It seems as though online gaming might have a chance returning state-side sooner than expected. For the first time since 2000, the Republican Party Platform is void of language that explicitly opposes online gambling. Of course, this doesn’t quite mean that operators can start targeting the US again. It could just be political positioning to consolidate the GOP in the face of Obama-mania. As PokerNews.com reports:
In a surprising turnaround, the Republican Platform Committee today stripped language urging a prohibition of Internet gambling from its draft platform. Considering one of the leading opponents of an internet gambling ban is former Republican Senator, Alfonse D’Amato, Chairman of the Poker Player’s Alliance (PPA), a supporter of presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain, this move is not completely surprising. It appears to be part of an effort by the party to appeal to a wider constituency going into the November election.
Anti-internet gambling language had been included in the last two party platforms, in 200 and 2004, and was in the proposed platform for this year’s election. But it was removed just ahead of next week’s Republican National Committee meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota. About removing the anti-internet gambling language from the party’s platform, Sen. Richard M. Burr (R-N.C.) said, “We can use this to make the tent bigger.”
This platform was being drafted on the first day of the Democratic National Convention (DNC), where the Democrats seem to be united for the first time since the primaries started. Where it once looked like many Clinton support wouldn’t vote for Obama (and vice versa), that seems to have changed. For instance, since the DNC started, Clinton has thrown her support behind Obama.
It would make sense, then, that many of the GOP’s actions in the last week, and over the coming ones, could be interpreted as bringing their party as close together as possible. After all, having Republicans (such as former Senator Alfonse D’Amato) abstain from voting or (worse still) vote Democrat because they feel the UIGEA runs counter to the GOP’s small-government/libertarian strain, could be disastrous.
Besides, omitting any anti-gambling language from their platform is a completely non-committal act. The UIGEA is already a fait accompli, so by ignoring altogether, the GOP can stall on the issue and avoid alienating any of its supporters. This is, after all, a presidential race. The stakes are high, so as long as the party doesn’t outright antagonize its poker playing supporters by explicitly addressing the UIGEA, they stand a pretty good chance of retaining their loyalty through to decision day.
The point is that as interesting this GOP platform is for the online gaming industry, it doesn’t hold any promises.
If this non-committal act is the essence of their strategy, it will not have the desired effect. It’s too little, too late. They could have gotten away with that pre-UIGEA, but no longer. The UIGEA does run counter to the GOP’s ALLEGED small-government/libertarian strain, although it is one of many actions they have taken that runs counter to that. The Republicans underestimate how important this issue is to many of us. They must win our vote back, not simply “play defense” and not run us off, because they already have lost our vote. Becuase I belong to that “small-government/libertarian” strain, I would have a hard time voting Democrat, but I can certainly vote for Bob Barr and other libertarians, or simply abstain. Based on personal experience, my guess would be that the majority of poker players lean Republican and many of them feel the same way as I do. For the Republicans, the damage is already done. Anything short of a positive opposition to the UIGEA will not cut it. That simply amounts to leaving things the way they are, and that will not retain our loyalty. They have already lost it.
You’re right, Daniel: many recent Republican actions have run counter to GOP’s ALLEGED small-government/libertarian strain.
I think what it’s interesting about the UIGEA, however, is that it actually embodies another GOP strain: Christian-right / family-values.
The Christian right is known for being anti-gambling (online or off), and they’ll use family values to attack just about anything. So in a certain respect, I think, the UIGEA underscores an inherent conflict in the current Republican identity.
Something else you noted that I though was interesting was how if poker players are overwhelmingly Republican they would have a hard time voting Democrat but not Libertarian. In the grand scheme of a Presidential election, that would only take votes away from the GOP, but not put a libertarian in the oval office. In that sense, then, those poker votes would only really matter to a GOP candidate if the race for the presidency was close.
Now granted, the upcoming race does look like it’ll be rather contentious, but even that only underscores another impasse for Republican candidates: would an anti-UIGEA stance alienate the Christian-right the same way a pro-UIGEA stance (or even a neutral one) alienates poker players?
I suppose we’ll just have to wait for this election to play out before we’ll see. But after all, this election is promising to prove historic for a number of reasons.
Yes, I am aware of the conflict you mention, which is why they are better off leaving the offending clause in the platform than being non-committal, at least that way they keep pleasing that wing of their base, because this middle ground offends both.
Even though I am a Christian with very strong moral beliefs that some might find right wing against such things as homosexuality, adultery, smoking, etc., I would not use the police power of the state to enforce such beliefs on someone else, which is the way I believe the Republican Party should look at this, I just happen to disagree with the “Christian right” on this point of poker/gambling, because I find not one Biblical passage that addresses it, so to me, it is a matter of personal opinion, and those who think it’s wrong should abstain without legally forcing this opinion on us.
It appears, though, that the Republicans changed their mind and decided to put the offending clause back. At least this makes it clear where the party stands.
You are probably also right that the poker votes may not matter that much to them, although I think they are underestimating our numbers and the strength of our emotions/convictions on the matter. Even if a Libertarian vote did not change the outcome of the election, it would still serve to express the opinion of those of us who vote that way that we don’t believe the party to be the party of small government and individual liberty anymore. There may come a time in the future where this helps them realize their need for change, so I still don’t think this to be a wasted vote.
I am hoping that, barring some miraculous statement from McCain on the matter, which is highly unlikely since it is precisely this “family values” wing of the Republican base that McCain is trying the hardest to keep happy, that Sen. D’Amato publicly endorses someone other than McCain, even if it’s Obama. This would serve as a fairly high-profile defection from an otherwise loyal Republican, and it might even make a stronger statement than our Libertarian vote.
The impression I got from seeing Mr. D’Amato speak a few weeks ago, Daniel, is that he is a sufficiently devout Republican that he wouldn’t endorse a Democrat. Besides, even though it would have the effect of attracting some higher profile attention to the issue, that attention would be fleeting and the act would seriously damage D’Amato’s career.
In fact, but I think that this is a sufficiently important race for the White House that any Republican who is too vociferous in their opposition to McCain could irreparably damage their career. But that’s politics for you: people have to look after their own reputation before their “issues” because without a good reputation, they can’t do anything for their issues.
Your comments, however, make me think how the tension between the Christian right and the small-gov’t camps runs a lot deeper than a handful of issues. Where small-gov’t types such as yourself would rather the state stay out of other people’s moral trespasses, much of the Christian right would rather force people to act a certain way than actually try to convince them that it’s the way to act.