What the Portman Effect Says About Liberals and Conservatives

There was some interesting reaction in mid-March when Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman announced his support for marriage equality.  The former George W. Bush Budget Director had been a co-sponsor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman and prohibits any federal benefits to same-sex spouses.  In 1999 he helped campaign for a Washington State law prohibiting gays from adopting.  In 2011 his speech at the University of Michigan graduation ceremony was protested by hundreds of students due to what they called his "openly hostile" record on LGBT rights.  So it was quite a surprise when he told CNN Chief Congressional Reporter Dana Bash that he had changed his position and now supports the right of same-sex couples to marry.  The reason?  Two years ago, Portman's son Will came out to him as gay.  See Rob Portman's statement here. 

What's interesting to me in the reaction were those, usually supporters of marriage equality, who seemed to regard his new position as tainted because he had only changed his view after having been personally affected.  At first I thought, why should that be a surprise, having observed over time that Harvey Milk was right; the path to equality would be opened most through as many LGBT folks coming out as possible.  When people actually learn they have friends, relatives and co-workers whom they have known and liked for years, who happen to be gay, it becomes very difficult to fear and ostracize them.  In fact, it starts to become nonsensical.  Some are even starting to call the process the "Portman Effect," though you might recall it may earlier have applied to the extremely conservative Dick Cheney with regards to his lesbian daughter.  And a CNN poll finds a correlation between the percentage of people who know someone who is gay and the percentage who support gay rights.  As more people over time have reported knowing someone who is gay, the percentage in favor of gay rights has tracked that increase closely. 

But with a little more thought, I became intrigued.  What about all those who had moved much earlier on the issue without necessarily having known someone who was gay?  I wonder if that might say something about differences between intrinsic liberals and conservatives.  Most people who are not very young grew up in a society with intolerant attitudes toward LGBT people.  Yet those who are generally liberal in their views--pro-immigrant, pro-environmental, pro-social programs, anti-corporate, anti-war, anti-gun--seem to have often been early in supporting the gay rights movement.  Many conservatives remain opposed to allowing people of the same sex to marry, but those who know people in that situation seem to be more open to changing their minds. 

Might the difference be empathy?  When confronted directly with injustice affecting someone they know and love, conservatives show capacity to change.  But absent that, they seem reflexively influenced by their background and society's traditional attitudes.  When the injustice does not affect them personally, they are often immune to the appeal to change things.  I wonder if part of the root of having a liberal spirit may consist in large part of having a greater capacity to empathize with those who suffer without having to personally share in the effect.  It would appear to explain a lot in terms of policy positions liberals and conservatives tend to gravitate toward.