The Agenda

In the course of a great op-ed on the new congress, Old Boss Mike Tomasky notes that splits inside the caucus on cultural issues are unlikely to be important because "there will be no votes in the next two years on any divisive social issues." Quite so. It doesn't really matter what, say, Heath Shuler thinks about marriage equality or flag burning because Nancy Pelosi isn't going to push these topics to the floor -- they used to come up all the time as a deliberate GOP legislative tactic.

This, however, is also the reason why groups seeking progressive social change can ill-afford to abandon the judicial process in favor of a single-minded focus on electoral politics. Even if some future scenario arises in which, say, 52 percent of the public favors gay marriage, the Democrats have a majority in the House, and a majority of House members favor gay marriage there still very little chance of a marriage equality bill passing. Even under those cirsumstances, some Democratic members will come from marginal districts where gay marriage is likely to be unpopular. Forcing a vote on gay marriage would imperil those members (even if they voted "no" it would be a problem for them) and protecting marginal members would be a high priority for the leadership. Unless gay rights groups could put a lot of financial clout behind a gay marriage push, it simply wouldn't be worthwhile to pick a big fight over a controversial topic. What's more, given the Senate's massive overrepresentation of culturally conservative voters, it would always be extremely difficult to secure the 60 votes necessary to actually pass a gay marriage bill.

Recall that desegregation was a majority supported position long before the federal government actually did anything about Civil Rights. This was for roughly the same reason -- civil rights was bad coalitional politics and the Senate provided ample room for a conservative minority to obstruct progress. Legislative action came eventually because judicial decisions provoked a series of crises that it was impossible for the elected branches in Washington to ignore. This reality doesn't especially fit one's intuitive notion of how democracy "ought to work" but it reflects the reality of democracy as actually practiced in the United States.

Comments

Yep, and even with their hands forced, the Dems have paid and paid and paid for the last 40 years for the Civil Rights Acts and we are only NOW forging a truly post-1960s political coalition.

I'm not knocking it, hell I'm a hispanic law student and that might not have happened with out the passage of such things in the 1960s, but looking at the reality is necessary.

It's always easier to keep your prejudices than challenge or change them so sometimes we need a little push.

Posted by MNPundit | November 12, 2006 4:45 PM

There are some fairly massive differences between racial discrimination in ye olde days and discrimination against gay Americans. At a minimum, news reports suggest that if we sit on our hands for twenty years, gay marriage (or at least gay civil unions) will come legislatively as opponents die out. I don't think there was any reason to think that was true about the Jim Crow laws or racial discrimination generally. The gay population is not separated out from the general population--at least not today--in the way that the African-American community was/is.

That's not to say nothing should be done, but let's not overstate the case. I'm leery of judicial action beyond requiring an equivalent status for gay partners because legislative victories are both more stable.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 12, 2006 4:59 PM

Hi Matt,

Random question:
Should I mail Peter Beinart's book to my "Yellow Dog" democrat grandfather in Houston or should I wait until your book comes out and mail that to him instead? How long until your book comes out?

Posted by Travis Vedder | November 12, 2006 7:46 PM

"there will be no votes in the next two years on any divisive social issues."

This is why I think it is a mistake that, as reported, Pelosi is going to allow Republicans to offer floor amendments.

There will be social issue votes.

Posted by bob mcmanus | November 12, 2006 8:29 PM

Apparently it's escaped your notice that marriage et al. is something that should be under the authority of the states and that the federal govt. shouldn't be putting its nose in at all? Which is the reason why many Republicans opposed the 'sanctity of marriage' amendments.

SomeCallMeTim indicates the appropriate road to gay marriage, if you must have it.

Posted by kishnevi | November 13, 2006 12:44 AM

"There will be social issue votes."

To second Bob's point -- not only on floor amendments, but also the Supreme Court! Not so much an issue for Heath Shuler, per se, but certainly Bob Casey. One also shouldn't underestimate the GOP base's ability to spin ANYTHING as a social issue vote.

Not to get all Aaron Sorkin here, but how long before the GOP opposition "discovers" that there's some hidden funding for abortion research in some random NIH appropriations bill and uses that to create a controversy via well-placed leaks Drudge, Hannity, etc.?

Posted by Frank Bruno | November 13, 2006 1:56 AM