There is a similarity in the way that Obama has approached immigration and the Hispanic voting bloc, and his approach to gay issues—including “don’t ask don’t tell” repeal, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and marriage equality—and the gay voting bloc. It boils down to this: Obama and the congressional Democratic leadership (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi) will often not act when they can in order to maintain a campaign issue and mobilize the relevant bloc for the next election. But when Obama feels he is forced to act, he does so in a way that’s ensured to inflame polarization and partisanship, which he then attempts to use to his advantage.
On immigration reform, in 2007 Sen. Obama scuttled a comprehensive legislative deal worked out with John McCain and other immigration centrists in both parties, allowing him to use the issue in his 2008 presidential campaign. Then, having won the presidency and with his party in control of both houses of Congress, Obama, Reid and Pelosi did nothing for the next two years on immigration. Then they ran on the issue (albeit unsuccessfully) in the 2010 midterms. At which point the Republicans took over the House and blocked a somewhat bipartisan deal that had passed the Democratic Senate, as part of their own bloc pandering (for the anti-immigration vote).
Similarly, as I’ve blogged before, Obama and congressional Democrats did nothing to move ENDA out of committee during 2009-10, when in control of Congress. Nor did they attempt to put an end to “don’t ask, don’t tell” up until the very end of 2010, when LGBT activists (excluding the lapdogs at the Human Rights Campaign) and several LGBT progressive bloggers went ballistic, since it seemed likely the GOP would win the midterms.
The Democrats’ endgame strategy was to attach “don’t ask” repeal to a Defense Authorization bill they knew Republicans would be compelled to vote against, even if they supported ending the ban. Gays serving or hoping to serve their country would lose out, but the issue could be used to mobilize gay voters in the midterms. And if the GOP took the House, Republicans could then be blamed for keeping the ban in place (which the GOP leadership, alas, would do, placating their party’s social conservatives base).
At which point, thanks mainly to Senators Susan Collins, a Republican, and Joe Lieberman, by then an independent, a “clean” motion to end the military ban was pushed and passed, with a surprising amount of GOP support, but annoying the Democratic leadership that had wanted to stymie it.
As Collins aide Mathew Gagnon wrote:
The White House and Reid had decided that hammering home the “party of no” narrative and painting the Republicans as obstinate obstructionists was, to them, good politics. Since that wasn’t actually happening, they tried to make it appear that it was.
But Reid got outflanked. Collins, together with Lieberman, unexpectedly introduced a standalone bill to repeal don’t ask, don’t tell, intended to go around Reid’s roadblocks. After a great deal of lobbying to rally a number of other Republicans to support the bill — a necessary step to prevent a filibuster — the Collins bill eventually passed 65-31.
And that, of course, is just one example of the Obama way.
More. Via Edward Morrissey in The Fiscal Times:
The Obama administration and Democratic majority…agenda has focused on wedge issues that have little to do with the middle class, but everything to do with demagoguing for narrow activist interests. … Democrats could have produced a comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2009-10 rather than Obamacare or Dodd-Frank, but chose to renege on Obama’s 2008 campaign pledge of making it a first-year issue.
19 Comments for “Social Issues Polarization and Politics”
posted by Doug on
And what about the Republican way of spreading fear of the LGBT community the way Bush did and then there is the Nixon strategy, using race, and now lets turn to the Willie Horton kind of ads. Need I go on Stephen?
posted by Mark Peterson on
Take a look at the Senate roll call vote on repeal. Voting for repeal were 55 Democrats and 2 independents who voted with the Democrats, along with 8 Republicans. Voting to retain the policy were 31 Republicans and zero Democrats. And somehow this outcome reflects poorly on the Democrats?
In the House, the party split was: Democrats 235-15 for repeal, Republicans 160-15 to retain discrimination. And somehow this outcome reflects poorly on the Democrats?
Susan Collins, by the way, was the same senator who refused to say whether she believed gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry as Maine voted on referenda in both 2009 and 2012. Just two examples of the Collins way.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen argues that Democrats have too often done too little for “equal means equal”. No Democrat who was active in the fight to move the party toward “equal means equal” would disagree. S
tephen tries to spin the fact that Democrats have too often done too little into a partisan argument that … what? That we were wasting our time working to turn the Democratic Party and should have joined him in becoming apologists for the Republican Party and the Faustian bargain that they cut with conservative Christians, doing nothing at all to turn the Republican Party while the party voted, inexplicably, against “equal means equal” even when the American people and a majority of their own party members thought otherwise, as was the case with DADT repeal?
Not in my lifetime. If we had done that, we’d gotten nowhere in both parties, not just in the one.
posted by Lori Heine on
And now, yet another episode of WrestleMania of the Absurd. In this corner: all those evil Democrats. And over there: the equally-evil Republicans.
The main argument from either side makes them sound less like great, big wrestlers, however, than like pre-teen girls. “But THEY do it, too! Why do THEY get to do that? Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!”
This is so silly that surely I can’t be the only one to notice. Both sides spread fear, both sides lie, and neither cares about anything except power, power and more power. That, and money, money and more money. They are, very nearly without exception, borderline sociopaths.
The low voter turnout this year will teach true believers in either camp nothing. The grownups are tired of this. The next step is pulling the plug on the whole scam. The only real debate remaining concerns how to do that.
posted by Mark Peterson on
Whatever else can be said about the immigration vote, the DADT comparison is odd. In the Senate, voting for repeal were 55 Democrats and 2 independents who voted with the Democrats, along with 8 Republicans. Voting to retain the policy were 31 Republicans and zero Democrats. And somehow this outcome )in which every Democrat who voted took the pro-equality position) reflects poorly on the Democrats?
In the House, the party split was: Democrats 235-15 for repeal, Republicans 160-15 to retain discrimination. And somehow this outcome reflects poorly on the Democrats?
Susan Collins was the same senator who refused to say whether she believed gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry as Maine voted on referenda in both 2009 and 2012. Just two examples of the Collins way.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Let’s see if I’ve got this right: (1) “The Democrats’ endgame strategy was to attach “don’t ask” repeal to a Defense Authorization bill they knew Republicans would be compelled to vote against, even if they supported ending the ban.” (2) “At which point, thanks mainly to Senators Susan Collins, a Republican, and Joe Lieberman, by then an independent, a “clean” motion to end the military ban was pushed and passed, with a surprising amount of GOP support.” (3) The “surprising amount of GOP support” was 8 of 42 Republicans in the Senate and 15 out of 175 Republicans in the House.
I would quietly suggest that you have the point about the “surprising amount of GOP support” exactly backwards, Stephen. I think that the “surprising” thing about GOP support in Congress was how low it was, not how high it was.
Here’s why: In the fall of 2010, the time the vote was taken, numerous polls consistently showed that right around 80% of the American public supported DADT repeal, and that support for repeal cut across partisan and ideological lines, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans, independents, liberals, conservatives and white evangelical Protestants in favor of homosexuals’ serving openly.
So what was the stumbling block for Republicans? Not only did a strong majority of their own party support repeal, but even a majority of “white evangelical Protestants”, which is, according to what I understand to be the most socially conservative party of the Republican base.
Was it just John McCain, who seemed almost hysterical at the prospect? Or was something else at work.
posted by Houndentenor on
The reality of the immigration issue is that the Senate bill would pass in the House if Boehner would let it go up for a vote. but he won’t.
And Lori is right. Both parties play these games with serious issues because they need them for the next election and since it’s regular people we’re talking about and not billionaires, it doesn’t matter if they are screwed over waiting around for a law that has popular support. And for this Congress has abysmal approval ratings but gets re-elected anyway because in many cases the campaigns were nothing but smears against each other and virtually no substance. What a mess. If anyone inside the beltway had any decency they’d be depressed to the point that we’d have to have them on suicide watch. But they don’t because the billionaires that line their pockets are happy with most of this mess because their agenda will mostly get shoved through. And yes, I’m still voting for Democrats because as bad as they are, the Republicans are even worse. That makes for a depressing time at the voting booth, but I go anyway. I do understand why the vast majority of potential voters don’t bother. In some races on my ballot my choice was between a Teavangelical, a green party loon and a conspiracy theory nutcase Libertarian. Shame on us all for not demanding better from all the parties (not just the two big ones).
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
The fact that a President — Democrat or Republican — is in office when “his party” has a majority in both Houses of Congress does not actually mean that a majority of Congressmen will actually go along with what the President wants.
