Culture, Politics, and Majoritarianism
Adam Nagourney has a smart piece in the NYT taking a wider-lens look at the issue of gay rights groups’ disappointment with what’s been achieved politically thus far. Nagourney notes that over the past ten years the broader American culture has become wildly more tolerant of gays and lesbians, but even with a new progressive administration in place the policy arena remains fairly unfriendly:
Yet if the culture is moving on, national politics is not, or at least not as rapidly. Mr. Obama has yet to fulfill a campaign promise to repeal the policy barring openly gay people from serving in the military. The prospects that Congress will ever send him a bill overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, appear dim. An effort to extend hate-crime legislation to include gay victims has produced a bitter backlash in some quarters: Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, sent a letter to clerics in his state arguing that it would be destructive to “faith, families and freedom.”
“America is changing more quickly than the government,” said Linda Ketner, a gay Democrat from South Carolina who came within four percentage points of winning a Congressional seat in November. “They are lagging behind the crowd. But if I remember my poli sci from college, isn’t that the way it always works?”
The underlying dynamic here illustrates why it’s always been a mistake to try to draw a contrast between gay rights groups’ efforts to secure equality through the courts and to secure equality through the political process. The fact of the matter is that the political process simply isn’t very friendly to minority rights claims even when the claims themselves are reasonably popular. Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has become a majoritarian position, but the Obama administration would still prefer to avoid the headaches involved in working to repeal it. At the same time, if a court case were to order the administration to end this policy, it’s abundantly clear that there would be no critical mass of political support for trying to put it back in place.
Either way, the basic fact of the matter is that the political system is biased toward doing nothing. The mere fact that a majority is prepared to support claims of equality doesn’t mean that political leaders want to expend time and energy making our clunky legislative mechanics produce laws reflecting that fact. Under the circumstances, people with just claims to make on their own behalf are wise to pursue those claims through all available avenues including the judiciary.
36 Responses to “Culture, Politics, and Majoritarianism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 28th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I think Matt’s thesis is correct, but I also think it is worth noting the politics of all this suggest that on issues requiring congressional action, that action is most likely to come soon after the 2010 midterms (if at all, of course). And please understand that I am not saying gay people should be happy about that, but it is how the political reasoning plays out.
June 28th, 2009 at 11:35 am
This is right, but it’s a little more cynical than the anodyne status quo bias that Yglesias talks about.
In the post-civil rights era (this wasn’t true in the 1960’s, when the big civil rights bills passed), advocates of discrimination are passionate about it and vote. Opponents of discrimination are diffuse and often underinformed; they assume we have laws against this stuff and the courts will sort it out.
The result is that when you take on something like gay rights, you end up offending bigots who vote. And this bias doesn’t always result in inaction. Clinton not only signed the Defense of Marriage Act, but actually advertised his signing of it on Christian radio stations in the South. In contrast, he literally BROUGHT HIS VOICE DOWN TO A WHISPER when he expressed support of gay rights at the 1996 Democratic Convention; obviously, the intention was to ensure most listeners wouldn’t even hear it even though it was included in the transcript of the speech (which would be sent to gay rights groups in a private mailing).
In other words, it isn’t a status quo bias. It’s a bias in favor of bigotry.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
The underlying dynamic here illustrates why it’s always been a mistake to try to draw a contrast between gay rights groups’ efforts to secure equality through the courts and to secure equality through the political process. The fact of the matter is that the political process simply isn’t very friendly to minority rights claims even when the claims themselves are reasonably popular.
Agree 100 percent. I’ve been annoyed many times to see self-described liberals – some disengenuous concern trolls, probably, but most are probably just buying into the right-wing spin – arguing that gay rights groups shouldn’t pursue marriage rights through the courts because of the so-called backlash at having the popular will usurped by activist blah blah blah. First of all, the idea of a backlash sounds plausible but there’s just little or no evidence of it. Second, there’s nothing illegitimate about the courts; they’re part of the democratic process too.
And third, as I usually don’t point out but you do here, legislatively the deck is stacked.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“Adam Nagourney has a smart piece in the NYT”
Did hell just freeze over?
