TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Is States' Rights A Position Or Evasion?

ADVERTISEMENT

By BILLY HOUSE

The Tampa Tribune

Published: July 28, 2008

WASHINGTON - John McCain's positions on offshore drilling and same-sex couple adoptions are just the latest he's taken on sensitive issues by insisting states should make their own decisions.

Historically, that is a legitimate conservative-federalist position.

But some say that, purposefully or not, a "states' rights" approach also allows McCain to sidestep, instead of taking more clear-cut positions that might better define the Arizona Republican to voters.

"Sometimes, it's just a way to duck an issue," says Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters.

Karpinski is among those who wonder whether McCain's use of states' rights rhetoric in his presidential campaign is at times more convenient than principled, such as with offshore drilling.

Michael Heaney, assistant professor of political science at the University of Florida, agrees that it's not always easy to know why a candidate takes a states' rights position.

"I think it can be a legitimate political view or an evasive tactic," he said.

At its most cynical, it can be a tactic to appease competing constituencies at once, even while using traditional conservative language that it is best for people on the state and local levels to hash out these tough questions, Heaney said.

For instance, on social issues such as gay marriage or adoption by same-sex couples, taking a states' rights position instead of opposing or supporting the idea works to assure conservatives in red states such as Kansas and liberals in New York that the politician won't seek to force his or her view on their localities.

An 'Unforgivable' Lie?

McCain has acknowledged that he once disguised his true feelings on a tough issue for political expediency by doing exactly that - saying the matter was better left to a state and its voters.

In his first run for the presidency in 2000, McCain told South Carolinians he understood both sides of their controversy over flying the Confederate flag atop their state Capitol, but said the decision was up to them.

Only after McCain lost that primary and dropped out of the presidential race did he return to South Carolina to tell voters what he had really believed: The flag should be lowered.

In his 2002 self-confessional book, "Worth The Fighting For," McCain said he had been a "coward" and that "I had severed my own interests from my country's. That was what made the lie unforgivable."

Today, in his second run for the White House, McCain maintains a number of his previous states' rights positions, including:

•favoring lifting a federal ban on offshore drilling and leaving the decision up to the states;

•describing himself as pro-life and saying he believes Roe v. Wade is flawed but wants decisions about legalizing abortion to be made by states;

•opposing same-sex marriage, but saying he believes that states have the right to legalize them; he opposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage;

•wanting to allow state and local education officials to make spending decisions.

And he has adopted newer ones. McCain says:

•he opposes adoptions by same-sex couples, but when gay rights groups objected recently, his campaign said he believes the issue should be decided by the states and that such adoptions should not be subject to a federal ban;

•he believes in evolution but also thinks states and localities should decide whether to teach intelligent design, evolution or creationism.

The McCain campaign declined a request for this story to discuss how voters can be sure that the senator's states' rights positions on various issues are genuine.

A campaign staff member, who asked not to be identified, assured that the senator's positions are a true reflection of what he believes. He characterized McCain's handling of the Confederate flag matter as an isolated circumstance.

David Davenport, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a nonpartisan think tank at Stanford University, agreed that it can be "hard to know" whether a candidate's states' rights position is legitimate.

"There can be a high-road interpretation to what a candidate is saying and a low-road interpretation," he said.

In McCain's case, though, Davenport said he believes there is an established record of defending the rights of states and local governments to make their own decisions.

The Right Not To Protect Lands?

Karpinski and other environmentalists, though, suggest that McCain's high-profile push in recent weeks for lifting the offshore drilling ban smacks of a calculated effort to score points with economically stressed voters in Midwest swing states, than to give Florida and California a louder voice in drilling.

McCain long has said he is in favor of letting individual states decide whether to drill off their coasts. In his first White House run in 2000, however, he also was reported to have claimed to some audiences his support for keeping the federal moratorium.

But Karpinski says what strikes him is McCain's inconsistency - because he continues to oppose drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when most Alaskans support that.

"From an environmental perspective, we always want to protect the rights of states to increase protections beyond federal protections," Karpinski said. "This is a very different dynamic; he's ready to give back to the states such as Florida and California the right to protect or not protect federal lands. And that makes no sense with regard to protecting valuable national treasures.

"If we are going down that road, why not let Wyoming decide what to do with Yellowstone National Park? Why not let Alaskans decide what they want to do with ANWR?" Karpinski asked sarcastically.

McCain has said he believes "a special status" is conferred on some areas of the country that are best undisturbed, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Perception Resurfaces

The perception that McCain may turn to states' rights rhetoric to avoid taking a stand surfaced again last week.

McCain initially had said in an interview with The New York Times that he opposed allowing same-sex couples to adopt children. Asked whether he opposed gay adoptions even if the alternative was that the child remain in an orphanage, McCain said adoption should be encouraged and made easier but that adoptive parents should be opposite-sex, traditional couples.

But after that, McCain's campaign was criticized by gay rights groups, and responded in a way that avoided alienating either the conservative base of the Republican Party or independent and moderate voters by saying it should be up to the states. That brought praise from one gay group.

"We are pleased that Sen. McCain clarified the remarks, and we thank the senator for once again reiterating his belief that issues concerning marriage and family laws should be left up to the states - not the federal government," said Patrick Sammon, president of Log Cabin Republicans.

Reporter Billy House can be reached at (202) 662-7673 or bhouse@tampatrib.com.

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT