Originally published at: Addendum - TPM – Talking Points Memo
I want to add a quick addendum to today’s Backchannel about Democrats saying ‘no’ to interest groups. This comes out of an exchange I had with TPM Reader CC. She argued a number of reasons that she sees gay marriage and trans rights as substantively quite different from each other. (For context in her email…
“No two issues are identical. But these two, 20 years apart, are close enough to compel us to draw some lessons in both directions — to recognize how we often see such issues differently in retrospect and at the time. Perhaps this is just part of being the political party from which new conceptions of right and new vistas of inclusion and equality emerge.”
Or perhaps it’s part of being the political party that exists to retard, prevent and dissipate any momentum behind the emergence of new vistas of right, inclusion and equality.
I was an aspiring political reporter in 1980s Manhattan when Chuck Schumer was still representing parts of Brooklyn in the House. An editor friend of mine whose father was active in NY Democratic Politics sent me over to Chuck’s constituent office to interview with somebody for an assistant press flack gig. Turned out to be Chuck himself. My writing test was to do two speeches: One in full support of public education, and a second in full support of school vouchers, with an emphasis on the rights of religious minorities. He wanted to see if I (1) understood the issues, (2) understood that a large bloc of his constituents were orthodox Jews who strongly supported vouchers, and (3) could be eloquent and forceful out of both sides of my mouth, the way press flacks have to be. I turned my copy in, in person, a few days later, thinking I’d done a creditable job. The pro-voucher version, however, didn’t make the cut. We had a discussion of the history of public education in the US. At the end of it I finally asked him, “What kind of Democrat are you?”. He answered, “One that wants to be re-elected.” I got up and left without another word, and changed careers.
I only tell this story because I would guess Chuck agrees with you: the only real business of political parties is to get power. It’s not about change, leadership, new vistas, what’s right and what’s not, inclusion, or equality. It’s not even about representing constituencies. Reagan’s election was quite a shock for Dems in the 80s, I know, but Chuck and the Dem leadership have been surrendering in advance to him ever since. So who’s really responsible for the putative “disgust with Washington” evidenced in this election? Evil Republicans? Or Democrats that have lost their way?
Harris didn’t lose because she supported trans rights. As for your main article: Substitute slavery or women’s suffrage for gay and trans rights and then lecture us some more on what’s a bridge too far at any particular moment.