June 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
First of all, the idea of a backlash sounds plausible but there’s just little or no evidence of it.
Three words: Roe v. Wade. That’s the classic example of a situation in which a court case produced a stupendous backlash. (One that we’re arguably still living through.)
June 28th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
This kind of hemming and hawing always strikes me as liberals being ashamed of being liberals. That is the generally accepted story, as far as I can tell, of the previous twenty or thirty years of conservative dominance. IE liberals are apologetic and run from their convictions. It just makes us look weak and unprincipled.
If Obama was to repeal DADT tomorrow, what would the negative consequences on the rest of his agenda? What, would Democrats not win in Alabama, Utah, and Wyoming?
June 28th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Did hell just freeze over?
Well, AdNags is gay, and while that doesn’t qualify him to write about the topic per se, it’s likely one of those issues that’s an ongoing story to him.
It’s one part institutional wingnut welfare homophobes like Perkins (who conveys the air of someone whose torture dungeon has not yet been discovered), one part generational resistance among the people who are most likely to be state and federal legislators, plus the stuff that Dilan Esper mentioned about how bigotry is a great motivator at the ballot box.
please understand that I am not saying gay people should be happy about that, but it is how the political reasoning plays out.
I’d sooner not give the GOP’s professional hatemongers a “vote for us and the queers will steal your children” election in 2010.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I’ve been annoyed many times to see self-described liberals – some disengenuous concern trolls, probably, but most are probably just buying into the right-wing spin – arguing that gay rights groups shouldn’t pursue marriage rights through the courts because of the so-called backlash at having the popular will usurped by activist blah blah blah. First of all, the idea of a backlash sounds plausible but there’s just little or no evidence of it. Second, there’s nothing illegitimate about the courts; they’re part of the democratic process too.
And third, as I usually don’t point out but you do here, legislatively the deck is stacked.
You should distinguish between attempts to discourage gay rights groups from seeking marriage equality through the courts out of fear of some mythical backlash and attempts to discourage litigation because they’re not going to win there. The judicial deck is stacked much worse against gay rights than the legislative deck, and that’s only going to change through more political victories on these issues.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Re: Three words: Roe v. Wade. That’s the classic example of a situation in which a court case produced a stupendous backlash.
Really, Mr. Just Dropping By? America has one of the most liberal abortion laws anywhere outside People’s China. If this is your idea of a pro-life backlash, I’d hate to see what you would call a pro-choice state of affairs.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I’d sooner not give the GOP’s professional hatemongers a “vote for us and the queers will steal your children” election in 2010.
Yep, it is dubious at best that nationalizing gay rights in time for 2010 is going to be more helpful than harmful. And if it is done soon after the 2010 midterms, it will likely be a marginal issue at best in the 2012 elections.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
America has one of the most liberal abortion laws anywhere outside People’s China.
Just noting again this is complete nonsense (see, e.g., Canada, which has no special laws respecting abortion at all).
June 28th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I’d sooner not give the GOP’s professional hatemongers a “vote for us and the queers will steal your children” election in 2010.
If the GOP is running on anything other than “the Democrats promised to fix the economy and they failed,” then they are going to get their asses kicked, DADT and gay marriage notwithstanding.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“Yep, it is dubious at best that nationalizing gay rights in time for 2010 is going to be more helpful than harmful.”
Spoken like someone who isn’t affected by the issue. Others, like gays in the military, are in a “the sooner the better” situation.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Three words: Roe v. Wade. That’s the classic example of a situation in which a court case produced a stupendous backlash. (One that we’re arguably still living through.)
The classic example of the trolling I was talking about – forgive me, “spin.” Americans approve of Roe v. Wade 68-30. I found that in two minutes of Googling. I don’t have time to keep looking (anyone want to take over in my absence?) so I don’t have a link showing support for the abortion policy codified by Roe v. Wade or tracking approval of abortion before and after the decision, but there’s no way there was a “stupendous backlash” like you claim.
Also, that’s kind of moving the goalposts. I was talking about gay marriage, not abortion. Yeah, the topics are a bit related, but there are a lot of differences.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Re: Just noting again this is complete nonsense (see, e.g., Canada, which has no special laws respecting abortion at all).
