Nevada is the prototypical “Wild West,” so it doesn’t surprise me that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has a record hostile to legislation to combat gun violence. But I don’t think that’s why he decided to drop the assault weapon and large ammunition magazine bans from the Senate gun violence bill. He is trying to protect lawmakers in his own party from having to cast a difficult vote. He has said that a bill including those measures could not even get 40 votes, which means that as many as 16 members of the Democratic caucus would oppose it. There are lawmakers from the West, like Max Baucus of Montana, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, and Mark Begich of Alaska, who are up for reelection next year. There are others from the South, like Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana who are also up for reelection. Most or all of them have indicated to Reid that they wouldn’t vote for the assault weapon or ammunition ban. There must be at least ten more senators who have said the same. Nonetheless, the president has called for a vote. He wants people to go on the record.
Under the assumption, which may be flawed, that voters in these conservative states heavily oppose a ban on assault weapons and large ammunition magazines, these Democratic lawmakers would prefer it if the party as a whole didn’t take a position in favor of those bans, and that includes the president. Voters who are angry with the Democratic Party may not forgive these senators even if they personally oppose the legislation. That’s Harry Reid’s reasoning, anyway, for dropping those provisions. It should be added that many Democrats will be less enthusiastic about working for these senators’ reelection if they vote ‘no.’ So, the idea is that it is best just not to have any vote at all. The provisions have no chance of passing in the House even if they did somehow miraculously pass the Senate, so what is the upside?
For Reid, he’s trying to make his caucus happy and protect them. Yet, the president either doesn’t care or he doesn’t share this political calculus. Throughout his first term in office, the president earned quite a bit of enmity on the left for almost never picking a fight unless he knew he could win it. One of the lone exceptions was his insistence that the House of Representatives pass a Cap and Trade energy bill that most analysts correctly predicted would be dead on arrival in the Senate. It’s hard to prove, but many political observers believe that that House vote exacerbated the party’s losses in the 2010 midterms. Nobody rewarded a Democrat for supporting it because it didn’t become law, but many opposed them for voting for something that would have increased their energy bills. Perhaps that is not what actually happened, and perhaps the Democrats didn’t defend themselves rigorously enough, but there usually is no margin in taking controversial votes that don’t amount to anything.
So, now we have the Senate Majority Leader and the president, both Democrats, at odds with each other over whether there should be a vote on these controversial gun measures. Either the president doesn’t agree that the vote could cost the party senate seats next year, or he simply doesn’t care. Perhaps he even thinks the vote could save seats or win a few from the Republicans. How would Republican Susan Collins of Maine vote, for example? And how would the voters in Maine feel about her vote?
This is one of those political questions that divides pragmatists from idealists, and it reminds me of the debate that goes on among lawyers about whether to bring cases to the Supreme Court or not. Advocacy groups often refrain from taking cases to court that they suspect will lose because losing creates a precedent that makes winning at some future date more difficult. Would it benefit the cause of gun violence control to have the Senate vote 61-49 against an assault weapon ban and then have the House either do the same or just refuse to even have a vote at all? If so, can that be explained in clear terms?
Yet, this may be one instance where the magnitude of the crime in Newtown, Connecticut is so awful and terrifying that it calls for everyone to make a stand and show their cards. Maybe it’s time to set political calculation aside and honor the victims and not let anyone hide behind some kind of procedural gambit.
I’m not sure what the president is thinking, but he’s not backing down or playing it safe this time. He wants a vote.
I hope he gets it.
