Weed vs. Marriage

I said over at PP yesterday that I think Democrats have a fight coming over marijuana, thanks to new polling that shows a majority currently favor legalization.

I compared the situation to marriage, and I see Joshua Tucker did, too; in many ways it's a natural comparison.

I do have one caution about it: I'm a lot less confident that it's a one-direction lasting trend than the marriage trend. This is basically just speculative, but for whatever it's worth...

I've always been fairly confident that the case against same-sex marriage would dissolve if and when it was enacted. The arguments against it often boiled down to "that's weird," and if and when it was enacted, it would rapidly no longer be weird. Sure, there's also some explicit bigotry, but for some time it was pretty clear that explicit bigotry was fading (and the process in which more gay and lesbian citizens come out, leading to less explicit bigotry, leading to more people coming out makes it likely that it will continue to fade). Ten years ago it wasn't at all clear to me that marriage equality would win, but I was very confident that if and where it won, public opinion against it would rapidly collapse.

But I don't think that support for weed legalization is similar. There does appear to be a generational effect, which suggests that the trend will continue to some extent. But it's not at all hard to imagine it reversing. As Mark Kleiman says, marijuana may be less harmful than alcohol, but that doesn't mean it's harmless -- and it's easy to imagine any number of weed-related problems that could make for bad headlines and reverse public opinions. I'm not predicting that, mind you; it's just that I think future trends depend on unpredictable events (or, to be more precise, unpredictable press interpretation of unpredictable events).

There's also a politician piece to that. Politicians "evolving" on marriage were only worried, really, about current opinion. I'm pretty sure they didn't worry about a backlash if marriage equality was enacted, and certainly not that if marriage equality took place that newspapers might start running gay marriage horror stories (has even the GOP-aligned press ever run gay marriage horror stories? What would they look like?).

But politicians will worry that if they support legalization that they could be held responsible for any weed horror stories that emerge -- and everyone knows that the press is capable for concocting those, true or not.

Supporters of legalization can argue that horror stories are not particularly likely to show up because (1) they're not apt to be true, and (2) given public opinion, the press won't find them appealing. That might be true! I'm only suggesting there's a lot more uncertainty here than one might think, especially if one believes in the marriage analogy.

Sunday Question for Conservatives

What sort of an issue will marriage be in Republican primaries in the 2014 and 2016 cycles?

What Mattered This Week?

I suppose this isn't a tough one, isn't it? Whichever you want -- I'll just mention the VRA decision to kick it off, as one that mattered...I don't even want to guess at what didn't matter, but I'll be interested to see if there are arguments pro or con on the Texas abortion filibuster.

 So, what do you have? What do you think mattered this week?

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Sandra Smith, 73. The one and only Dr. Janice Lester -- and, of course, James T. Kirk. Was also in a good Columbo.

Just a bit of good stuff:

1. A few days old, but: a nice look at the FISA judges. Good reporting by John Shiffman and Kristina Cooke.

2. Yes, Kevin Drum is certainly right about this one: nobody cares about federalism.

3. Sarah Binder looks at the 2006 precedent in order to think about whether Congress is likely to act on the Voting Rights Act.

4. And Jack Balkin on Windsor (via Lemieux).

DOMA Open Thread

I didn't do this yesterday for VRA, but I did it for the ACA case, so why not: here's an open thread for discussing the Supreme Court's marriage decisions. If you want to also talk about the Texas abortion law filibuster, be my guest! I know I'll be writing about filibusters, and I'll probably write about the SCOTUS stuff too, but for now, I'll just leave this one.

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Everett Morton, 62 (or 63; different sources on this one). The drummer for The English Beat. Not bad!

Just a little good stuff:

1. Wait, Bill O'Reilly is getting picked on unfairly? Get out of here. William Saleton has the story.

2. Kevin Drum on automating essay grading.

3. And a good one from Nate Silver looking at the factors in flipping on marriage for Senators.

Oy, Reich

I'm not gong to get full-on cranky at Robert Reich's column today...only somewhat cranky.

Reich's complaint is that politicians are happy to follow public opinion when it comes to marriage equality, guns, and immigration...but on raising taxes for rich people politicians ignore public opinion. To his credit, he cites real research, from Page and Bartels, on the question of politicians ignoring the poor and even the middle-class. So I won't get too cranky.