Dunce, I said “one of” the most liberal abortion laws outside People’s China, not “the” most liberal. I fully acknowledge there are countries like Canada with even more liberal abortion laws. Not many, though.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Re: The classic example of the trolling I was talking about – forgive me, “spin.” Americans approve of Roe v. Wade 68-30.
Americans support Roe v. Wade in large part because they are unaware of how liberal the decision (and its companion Doe v. Bolton) really are.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Yep, it is dubious at best that nationalizing gay rights in time for 2010 is going to be more helpful than harmful. And if it is done soon after the 2010 midterms, it will likely be a marginal issue at best in the 2012 elections.
I’m not sure what this means. Action on gay rights is never going to more helpful than harmful for Democrats, because they already have overwhelming support from everyone that cares about promoting gay rights.
In any event, ending DADT regularly polls north of 70% nationally. Even if that support is shallow, it’s hard to see how that can ever become a significant winning issue for Republicans. There’s just too much going on these days.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Actually, it would be a nightmare scenario for the GOP in 2010 if sweeping gay-rights legislation were passed this year and civilization didn’t collapse in its wake. What Matt says is largely true – no doubt the biggest victories for gay rights won’t come from anywhere near legislature – but it’s too easy to forget that the controversy surrounding civil-rights measures plummets pretty quickly after they’re passed.
I’m surely plenty of rabid fundies out there were none too pleased with Lawrence v. Texas, but they’re not exactly protesting it now. Similarly, gay marriage and civil union rights that have been earned in Europe have, despite widespread opposition, turned out to be politically low-risk across the board. Lest we forget, the UK (with public support for gay marriage at the time roughly on par with the US) legalized civil partnerships only six months before an election handily won by Labour despite the party being in far from its finest moment. The other problem is, even if the courts struck down every barrier against full LGBT equality, there simply wouldn’t be any horrible consequences for opponents to point to a year or two down the line. The lives of a minority will be greatly improved with no discernible cost or disadvantage to anyone else. The ones in government are all well aware of this, which is why they want to get as much juice out of the irrational fears as they can.
With that in mind, the Democrats would be wise to take every opportunity to distinguish themselves from the bigots while the GOP is still wildly unpopular.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Americans support Roe v. Wade in large part because they are unaware of how liberal the decision (and its companion Doe v. Bolton) really are.
Pro-lifers tell themselves this, but it is wrong.
The pro-life gripe with Doe is that it holds that there has to be a health exception even with respect to late term abortions for serious threats to a woman’s physical or mental health. Pro-lifers think that this is a big loophole for anyone to get an abortion.
That’s not actually right (there’s no evidence of women abusing the mental health exception), but even if it was, that’s a lot different from saying that the American public would actually support banning abortions that are necessary to protect a woman’s mental health. In other words, if Americans understood Doe v. Bolton, they would support it.
That’s the difference between pro-lifers– who believe their concerns override the health needs of women– and the American public, which does not believe that.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Action on gay rights is never going to more helpful than harmful for Democrats, because they already have overwhelming support from everyone that cares about promoting gay rights.
Not necessarily true. Democrats lose plenty of elections for being too easily painted as unprincipled, flip-flopping opportunists. It’s hard to energize a base when you’re not discernible from the opposition, and in America even taking the wrong stand is typically seen as better than taking a half-assed one (see also: 2004).
The flip side here is that the democrats at the moment also have plenty of support from people who oppose gay rights, while the Republicans have no direction to move on this issue that would expand their base. There’s never been a window of opportunity for gay rights this big, and there’s no guarantee that it will last beyond 2010.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I love it how you all take for granted a massive electoral victory 1 & 1/2 year from now.
With unemployment likely being as high as 12% then, it’s a bad idea to make these sorts of assumptions even before we start to factor in internal disputes which a bad economic environment will only magnify.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Mr. Esper,
Have you found an actual poll of the American public on their opinion of Doe v. Bolton? If not, how do you know?