Beyond the various international Congressional rules, regulations and procedures….Party discipline is suppose to be strong in a parliamentary form of government (especially when the party picks the candidates, not voters). I am not saying it ALWAYS works out that way, but it is an entirely different ballgame with a presidential system (especially with primaries).
So, the fact that Obama is a Democrat and (at one time) most of the people elected to the US House and Senate were also Democrats DOES actually mean that they will all stick to the same platform or set of issues.
Minnesota — as an example — has (at least) two Congressional districts where the likely winner is going to be a conservative. They may be a conservative-right-wing Republican or they be a more middle-of-the-road conservative Democrat, but the winner is probably going to listen to the voters in his district, then say the President or his political party. Why?
The voters — in a system which I am not entirely sure is a good one — get to pick major party candidates with little (if any) prior demonstration of party loyalty.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
CORRECTION…should be ‘internal’ rules (not international). Also should be DOES NOT actually mean….
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Boehner certainly didn’t want to advance any sort of legislation that might actually make the President look good.
The U.S. House has all sorts of rules, regulations and procedures that (if someone knows enough) can effectively kill just about any piece of legislation. The Senate does to, although to a slightly lesser extent (I am told).
Much of the decision of whether or not a bill even gets voted by the entire House or the entire Senate is done by committees.
Putting party interests before national interests is not an especially attractive trait (or limited to either party).
I think several things could be changed about how decisions are made within the Congress and how we elected its members….but election law reform and intergovernmental rule making does not exactly spark much serous interest.
posted by Jorge on
…But when Obama feels he is forced to act, he does so in a way that’s ensured to inflame polarization and partisanship, which he then attempts to use to his advantage.
That doesn’t characterize how the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal was handled.
(That’s because it was Harry Reid who was forced to act, not President Obama.)
Never mind.
Obama’s corrupt like a Democrat. Reid’s corrupt like a Democrat. But they’re not alike. Joe Lierberman, Susan Collins, and Joe Biden are honest, but I’m not sure they’re alike, either.
Anyway, I’m wondering if this blog’s going to cover the latest Extraordinarily Outrageous… No wonder people think we’re nuts GAY NEWS! about HRC and Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund co-founder Terry Bean’s arrest for… third degree sodomy and third degree sexual abuse in Oregon (for having a sexual with a 15 year old male who thus did not have the capacity to consent).
It’s not as interesting as this week’s BET News, but it’s worth a tremor or two. Hmm, it’s also worth taking the time to get it right.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But when Obama feels he is forced to act, he does so in a way that’s ensured to inflame polarization and partisanship, which he then attempts to use to his advantage.
That’s right, Jorge. Trying to insert fact into the story line of one of Stephen’s “Democrats are evil” story lines is as useless as trying to put wings on a pig.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Many good advances where made for LGBT rights under the Obama Administration, but (as is often the case in American politics) it is rarely solely the result of person or even one political party. On the flip side, many bad things happened with respect to LGBT rights under say, the Reagan administration, but laying blame entirely on one man or one party tends to oversimplify the complicated reality.
[As for the criminal accusation against Terry Bean. I would like to think that most people — politics aside — realize that their is a big difference sexual abuse is not the same thing as being straight or bisexual or gay. Perhaps certain news outlets or lobbyists want to spread some falsehoods and fear, but people do not commit rape or domestic abuse or sexual abuse because they are straight or bisexual or gay. Personally, I think that convicted rapists or spouse beaters or molesters should be locked away for VERY VERY long time. Longer then seems to be common. But I don’t get to write criminal laws]
posted by Rob McGee on
Well, I dunno if there are matters of “political principle” involved here, since I doubt that very many people are prepared to argue that Oregon law is totally unreasonable in assuming that 15-year-olds cannot give legal consent to being sexually penetrated by a 66-year-old silverdaddybear.
Of course, there are non-political discussions we could have about the story — say, whether Terry Bean’s twink-chasing merely reflects his own personal choices, or if certain segments of “gay male subculture” tend to foster the development of Terry Beanseses. But this blog is mostly about politics, not cultural analysis.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Again, if the United States operated under a Parliamentary System, then elected officials would actually be expected (with few exemptions) to vote accordingly to their party’s platform or position paper on an issue, say gay rights.