But really...well, I'll give you some context before I complain:

Who says American politics is gridlocked? A tidal wave of politicians from both sides of the aisle who just a few years ago opposed same-sex marriage are now coming around to support it. Even if the Supreme Court were decide to do nothing about California’s Proposition 8 or DOMA, it would seem only matter of time before both were repealed...

It’s nice to think logic and reason are finally catching up with our elected representatives, but the real explanation for these changes of heart is more prosaic: public opinion...

The exception is in the economic sphere, where public opinion seems beside the point...

Before January’s fiscal cliff deal, for example, at least 60 percent of Americans, in poll after poll, expressed strong support for raising taxes on incomes over $250,000. As you recall, though, the deal locked in the Bush tax cut for everyone earning up to $400,000.

Yes, legislative deals require compromise. But why is it that deals over economic policy almost always compromise away what a majority of Americans want?

Yes, well. It is absolutely true that Senate Democrats have gone stampeding on marriage...enough that there are almost a majority for it. Which is still far short of what they would need to actually do anything.

Also: they haven't actually done anything on guns.

Also: they haven't actually done anything on immigration.

And that's the Senate. The easy side, for these policies!

In other words, Congress did, after all, raise taxes, albeit after compromise. They haven't done these other things that Reich compares them to at all.  And yet Reich somehow managers to believe that it's raising taxes and other "big money" items, in particular, that politicians refuse to do despite public opinion.

The problem is that when you talk about things this way, ignoring what actual politicians are actually doing on actual issues, you lose the ability to effectively criticize -- and the opportunity to potentially do something about it. Anyone reading Reich's column would have no idea that the parties differ on all of these issues; that 51 Democrats in the Senate just voted for a budget which raises revenues; that Republicans not only oppose revenues, but that low taxes for rich people may be their highest priority, while (once again) most Democrats support Reich's position on this, and have voted for it in the House and the Senate; and that not all Democrats are the same on this or any issue.

All of which is a terrible message to send to activists and potential activists. People who read Reich and believe him wouldn't realize that there's any point to getting active in primary elections or even in general elections; his story is one of "politicians" in general who don't care about what anyone thinks on any of these issues. Even worse, he's portraying a world in which there are only two things: politicians moved by public opinion on most things, and by the rich on others. Nothing about parties, interest groups (outside of those representing the rich), or activists. It's a world in which individual political action doesn't make a difference.

That's not true. It's not true on marriage, it's not true on guns, it's not true on immigration...and it's not true on "big money" issues.

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to James Caan, 73.

Yes, good stuff:

1. How political science should lobby, by Jennifer Victor.

2. Wait -- you mean goofy-sounding research may actually be useful? Carl Zimmer.

3. Gershom Gorenberg on Obama's speech in Jerusalem.

4. Irin Carmon on Justice Ginsburg, abortion, and marriage.

5. And E.J. Graff on marriage.

What Mattered This Week?

Oh, I suppose I'll say that it mattered that Rob Portman flipped on marriage. It's one of those where it sort of depends on what you mean by "mattered" I suppose...but it certainly marks where we are in the process.

The budgets? They don't matter all that much.

That's what I have. What do you think mattered this week?

Will a Marriage Fight Break Out in GOP WH 2016?

With today's big news -- and it certainly is big news -- that Senator Rob Portman has flipped to supporting marriage equality, the obvious question is where that leaves the Republican Party. Portman joins Dick Cheney and a handful of other prominent Republicans, and Portman was thought to have at least some potential as a presidential candidate in 2016. 

Just last week, I wrote a piece on the policy debates Republicans should be having among themselves, and I didn't talk about marriage at all; in the original draft, I said something about a debate on marriage still being too unlikely to expect. 

I might have been wrong, but I'm still guessing that Portman will remain the exception, and that opponents of marriage will still maintain a solid veto over the presidential nomination in the 2016 cycle. 

To some extent, that's because public opinion within the GOP, and presumably especially among the presidential primary electorate, still runs overwhelmingly against marriage equality. It's possible that could change, especially if GOP elite opinion continues to change, but right now it's hard to see a same-sex marriage supporter benefiting even in a large field in which staking out a minority position could have some advantages. 

