How to make it better; or, what a real Democratic leader is like

[drwex]

New York state has now legalized same-sex marriage. It has been obvious for a couple years now that opponents of marriage equality are fighting rear-guard actions. From a high of passing state-level DOMA laws last decade to now when DoJ won't defend the federal law and we are creeping toward a situation where 1/4th of the country will recognize all couples' rights in marital arrangements. The war isn't yet won, and won't be for some time, but momentum is on the side of equality now.

If you have not read it already, I highly recommend Michael Barbaro's piece in the NY Times about how this was made to happen: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?_r=1

Nate Silver picks up on some of this in his column (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/cuomos-presidential-moment-forms-contrast-with-obama/) and in particular highlights how Cuomo's style contrasts with Obama's. What would it look like if Obama actually got out there and led rather than making nice speeches and letting others do the heavy lifting? I suspect it would look like this fight - tough, nail-biting, down to the individual vote counts. And maybe we'd still lose some, but at least we'd feel like we were in the fight instead of capitulating every time the Republicans say "boo".

Cuomo's style is hands-on and top-down, with tight control over rogue elements in the coalition. He comes across as a guy with political brass balls as well as heart and brains. Right now I think Obama's testicles are named "Hilary Clinton" and "Nancy Pelosi".

Oh, and while we're doing tallies you baseball fans may be interested to know that the Minnesota Twins have announced they'll be making a team "It Gets Better" video, joining the Red Sox, Cubs, Mariners, and Giants who have already done so.

Comments

[davidfcooper.livejournal.com]

Look for SCOTUS to find DOMA unconstitutional next year with Justice Kennedy joining the four liberal justices in a 5-4 decision: Why this Supreme Court could be the best hope for gay-marriage advocates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-this-supreme-court-could-be-the-best-hope-for-gay-marriage-advocates/2011/06/20/AGFLnhjH_story.html).

I dont' think so

[drwex]

I don't even expect any of the DOMA cases to reach the stage of requesting cert by next year. The Prop 8 challenge might make it, but that would be on different grounds and will almost certainly be ruled and remanded.

SCOTUS won't grant cert until multiple Circuits render conflicting opinions on DOMA which is quite unlikely in the near future.

In addition, both sides have a strong interest in keeping DOMA cases away from SCOTUS. The pro-equality forces would not be certain on how Kennedy would swing and they are having more success at the state level anyway. The anti- forces have to worry that Scalito or Thomas might rule against them on states' rights grounds. The Feds messing in marriage is itself problematic. This is why they worked so hard to get state-level DOMA laws passed even after the Federal DOMA was well in place.

Re: I dont' think so

[drwex]

To follow up further - the Post columnist fundamentally mis-states what SCOTUS rules on. Any ruling by SCOTUS, even if it did invalidate DOMA, would leave state-level laws in place. It would not at one sweep invalidate all such laws. It might rule in such a way as to open challenges to such laws, but I find that particularly unlikely. Like 1000:1 against unlikely. This Court has been annoyingly activist when it feels like it, but its activism has been in overturning past Federal-level precedents, not in messing with the states.

[c1.livejournal.com]

Wait -- Obama even has balls? Since when?

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Barbaro's piece highlighted two tools Cuomo has that Obama does not:

But the donors in the room — the billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, joined by the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb — had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure. And they were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views.

and

“I can help you,” Mr. Cuomo assured them in dozens of telephone calls and meetings, at times pledging to deploy his record-high popularity across the state to protect them in their districts. “I am more of an asset than the vote will be a liability.”

I disagree

[drwex]

Obama is no longer wildly popular - he's largely squandered that - but he's not unpopular either. His positives outweigh his negatives consistently and he polls better even at this point in his term than most presidents of recent memory. He just isn't (or hasn't with a few exceptions such as Rahm) willing to deploy that for dirty local politics.

And if you're claiming that Obama's people can't locate key fundraisers in the other camp who may be convinced - as Cuomo did - then you're saying his people suck at opposition research. Which I also disbelieve

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Matt Yglesias also makes this point:

I would say that the bigger difference isn’t so much about the leadership style as it is that Cuomo won. Suppose that the New York State Senate operated according to the rules of the United States Senate and a bill failed unless it secured a 60 percent supermajority. What would people be saying about Andrew Cuomo now? Well, it seems to me that many people would be castigating his failed leadership. Instead of Michael Barbaro’s account of his behind-the-scenes leadership reading like a virtuouso performance it would be reading like a story of a failed inside game. The meeting with high-dollar pro-equality Republican donors would seem not savvy, but naive and weak. Conversely, if the US Senate operated on a 50 vote rule, then both the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank bill would have gone further in advancing progressive priorities, there would have been more economic stimulus in the 111th Congress, the DREAM Act would have passed, and it’s conceivable that some kind of nationwide carbon pricing scheme would be in place.

Which is just to say that political institutions matter, a lot. Getting concurrent majorities in two legislative houses, as Cuomo did, is very hard. Getting a 60 percent supermajority is harder.

None of what I'm saying, btw, is to take anything away from Cuomo or to defend Obama. I'm finding your post a useful jumping-off point for further research, though.

That's the point of trying

[drwex]

Certainly success in a campaign is one way of validating your style's effectiveness. But it's also the case that Obama hasn't even tried this kind of top-down, tightly orchestrated, take-no-guff approach.

Sadly at this point I think it's too late. I think the Teapartycans are happy to set the house the live in on fire as long as they think there's a chance to burn the other guy by doing so. On the other hand, a stronger opposition may (I think) call for more vigorous work on the President's part. I think we'll see how this plays out in the current game of chicken being played over the debt ceiling. Obama caved bigtime on the last round and I'm afraid he'll cave again.

Re: That's the point of trying

[drwex]

Nate Silver has a response up to Yglesias that says more or less what I wanted to say except Silver says it way better.

Re: That's the point of trying

[drwex]

OK, nm. Farking NYTimes paywall is blocking me now. Fukkem

[stevie-stever.livejournal.com]

This new law in NY is a bit of a mixed blessing. Don't get me wrong; I'm happy to see it pass, but it is paving the way for some very serious legal battles, and largely thanks to the previous administration stocking the judiciary with tons of conservative stooges, I no loner trust the courts as much, much less the USSC.

The problem isn't so much the religious exemptions that were sewn into the NY Legislation. The problem is more that there was a 'inseverability' clause sewn in, stating that if any one part of this law is invalidated in the courts, the legislation itself is completely invalidated. And although it doesn't have a lick of logic to stand on, being that the USSC has already passed some seriously bad judgments this term, I don't have a lot of faith that the inseverability clause is going anywhere anytime soon. Other states with large Republican contingencies are likely going to take this same tack, so while we are likely to see an increase in Marriage Equality legislation across all 50 states, it may be a while before the courts can find a way to extricate the idiot 'suicide bomb' clause in the legislation, or the inequities of religious exemptions therein.