Under such a system, Obama would be the Prime Minister (not the President) and the head of his political party and, assuming the party had a formal position on gay rights, Reid and all of the other Democrats would be expected to vote accordingly (unless it was an issue of a conscious vote)
In our current Presidential system, major party candidates are chosen by the people in open or closed primaries or (if the State is stupid) top-two primaries. Not all Democrats or Republicans have to stick to the party platform (in fact candidates that fail to do so are often admired for their Independence).
In the UK the ban was lifted on gays in the military when Labour had a majority (with some Liberal Democrats). The party had a majority of seats, Tony Blair was the leader of the party and elected Labour MP were expected to vote to end the discrimination (or else risk being booted from the party). In the US the political situation was much different because of how candidates are selected/win office and the internal Congressional rules.
This is not to say that one system is always better or worse, but in the U.S. Senators or Congressmen of the same party as the President do not actually have to do what the President tells them to do.
Frankly, I am amazed that ANYTHING every gets done in Washington DC
posted by Jorge on
It helps to have beer-and-cigar summits with the opposition every now and then so you can make those backroom deals for the sake of making deals.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Two legal developments from the 8th Circuit:
ARKANSAS – Federal District Judge Kristine Baker struck down Arkansas’ 2004 anti-marriage amendment and a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Judge Baker put the ruling on hold, pending appeal to the 8th Circuit. The federal case is distinct from a state court case, which is on appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
MISSOURI – Federal District Judge Ortrie Smith denied the ACLU’s peition to lift the court’s stay immediately, so that marriages could commence statewide. The court earlier struck down Missouri’s ban on marriage equality, but stayed the decision until December 9, pending appeal. The ACLU asked the court to lift the stay before the appeal period ended; the court declined to so so. Missouri officials have until December 8 to file an appeal with the 8th Circuit. If they do so, the stay will remain in affect until the 8th Circuit decides the matter. If they do not appeal, the stay will lift on December 9.
Both decisions were expected, and there is little doubt that both Arkansas and Missouri will appeal to the 8th Circuit, setting the stage for the 8th Circuit to weigh in sometime next year.
The 8th Circuit is differently situated than any of the other Circuits because of a 2006 decision (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning) upholding Nebraska’s ban on same-sex marriage. The Arkansas and Missouri appeals will give the 8th Circuit the opportunity to reconsider that decision in light of Windsor. Most legal experts expect the 8th Circuit to move slowly enough on the two appeals to avoid a decision until the Supreme Court weighs in on the cases before it, assuming that the Supreme Court grants cert in those cases.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A legal development in the 5th Circuit:
Late yesterday, Federal District Judge Carlton Reeves ruled for marriage equality in Mississippi. The ruling, which was expected, is stayed for 14 days, pending appeal. The state’s Governor and AG have indicated that the state will appeal to the 5th Circuit.
The 5th Circuit has appeals pending from cases in Louisiana (negative District Court ruling) and Texas (positive District Court ruling). Mississippi rounds out the 5th Circuit, and upon appeal, all of the federal rulings in the three 5th Circuit states will have been put before the 5th Circuit. The 5th Circuit has scheduled oral argument for the Louisiana and Texas cases for January 9, and will probably add Mississippi to the mix, possibly rescheduling oral arguments to accommodate Mississippi’s appeal.
The Louisiana case (Robicheaux v. George) has been directly appealed to the Supreme Court, as well. The petition (technically a “Petition for Certiorari before Judgment”) argues that there is no need for the Court to await “further percolation of the issue in the courts of appeal” because a “head-on split” exists among federal appeals courts, and, as a result, it “would serve little utility” for the Justices to let the Louisiana case proceed in the 5th Circuit. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari in the Louisiana appeal, it is not clear whether the 5th Circuit will go forward with the Texas and Mississippi appeals as scheduled, or will put the cases on hold pending Supreme Court decision.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I would be very surprised if the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issues a ruling for marriage equality before the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on the matter (although they may not be able to delay it for that long).
Minnesota has marriage equality by legislative act (but it is something that many elected Republicans pledge to change).
North Dakota was the last State to have a challenge against its state ban launched in court. The State Court may issue a ruling before the U.S. Circuit court, but I suspect that they will wait as long as possible before issuing a ruling.