But the real reason I don't see it happening in 2016 is group-based. Right now, large, well-organized GOP-aligned groups strongly oppose any change in the Republican position; there's simply nothing comparable on the other side of the issue. Nor is there really likely to be anything similar. 

Truth is, I'm not sure a policy debate on this is really in the GOP's interest. There's really not much to debate; it's pretty clear where the issue is going, and hard to see how a knock-down-drag-out within the party helps them (in contrast to issues such as national security in which they really need a well-thought-out position, and a nomination fight is probably a good way to get there). Nor is there any real need for Republicans to flip on the issue; it's not going to be a major voting issue, after all. No, I'd think that the best strategy for the GOP on this one is to figure out how to walk away quietly. Yes, that will involve more politicians doing what Portman did -- but it will also involve others just not talking about it, and accepting defeat when defeat comes, and then treating it as a dead issue after that. 

If that's correct, then the best bet is to continue to give Christian conservatives a veto on the issue in 2016, at least -- but to otherwise keep the issue on the back burner.

Elsewhere: Marriage, Partisanship

Not going to add much to the links today, but: over at Post Partisan, I talked about a nice polling point that Charles Franklin had made, and added a story of my own. Then at Plum Line, I looked at what Democratic Senate candidates are saying about marriage equality. Answer? Not much, so far, at least outside of New England, and least as far as I could tell from their web sites.

I've already looked at Democratic web sites and public option (similar answer: not much). Are there any issues y'all would like me to look at? How about on the Republican side? Note: I'm not tracking down their positions on issues, which various places take care of. What I'm interested is what they feature on their campaign web sites, where are a form of advertising. In my view, that tells us something different than just what their positions are -- although I am dealing with a fairly small group of candidates, so there's that, too.

Catch of the Day

Greg Sargent notes the upcoming controversy over what the Democratic platform will say about marriage. Good question.

I suppose I should note, before anyone jumps on it, that of course no swing voters will actually read the platform. Indeed, I suspect that marriage won't be an issue in the general election, at any rate. But that doesn't mean that people won't fight over the platform, nonetheless. And it's a legitimate fight. Everyone expects that by 2016 the Democrats will fully support marriage equality, but whether that happens or not has at least something to do with whether advocates press the issue. So don't expect them to back off just because everyone concerned wants Barack Obama re-elected.

I'll add one thing: it's going to be very tempting for anyone who is thinking of running for the 2016 nomination to get involved in this fight. We're expecting every 2016 Democratic candidate to support same-sex marriage rights, but this will be an opportunity not only to score points with organized groups, but to send a signal about liberal credentials to activists and party actors in general.

And: great catch!

Sunday Question for Liberals

Just checking -- everyone assumes that clear support for same-sex marriage, no hedging in any way, will be mandatory for all Democratic WH 2016 candidates, correct?

Bonus question, since that one (I assume) is fairly dull: give me the date that Barack Obama officially flips his position.

Sunday Question for Conservatives

Where do you see the Republican Party headed on same-sex marriage?

First, do you think that conservatives somehow or another turn the tide back?

If not, when does opposition cease to be a litmus test for presidential candidates? 2016? 2020? 2024? The day after it becomes enacted nationally? Of course, that might take a long time -- can you picture a situation in which same-sex marriage is legal and not particularly controversial in, say, 35 states, but illegal in the remaining 15 states and still a litmus test at the presidential level? How do you see this all playing out for Republican politicians?

What Mattered This Week?

Yes, I'm still running late this weekend, sorry.

Let's see: Syria, Iran, Egypt, to begin with. For the economy, developments in Greece and Europe, and the passage of the extenders bill for payroll taxes and unemployment insurance.

Big week for same-sex marriage, with a law being signed in Washington, a veto in New Jersey, and advances in Maryland.

What else? What do you think mattered this week?

Read Stuff, You Should

It's the late, great Joe Raposo's birthday, born February 8, 1937. Wonderful, wonderful, songs.

Right to the good stuff:

1. Dave Weigel has fun. Not bad.

2. Steve Kornacki, before last night, on the GOP turnout problem and what it means for the fall.

3. Bruce Bartlett on the latest GOP War on Budgeting twist: new proposed rules for the budget process.

4. Greg Sargent on the politics of the Prop 8 decision.

5. And Alyssa Rosenberg on the Prop 8 decision and pop culture.

Sunday Question for Conservatives

Here's the 2008 Republican platform:

Preserving Traditional Marriage
Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives...
Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California...
Safeguarding Religious Liberties
...Forcing religious groups to abandon their beliefs as applied to their hiring practices is religious discrimination. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault, and we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples.

