« Rachel Maddow and Ana Marie Cox Discuss the Merits of Tea-Bagging | Orlando's Blog | Meet Your New Roommate or Obama's Plan to House the Guantanamo Prisoners »
Courage, Republican-Leaning Districts, and the Matthew Shepard Act
I live in Indiana, in the 2nd Congressional district. It includes St. Joseph County, which routinely votes Democratic. It also includes a small town, where the grand poobah of the KKK lives. Or something like that. I can never quite get their leadership terminology down.
My current congressman is Joe Donnelly, Democrat. I've never been all that thrilled with him, but if you believe the hype, the areas that are in his district but outside of St. Joseph County are pretty conservative. So, he often votes a different way than I would prefer. I've heard him address it. He's doing his best to represent all the people who live in his district, he says. He's doing his best to keep his job, I say.
But whatever. I get that anyone the Republicans put up would be worse than Donnelly. If you want a better idea what I mean, take a look at the new Hair Club for Growth chairman, Chris Chocola. He used to be my congressman.
The Republican who challenged Donnelly in 2008 was Luke Puckett. Compared to Chocola, he really sucks. So I do understand, despite my sometimes simple mind, the need to make compromises and tradeoffs.
But last week, Congressman Donnelly voted against the Matthew Shepard Act. The Act, which passed in the House despite Donnelly's vote, is going to add gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity to the groups already protected under current hate crimes legislation.
Donnelly's rationale for voting against the legislation is that there are already laws under which we can prosecute those who perpetrate violent acts, no matter what the sexual orientation of the victims.
This is true, and I would almost even buy it as a reasoned decision, except that hate crimes protection for other minority groups has been on the books for a long time, alongside existing laws prohibiting violent crimes. So, maybe hate crimes laws have always been largely symbolic. In this case, however, symbolic legislation says to violent criminals who view members of a minority group as less worthy than they themselves, "If you choose to commit violence for the purpose of expressing your attitude that you are better than another human being not belonging to your identity group, you will be held to account."
The Matthew Shepard Act is important, even if lawyers may argue that it is redundant, and by voting against it, Congressman Donnelly choose to protect his job rather than to protect the safety and human rights of his gay and lesbian constituents. That's not representation. That's not compromise. And that's certainly not courageous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross posted at Dagblog.com, where our new blogger Larry Jankens has been coming up with new ideas for Florida license plates.
Advertisement
Sadly, it probably is representation. If the district's residents feel the same way, how it it not?
While political courage is admirable, displaying it can sometimes, as you mention, lead to even worse results.
You want to change things? Change the minds of the people in the district so they uniformly bug your rep to vote differently.
May 3, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that you're right. However, a congressperson has to find a balance between representing the district and leading it. In this case, I believe Donnelly failed to find that balance. It's a huge disappointment.
May 3, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he knew that his job would be safe, and that such a vote would not lead to the seat going Republican, maybe so.
That does not mean changing the mind of the representative, it means changing the minds of the residents of the district. Not as easy, yet much more effective and longer-lasting.
May 3, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I understand your point. And the good news is that over the last two decades, Indiana, like the rest of the country, have become more progressive on social issues, including human rights and gay marriage. We're no Vermont, but we're coming along.
My point is that sometimes a representative should vote the way the majority of the district thinks. And sometimes, a representative must be out front on an issue and then make his or her constituents understand why he or she is right. In cases of human rights, it's the latter.
May 3, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Orlando, you is back!!! Ha!!
I did a post last week about rush and how he is so mad that our New President would have the audacity to seek a 'level playing field'. ha
I am for anything that levels the playing field.
May 3, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
O, if you have a use for it; here's my html mark-up of Congressional Daily Records for October 2007, when the House passed a previous version of the Bill, but it got tied up in the Senate, H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act Of 2007. I titled it:
Faith of Our Conservatives: Tearing Down the Wall between church and Hate
Also, would you enjoy seeing a photochop called: Count Chocola? It's almost too easy to do...let me know.
May 3, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link! And thanks for the photoshop offer. I saw enough of the count and his orange perma-tan when he was in office. As in enough to last a lifetime.
May 3, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll try to get cracking on the html mark-up of Congressional Records for this also. It takes a bit of time though. Just finding them in the GPO database can be difficult.
May 3, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Dem congress critter voted Aye, too. All the Dems in my state (MI) did...and all the R's voted nay. Pure party line voting.
Sometimes my Representative gives me pause. He's a Democrat, but if you look at a red/blue map of the state, nearly every county he represents is red.
Dang skeery.
May 3, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone interested; here's the current track of the bill. It also offers a bit of illumination upon the convoluted way that Congress transacts business.
The Bill is: H.R. 1913 - Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. It was introduced in the House by John Conyers (D-MI 14th) on April 2, 2009. Presented with it was House Report 111-086.
H.R. 1913 was passed in House Roll Call Vote 223: 249 Yeas - 175 Noes - 10 Not Voting.
17 Republicans voted for the Bill:
17 Democrats voted against the Bill:
On April 30, 2009 H.R. 1913 was Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, where it sits, awaiting to be released and come to the Senate Floor.
May 3, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm always wary of hate-crime legislation. It seems weird to punish people more who commit crimes out of stupidity than those who commit them out of pure malice.
And since the measure passed easily, you should be glad your representative didn't give the bozos on the religious right any ammo for next election.
May 4, 2009 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've all missed one of the main reasons for hate-crimes legislation. It's about incitement of violence against and terrorization of a minority group.
When a minority group is unpopular, and violent crime is committed against them because of their minority identity, this law is designed to heighten the penalty for premeditated violence against that group so that others who would do the same take pause before piling on.
No, it's not always easy to prosecute. But sometimes, as it was in the murder case of Angie Zapata in Colorado, it is.
May 4, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a thought! Since we all know that the real offense is often let go to ensure a conviction of a lesser offense, what this legislation would really do is raise the bar so that a racist murderer can be convicted of just plain murder, rather then plea bargain to negligent homicide or some such thing. [I'm no lawyer, obviously, but i do watch Law and Order ... a lot!] Before this law, the top offense was murder so the haggling starts there. With this law, a murder with hate crime is where the haggling starts ensuring a tougher conviction/sentence.
Another consideration is that these kinds of crimes are often fueled by a gang or mob. Since this offense is on the table, more of the "follower" types will go along. The "leaders" will probably do it anyway, but with less support. I feel that this can reduce the actual development of these kinds of crimes. I can even feel a discrepancy when referring to these acts as crimes. They are significantly worse and I think are more dangerous to society then your run-of-the-mill homicidal maniac because of the common desire for others to commiserate.
May 4, 2009 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh! Important post, Orlando. Thanks for putting the issue up on the board.
May 4, 2009 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink