Attitudes about gay marriage in New Jersey

I was asked to write this analysis for a Gannett New Jersey feature, including Asbury Park Press, Daily Record, Home News Tribune, and Courier News. It appeared in Sunday's papers.

What is public opinion on gay marriage? That question was certainly at the forefront of New Jersey’s recent legislative debate on the issue. But a better question may have been whether the public actually has an opinion on gay marriage.

Polls taken on same-sex unions over the past few years, both nationally and in New Jersey, have been fairly consistent in their findings. When asked about the issue, the gut-level public reaction is divided. However, as a policy issue, most people aren’t all that concerned one way or the other.

New Jersey polls over the past six years show that support for gay marriage has drifted between 41 and 50 percent. At the same time, opposition has hovered within a nearly identical 40 to 50 percent range. At different times, supporters have outnumbered opponents by a few points and at other times, it’s been the other way around. The bottom line is that neither side of the issue has been able to claim a clear majority here in the Garden State.

It’s worth noting that both state and national polls do show strong majority support for civil unions. Basically, the public is solidly behind extending marital rights to same-sex couples. It’s just that some are uneasy about using the term “marriage” to describe those unions.

Even so, many people don’t hold their views on gay marriage all that deeply. This was born out by a near universal blip in the polls last year caused by a bizarre event.

There was a flurry of polling about gay marriage last spring that suggested a big jump in support for same-sex marriage. Between the spring of 2006 and late April 2009, a Quinnipiac Poll of New Jersey voters measured an 8 point increase in gay marriage support. Nationally, the ABC News/Washington Post and CBS News/New York Times polls saw support jump by 13 and 15 points, respectively. Polling organizations that waited until May 2009 to poll on gay marriage, though, saw smaller increases (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics up 6 points) or none at all (USA Today/Gallup actually went down 2 points). [See here for national polls.]

So what momentous event occurred in April 2009 to cause this shift in opinion? It was the Miss Universe contest, when Miss California, Carrie Prejean, announced that she was personally opposed to gay marriage. The ensuing media storm was fast and furious, with the number of press articles on gay marriage doubling during those weeks. Based on the polls, public opinion initially reacted negatively to Ms. Prejean’s position, but quickly returned to its prior standing once the media attention died down.

At the end of the day, few people, especially New Jerseyans, hold deeply-rooted opinions on this issue because they do not feel that either allowing or banning same-sex marriage would affect their own lives. Every Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll conducted during last year’s campaign for governor found no more than one percent of voters reporting that gay marriage was a burning issue for the state. This was reinforced by a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll released after the election that found only two percent of the public who said that gay marriage was the most important issue facing New Jersey and just another 15 percent who said it was among a handful of issues they consider very important.

Tellingly, that same Rutgers poll asked people how they would react if the legislature had passed a gay marriage bill. The majority said they would simply live with it.

New Jersey arguably has a greater diversity of cultures and lifestyles than any other state in the union. Our state motto "Liberty and Prosperity" could probably use a rewrite. Certainly, our present fiscal predicament undermines the validity of the current slogan, but my concern is more about better reflecting the Jersey mindset.

My nominee for a new Garden State motto is "Live and Let Live." And public opinion on same-sex marriage is simply one case that illustrates that point.

He Said, He Said. So What?

This post originally appeared as a guest column for In The Lobby.

Governor Chris Christie has wasted no time making his mark on Trenton. He has already used his veto power to make examples of fiscal waste. And last week, he called a special session of the legislature to declare a state of fiscal emergency.

In all honesty, the governor’s address to the legislature was pure political theater. He made no proposed cut that required legislative approval (although many Democratic legislators may disagree). Chris Christie knows that it is important to appear that he is firmly grasping the reins of an out-of-control state government. This is a guy who understands the power of symbolic acts.

During his speech, Christie likened the anticipated reaction of his critics to the cries of “unfair” he hears from his nine year old son, Patrick, who was sitting in the Assembly chamber. It is not for this observer to determine whether his proposed cuts and other actions to date are fair or not. Although I will say that embarrassing his son in public was definitely not cool. (We Patricks have to stick together.)

Those cries of “unfair” have already come from one unexpected quarter. The man Christie defeated. There has been a concerted effort by Jon Corzine’s camp to lay claim to the budget cuts proposed by Christie and to dispute the new governor’s deficit calculations.

I have no idea who is right in this debate, but it doesn’t really matter. As Winston Churchill said, “History is written by the victors.”

I understand that the former governor feels he hasn’t been given full credit for his administration’s achievements. That’s probably true, although the fault lies as much in his own inability to communicate those achievements as anything else. He was never a good student of how public opinion operates – and how important it can be to a politician’s success.

That is not to say that Chris Christie can’t overplay his hand on this. Just look at President Obama. While more Americans still blame the Bush administration for today’s economic woes, it’s Obama who now bears responsibility for the solutions (or lack thereof, depending on your point of view).

For Corzine’s part, his unwillingness to go gracefully threatens to put him in a class with former Vice President Dick Cheney. If Jon Corzine is at all concerned with his legacy, I don’t think he wants to go there.

The debate is not whether Christie is using somebody else’s ideas. If he executes them, he gets the credit. If Corzine’s tenure showed us anything, it’s that the need to execute is paramount.

This brings us back to the challenges faced by New Jersey’s current governor. Chris Christie was elected with less than half the vote. During the fall campaign, voters with an unfavorable opinion of the candidate were nearly as numerous as those with a favorable view (although that ratio has improved since his election). Importantly, most voters had little idea exactly what he was going to do as governor and they still don’t.

Make no mistake, though. Christie still has the upper hand. Why? A majority of New Jerseyans think the state has been on the wrong track for years. Trust in government at all levels is at a historic low. And the vast majority of New Jerseyans believe that their state government is fundamentally broken and requires a major overhaul.

In this environment, Christie gets the benefit of the doubt by default, regardless of what his predecessor may claim. There is no question that his proposals will bring about pain; pain that will eventually cause a public outcry. But his first step must be a clear demonstration that he is in charge of the process – that he is willing to take on the multi-tentacled octopus of state government and not let go until he’s got it under control.

To that end, last Thursday’s address put the legislature on notice. Chris Christie will be looking over their shoulder for the next four years. It is telling that Democratic legislators reacted to his speech by voicing their irritation at being “left out” of the process as much as they criticized the substance of the governor’s cuts. Mounting a “process” argument is never a good tactic, especially when your job approval rating dwells in the mid-20s.

As the Christie administration approaches the one-month mark, the governor is making all the right moves – from a public opinion standpoint. Will this era of good feeling last? Probably not. The cuts are severe, and there will be an even more brutal round of spending cuts when next year’s budget plan is unveiled.

Chris Christie understands that the window of opportunity for winning over public opinion is short. He has to let the public know that the pain he is proposing now will lead to prosperity in the near future. And he has to do that by demonstrating, in a very public way, that he will be overseeing every step of the process.

Thursday’s speech was one step in the strategy to solidify his reputation in that area and build up a reservoir of good will. The cuts have not yet hit home. When they do, Christie will need to hang on to every bit of public support he is currently accruing. The hue and cry is coming.

Will Christie provoke the ire of towns and school districts who claim that his cuts will lead to higher property taxes? Absolutely, and they may even win the public debate on that point.

Will the Democratically-controlled legislature try to stymie his efforts? They certainly will, and in some cases they will do so with good cause (although it may be difficult to justify that to the public).

Will Christie take a hands-off approach like his predecessor and just assume that the wheels of government will turn in the direction he wants them to go? In the immortal words of Jerry Seinfeld, “Not bloody likely!”

Obama and Christie: A Study in Contrasts

This post originally appeared as a guest column for In The Lobby.

Wednesday night was certainly an interesting one for political observers in New Jersey. The evening began with the Garden State’s new chief executive, Chris Christie, appearing on New Jersey 101.5 to talk about what he would do in his first year. An hour later, President Barack Obama took to the national airwaves to explain what happened in his first year and how the second will be different.

Both addresses acknowledged what is unquestionably the major underlying failure of government today. As President Obama stated in his State of the Union, “We face more than a deficit of dollars. We face a deficit of trust.” However, the two chief executives demonstrated different approaches to regaining the trust necessary to get us back on the right track.

Governor Christie appeared aggressive and direct in his responses to constituent questions. While he may have been short on details, he was crystal-clear on style. Speaking about some minor cost-cutting measures, he advised listeners that these cuts alone would not close the budget gap, but he showed that he understood the importance of such actions when he said, “I believe that symbolism is important. It says we ‘get it.’”

President Obama’s speech also included statements intended to convey that he “gets it.” For example: “We all hated the bank bailout.” And: “Jobs must be our number one focus in 2010.” He even tried to recast his health reform proposal as primarily a middle class measure. It was a decent speech, but way too long. (And the length only reinforced the sense that he is not focused on key concerns).

One major difference between the president’s and the governor’s broadcasts was the tone. Middle class voters want to know that their elected leaders truly appreciate the problems they face. Christie demonstrated that, while Obama fell short. When the president came to office, there was a sense that his cool demeanor would be an asset in Washington’s overheated partisan environment. His tone is now perceived as an unwillingness to engage in the heat of the battle.

Admittedly, the president showed more passion in this speech than in any other past effort. It just wasn’t enough. Sure, he took to task members of both parties in Congress, the Supreme Court, and certain special interests. But if you watched him carefully, he almost seemed uncomfortable uttering those words.

Talking about the financial reform bill, Obama remarked that “The lobbyists are trying to kill it. Well, we cannot let them win this fight.” While it was an admonishment, you couldn’t exactly call it confrontational. Any claims to moral outrage were further undermined when he said, “I’m not interested in punishing banks.”

Well, guess what. The public feels that somebody needs to be punished – or at least appear to be punished. If things are going downhill, there has to be some enemy who is impeding progress.

Here in New Jersey, Governor Christie has been more than willing to identify an enemy of the public good. It’s public employee unions. As one of his first acts in office, he placed these unions under pay-to-play campaign restrictions. He also realizes that he has to cast the enemy carefully, saying, “No one should believe that the views of the teacher’s union are monolithic among teachers.”

Governor Christie also speaks like a man who is not willing to take guff from the legislature. His executive order to keep casinos open in the event of a government shutdown was seen as a shot across the bow for budget negotiations. He has the power of a line-item veto, and every indication is that he will use it. Some in the legislature may view Christie’s approach as paternalistic and condescending. But since a good chunk of New Jersey thinks their legislature is petty, the approach may be justified in the eyes of the public.

By the same token, the reactions of members of Congress to the State of the Union address was viewed by many as adolescent. In this case, though, Barack Obama is viewed as the parent whose threats are not taken seriously. It’s a perception he must change.

Obama has threatened to veto the financial reform bill if it is watered down by lobbyists. Here is one thing he can do to win back the public’s trust. First, clearly – and shrewdly – delineate what reforms are absolutely essential. Second, execute the veto if any are missing from the final bill.

The problem with Obama’s attempt use his first State of the Union speech to reboot his presidency is that after a year in office, he is now judged by his actions, not by his promises. Obama may be able to claim some accomplishments, but not on his signature issue. The problem for Obama is that he drew the line in the sand on health care, and then he retreated from that line numerous times.

When you fumble on a defining issue, you lose the benefit of the doubt on other proposals. And you certainly don’t get a do-over. Are you taking notes, Governor Christie?

The wave of middle-class voter discontent that carried Obama to the White House in 2008 has now become a tsunami of frustration. It has resulted in Republican takeovers of the governorships in New Jersey and Virginia and the once-unthinkable U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts. Voters in these states sent a simple message: “You promised that government would become more responsive to the middle class. Not only have you not delivered on that promise, but you haven’t even been trying.”

The public knows that government dysfunction is caused by a failure at all levels, but it’s the guy at the top who must take the blame. A willingness to throw some elbows to ensure that government gets back on course will determine whether both Barack Obama and Chris Christie, as well as the nation and the state, succeed.