Here's the question: what do you think the GOP's position on same-sex marriage will be in 2020? More generally, what will the GOP's position on issues surrounding gays and lesbians be in 2020?

Catch of the Day

Scott Lemieux notes that opponents of same-sex marriage have, in New York, suddenly discovered a heretofore unknown right of citizens to direct democracy in certain cases, which apparently trumps the previous argument (used in other states) that judicial solutions that bypass the legislature are undemocratic:

The "right" of the people of New York to determine the rights of minorities through plebiscites is non-existent, but never mind. The key here is the denigration of a state using traditional democratic procedures. The mistake that some people who believe that judicial decisions granting same-sex marriage rights is that they take the procedural rhetoric of critics ("we don't mind same-sex marriage, we just don't like activist judges ramming it down our throats!") at face value. The problem is that the criticisms of "activist judges" can easily be turned into criticisms of those "out-of-touch elitist legislators in the state capital." And they will be. If New York had granted same-sex marriage rights through a referendum, we'd be hearing about how our sacred Founding Fathers wanted the United States to have a representative rather than direct democracy.

My broader point would be that in most circumstances it's a waste of time trying to modify proposals or procedures because the other side "won't" be able to continue making their arguments if only your side does this or that, or even more pathetically says this or that. You can't stop the other side from making arguments. If you think the arguments are good ones -- that is, if you agree with them -- then you should consider incorporating them in what you're doing (depending on whether it's practical or not in the circumstances). You also may be able, in some circumstances, to anticipate the opponent's argument and change what you're doing or saying to better win over the small segment of voters who are really open to different arguments.

But what never works is the theory that if we only do this, they won't be able to say that. Politicians and parties are always perfectly free (at least in a proper democracy!) to make whatever arguments they want, regardless of how rational they are -- and partisans are almost always going to swallow those arguments whole, regardless of their strength.

Nice catch! I'll give him the last word:

Opposition to same-sex marriage is, at bottom, substantive, not procedural. And hence supporters of same-sex marriage should be willing to use any tool of the American democratic process -- legislation, litigation, or initiative -- that might work.

What Mattered This Week?

Sometimes, the obvious things are correct. I'm confident that Barack Obama's decision on Afghanistan mattered; I'm confident that the New York Senate's decision on same-sex marriage mattered (for more, see Andrew Sullivan, natch).

As I said over at Greg's place, I don't really think that Eric Cantor's walk-out mattered much. I'm not sure I wrote that as carefully as I should have, though, so I'll clarify here: I'm not predicting that an agreement will be reached before default, or some (more likely) some other serious consequences for missing deadlines. All I'm saying is that eventually, they're going to raise the debt ceiling, and that in my view Cantor will have to support it. I should say, however, that while I'm figuring that at least a slim majority of House Republicans will eventually have to bite the bullet and vote for a higher debt limit, Stan Collender sees only about 100 of them doing so, and he might well be right.

The other one that I'll say didn't matter much were the Congressional actions and rhetoric on Libya.

I'm not sure about whether what David Petraeus said about torture this week mattered or not, but I'll steer you over to Adam Serwer and Conor Friedersdorf for more.

So, what do you think mattered this week?

Catch of the Day

Adam Serwer had a very nice post up about the Prop 8 supporters and their claim that a gay judge in a long-term relationship is uniquely unable to rule impartially about same-sex marriage, and Kevin Drum brings the snark...but the coveted CotD goes to Neil Sinhababu:

I've gone from seeing this as an offensive argument grounded in thinly disguised antigay prejudice to appreciating the awesome consequences it would have for jurisprudence. The US Supreme Court regularly decides cases that address the rights that all Americans have. So in order to make sure that those decisions were made by impartial justices, we'd have to put foreigners whose rights wouldn't be affected on the Supreme Court. But that might not be enough. Since some Supreme Court decisions address the human rights of both Americans and foreigners, impartiality requires that we assign those decisions to animal judges.