To the Editor of the New York Times:

I just noticed that the article at the top of your website ("By Backing a Gay Marriage Ban, Bush Keeps Faith With His Base," 2/25) makes reference to President Bush's "base." In fact, all day today, amid the coverage of the President's announcement of his support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and civil unions, news organizations (in print, on the Web, and on the radio) repeatedly made reference to President Bush's "base."

Now, I think most people infer that in this context "base" refers to "conservative Christians" or "conservative Christian groups." Yet, it is quite difficult to understand the motivations for the president's decision without understanding the nature of this "base" for whose approval this decision was evidently made.

Indeed, aside from scattered vague generalizations about "conservative Christian groups" (and the occasional appearance of Reverend Jerry Falwell on cable news programs) I have seen very little detailed reporting about this "base" which seems so influential in the Bush administration's policy-making decisions.

We are now in the midst of a presidential campaign. Millions of voters will be looking to your newspaper for information about the candidates--information they need in order to make informed choices at the ballot box this November. Don't you agree that an essential component of this information must be an in-depth accounting of the agendas, motives, beliefs and desires of the candidates' respective "bases"?

As a registered voter who turns to the New York Times for information, I would personally like to see some reporting on the following questions regarding President Bush's "base":

First of all, what persons, organizations or companies comprise this "base," and what has been the nature of their influence (through lobbying, campaign donations, advertising campaigns, or personal/social interaction) on the president?

What is the view of the "base" on gay people and homosexuality? Obviously I know they are against gay marriage--but what are their other positions? Do they think institutional discrimination against gays and lesbians should be legal or illegal? Do they think gays and lesbians ought to be afforded the same civil protections, and the same freedom to participate in civic and community life, enjoyed by other citizens of our country? If not, why not?

What are their views about protections for women? Do they recognize and accept established law with regard to a woman's right to have an abortion, or do they seek to obstruct or even overturn such laws? What is their opinion on a woman's role in the family? Do they believe that women should have the same opportunity as men to pursue careers outside of the home? Do they believe we should have stronger or weaker laws to protect women from discrimination in the workplace and in educational institutions? Ought we to have stronger or weaker laws to protect women who suffer from domestic abuse? What about single women raising children? Poor women? Ought we as a society to do more or less to give these women a fair shake? And what about women in developing countries? Does President Bush's "base" support more aid or less aid to provide these women with birth control, medical attention during pregnancy (including abortion, if that is what the women want), education, and protection from physical abuse by spouses, communities, and governments? Does this "base" believe women should be paid more, the same as, or less than men who do the same work as they do?

How about taxes? I am aware that the president's base favors "less taxes"--but do they agree or disagree that our country should tax its individual citizens' and corporations' income and capital to the extent necessary to pay for the schools, health care, physical infrastructure, energy grid, food and water supply, and military and civic defenses (including the military, intelligence, the national guard, federal, state and local police, firefighters, Coast Guard, immigration services, port inspectors, doctors, nurses, and other medical staff and apparatus necessary to prevent terrorist attacks and respond to them effectively when they do occur) demanded by our citizens? If not, who do they propose will pay for these institutions, infrastructure and services? If they favor the withdrawal or discontinuation of such, will they explain this position to the American people?

What about the environment? Is President Bush's "base" for stronger or weaker controls on pollution in the ground, the air, and the water? If they are for weaker controls, whose families and children do they propose should live in and near the polluted or contaminated sites? What remedies for damages to the health and quality of life of such people would they propose?

How does the "base" feel about legal protections for citizens and consumers? Do they believe individuals, families and communities who have been injured by the actions of companies, corporations, or local, state and federal government agencies should have recourse to seek damages in our courts? If not, to whom or what ought the injured parties to apply for remediation?

Does the "base" think that a U.S. corporation should enjoy the same rights as an individual human being who is a U.S. citizen? If so, will they explain this position to the American people?

What are the views of President Bush's "base" on the religion of Islam? Do they believe that people of the Islamic faith living in our country should have the same or different rights to practice their faith and engage freely in civic and community life as people of other faiths?

On the question of religion and government: does President Bush's "base" respect the separation of church and state as set forth in the U.S. constitution? Do they believe that our elected leaders should make policy decisions (both domestic and international) based on religious beliefs? If so, what happens when the leader(s)'s religious beliefs are in conflict with U.S. law as set forth in our constitution and in laws enacted by the government? Which body of law does the president's "base" think should be the authoritative reference for policy-making decisions: the laws set forth in sacred scripture (including the Judeo-Christian Bible) or the laws of the United States?

How does the president's "base" feel about individual privacy? Do they respect the rights of U.S. citizens to engage in behaviors they may find objectionable, but that are legal according to U.S. law, free of monitoring or intrusion by local, state, and federal governments and law enforcement agencies?

What, overall, is the "base"'s vision for America? What would they like to see changed, and what would they like to see remain unchanged?

In conclusion, I think it would not be difficult for your journalists to discover and report on the answers to these questions. In doing so, they would provide invaluable information to our citizens, who need to understand the presidential candidates' motives for the decisions they make and have made. After all, a president (and a presidential candidate) is not an "island"--he comes with a "base." Now, let's find out what these "bases" are all about.

Sincerely,

Blicero


P.S. One additional question: If an Arabic-language speaker wanted to refer to "the [Republican] base," would he use the term "al qaeda"?