DOUG MACEACHERN

Ducey not an ogre! Who knew?

Doug MacEachern
columnist | azcentral.com
Republican Gov. Doug Ducey surprised liberal critics with his support for gay adoption

This is a great moment for some reflection from Democrats and liberals, who are flabbergasted to learn Gov. Doug Ducey's views on adoption are not what they presumed they would be.

The Republican governor is horrified at the fact that there are 17,000 kids in the foster-care pipeline in this state, and he is perfectly comfortable with any prospective parents, gay or otherwise, offering them stability and a bit of joy in life. Indeed, he vetoed legislation (probably unconstitutional legislation) that would have attempted to make it difficult for gays to adopt. This flummoxes many of the governor's critics, who have been painting Ducey has a kid-hater since he signed a state budget that included some education cuts.

Now, they think, this inexplicable contradiction is explained. He's not a typical conservative ogre (in this single instance) because he has been through these tough times himself as a kid. Ducey himself was adopted as a kid, along with his siblings, by his step-father. And a nephew went through the foster-care mill. And, so, progressives now can process the fact that the conservative governor has an adoption soft spot, even while the miserly state budget gives them proof-positive that he hates educating them.

This, of course, is insanity. Ducey cut public education in the margins because the state's economy is barely creeping along, creating only incrementally more revenue than in the dark days of 2007-09. And he didn't act to increase revenues because he sees that as placing drags on a sluggishly growing Arizona economy. Declaring he wishes to reduce state revenues to "as close to zero as possible" is simply childish vanity put to words.

Likewise, the governor's position on adoption may be influenced -- strongly, probably -- by his personal experience. But if he really was the heartless, child-indifferent creature of progressive fantasies, the ideologue in him would have overwhelmed these fluttering "better angels." Wouldn't they?

This strikes me as a good opportunity for some liberal reflection. Does applying psycho-babble like "hater" really explain any act of politics? Does it ever really advance an argument? Or is it just a convenient way to shut people up?

Do even milder expressions of contempt-- like those claims that Ducey acted to protect the interests of charter schools just because his fat-cat friends run charters -- really explain anything? As if his positions don't simply reflect a belief that school choice is, overall, a good thing for kids?

it's nice to see some equanimity on the part of groups like the Childrens Action Alliance, which was not at all fond of Ducey's budget, but which sent out a nice note complimenting him on his surprise position on gay adoption.

Others might consider doing the same.