In any case, I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. You people have won, and created abortion laws so liberal that they would give the late and unlamented Mao Tse Tung blush. I hope you’re proud of yourself.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
“*Three words: Roe v. Wade. That’s the classic example of a situation in which a court case produced a stupendous backlash. (One that we’re arguably still living through.)*
The classic example of the trolling I was talking about – forgive me, “spin.” Americans approve of Roe v. Wade 68-30. ”
I suspect that there are people who think that morally the decision was a correct one even if legally the reasoning isn’t the most cogent.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Mr. Lorax apparently thinks that morality requires that we have the right to commit legalized butchery on a scale that would make Mao Tse Tung blush, and if we have to whip out emanations and penumbras from nowhere in order to justify our actions, then so be it.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
What??!! I can’t hear you. This damned violinist in the next bed won’t stop yammering on.
Actually in post 23 I didn’t say anything about my own views of the morality of abortion. But, since you seem interested, I think that France has things just about right.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Hector, what is the big deal with Christians and abortion. In Christianity, there is no such thing as death, really. Just different forms of immortality.
I mean, doesn’t an aborted fetus speed directly to heaven? It’s a free pass. It seems to me you guys should be in favor of it. It takes hell out of the equation.
Or is that the point. God doesn’t get the opportunity to sit in judgement.
June 28th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Spoken like someone who isn’t affected by the issue. Others, like gays in the military, are in a “the sooner the better” situation.
Sure. But so are gay couples currently living in states where they aren’t allowed to get married. And recently whenever the GOP has successfully nationalized gay rights issues, it has temporarily reversed the long term trend in their favor.
Again, though, please understand I am not telling gay people they should be happy with any delays. I’m just acknowledging the political arguments.
June 28th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Dunce, I said “one of” the most liberal abortion laws outside People’s China, not “the” most liberal.
And when I stress the part of your claim where you state the United States laws are among “the most liberal”, it shows you are not just a dunce, but a freakin’ liar. The fact is that you want to mention China and not Canada because you think it scores rhetorical points, but it actually just reveals you for the intellectually dishonest hack you truly are.
June 28th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Mr. DTM,
Better an intellectually dishonest hack then an apologist for legalized butchery like yourself.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
hector:
No poll is necessary. Pro-lifers are inside a cocoon if they think that most americans agree with them that it is necessary to prevent, say, a suicidal woman from getting an abortion. That is not a popular position, and health exceptions ARE popular.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Re: Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, sent a letter to clerics in his state arguing that it would be destructive to “faith, families and freedom.”
Exactly how is Jim DeMint’s ranting the fault of the Obama administration or the Democratic congressional majority?
Re: fact of the matter is that the political process simply isn’t very friendly to minority rights claims even when the claims themselves are reasonably popular.
I’m not sure I agree. The 60s produced a great deal of civil rights legislation that was decidedly unpopular in many quarters. A good deal of progress in equality for women has also come about through legislation rather than court decisions.
Re: hard to energize a base when you’re not discernible from the opposition
Energizing the base is not how you win elections. I would think that after the last two elections Karl Rove’s doctrine would be about as discredited as Ptolemaic astronomy.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Better an intellectually dishonest hack then an apologist for legalized butchery like yourself.
I respect your right to your legal policy opinions, but do you really think those are your only two options? Why can’t you argue for your opinions in an intellectually honest way?
Of course, the truth is that you are full of uncontrolled wrath, and predictably it clouds your intellect.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Have you found an actual poll of the American public on their opinion of Doe v. Bolton?
I have a feeling that the poll would have >90% of respondents answering “was that a boxing match?”
June 29th, 2009 at 9:55 am
“The fact of the matter is that the political process simply isn’t very friendly to minority rights claims even when the claims themselves are reasonably popular.”
Another of the many brilliant predictions made by our founders, and one of the strongest motivations behind creating an independent Judiciary Branch of the federal government.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:52 am
[...] Matt Yglesias smartly observed: Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has become a majoritarian position, but the Obama [...]
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
[...] a comment » Yglesias on gay rights: The underlying dynamic here illustrates why it’s always been a mistake to try to draw a contrast [...]