair enough. But what states do (including the courts) is controlled to a very great extent by federal regulators, the great mass of federal family statutes that have been created over the past quarter century, and billions of dollars in federal funding. Leaving the problem to states is not a credible option unless accompanied by the repeal of federal laws. Since the beginning of his term, the president has been on the opposite side of his own position – with a desire to "build on what we already have."

Fathers are not asking for special entitlements and are not competing against women's rights. No fathers' group is lobbying for lower pay for women or trying to block women's access to constitutional process. To a large extent, they are not even opposing special entitlements for women. I know of no fathers' rights group for example, that has rallied against the extra $50 that was thrown into the welfare entitlement for no apparent reason during the last election season.

What they want, by and large, is reinstatement of the Constitution for themselves, and everyone else is welcome to the same rights. They want to put an end to corruption in government handling of family policy. This is an area that is entirely open to both parties. There has been a sudden growth of awareness of the vital importance of family issues. There is a huge potential benefit available to candidates who address family issues honestly. Those who fail to do so are running the highest risk of presenting themselves as dishonest and incompetent.

The number of eligible voters who really care will very likely be much greater than the number it will take to swing the election. There are so many that they could matter more than the largest cash donations. They could in the end decide the election.