From a story by Eric Bradner in the Evansville Courier Press entitled GOP crams ‘right to work’ through Indiana House panel, it appears that Right to Work proponents have given up even the pretense that they are engaged in a deliberative process. This is now a naked display of political muscle.
In less than six minutes and with no debate, an Indiana House committee passed a controversial “right to work” measure Tuesday morning.
Majority Republicans who control the committee denied Democratic attempts to offer amendments, and allowed for no debate. They forced an immediate roll call vote, which Republicans won on party lines, 8-5.
A metaphor involving a refusal to consider lubrication comes to mind, but it’s probably too coarse for these pages.
You’d think a party with such a strong political advantage would accept some debate for giggles’ sake, knowing the people are behind them. Except they aren’t. I think Republicans realize their numbers are a fluke, that the more discussion turns to income inequality and corporate practices (from such notable Communists as Newt Gingrich — see kingofbain.com) the more they lose, and that overall voter demographics are trending against them with each passing year. Republicans have to kill the unions not because they’re killing the economy (they’re not large or powerful enough anymore to do that), but because they’re desperate to do anything they can to suppress voting and influence that is not theirs. See also: voter identification laws, suddenly trying to limit citizen access to the Statehouse.
Why delay the inevitable? Is anybody going to be persuaded by debate?
There does seem to be an issue with the building trades, I have heard a few Senators say they couldn’t vote for the bill unless the trades are exempted. I wonder why the trades were exempted last year, but not this year. You would think that they would have at least considered that amendment.
The process itself has some value. Even when you aren’t going to change votes, being able to speak out and offer amendments allows citizens to buy into the democratic process and feel like their voices are being heard, even if they aren’t carrying the day. Steamrolling this contentious issue — which wasn’t even really something most (any?) of the proponents campaigned on leaves citizens feeling completely shut out of the process. That’s never especially healthy.
Taking a few hours to let people talk and vote down some amendments wouldn’t have delayed anything appreciably. Ultimately, this ham-handed approach probably helps Democrats to some degree; but it doesn’t help Indiana at all.
Agree Doug. As a person involved with teaching and working with parliamentary procedure the most basic of all principles is that in a democratic environment all members have the right to hear and be heard–and–the right to propose any germane motion and –to have the right to vote for or against each motion. Granted that in the present environment anything close to an open minded consideration of things is not evident with either side of many issues. Having been involved with a wide variety of governmental units and organizations I have been fortunate to only have worked with single intent/group think for relatively short periods of time.
Good points, Jack. I’ll give you another example. I am a member of a United Church of Christ church, which by the nature of its denomination is congregational, meaning the power to make and approve changes and “legislation” comes from the members, not the pastor. We had a situation where we were discussing whether to perform civil unions at our church. There was nothing, in theory, to stop us from doing it — the UCC approves of gay marriage, we’re in a state that allows civil unions, and the vibe we got when the idea was introduced was that most thought it was no big deal. But we had a deliberative process, where is was discussed not only at the church council level, but also in meetings open to all members to share their feelings on the matter. By the time the council approved civil unions, it was almost a nonissue. Something that could have been divisive turned out not to be, with even those opposed getting the chance to be heard. In fact, the one member who was particularly upset about the idea still shows up regularly.
On the other hand, we’ve had death matches over whether bulletin boards will be allowed in the main church hall, or the addition of sconces there, mainly because those were decisions initially made without consultation of church members. Of course, no one familiar with church politics will be surprised at all that civil unions draw a shoulder shrug, and that bulletin boards move people to rending of garments.
If the process itself has merit, then why the walkout last year? I frankly see no difference between the Republicans cramming a bill through & Democrats walking out. Both tactics are gross, and getting into “they started it” or “our side is less dishonorable than THEIR side” is just a pissing contest.
Don’t get me wrong, I think every bill should be debated on the floor, in public, without anything in the bill that isn’t germane. Neither side plays by those rules anymore, sadly.
Jason, the reason why Democrats walked out — and why they should walk out again — is because it’s the only way to guarantee debate, and a voice. If the Republicans are ramming through legislation without debate, then what’s the point of showing up? How are you supposed to provide a voice for your constituents if legislative leadership won’t allow it? The only option left is to not show up — at least then, you can speak, and get other voices to speak, on the merits of the bill. Alas, I don’t think Democrats will do it because they fear some sort of backlash — or because they know there will be backlash at the polls if this gets passed (though I generally don’t give Democrats that much credit for their political savviness).
I actually do see a difference between cramming down a bill, and walking out. I would expect that if the situation were reversed, Republicans would be making hotel reservations in Danville, Ill. What’s less defensible is if there WERE plenty of time for debate and discussion, and a party walks out just because it’s not getting it way.
Also, the money behind the bill is secret. Nice.
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120108/LOCAL0202/301089943/0/local0202
I don’t think either side has any political savvy. Every time one party does something that makes me shake my head, the other party does something even more absurd. And the opinion makers are shocked, Shocked! I tell ya! when the other side does something like a cramdown or a walkout- as though their side has never done it.
When commentators on the side of the action speak out to decry it, I’ll give the greatest nod. It’s rarely a two-way street, though.
I know that Mitch Daniels will tell the people of Indiana that this
sh*t sandwich of a bill smells like a garden full of roses on a beautiful spring day.
Life is like a shit sandwich — the more bread you have, the better it tastes.
The idea that allowing more citizens voices “to be heard” would calm those who disagree is somewhat silly. Union members who would have been given the right to speak will still be pissed off. They will still scream about the passing of the RTW law being a “dictatorship” or anti-democracy. While I agree the Democrats have a right to be heard, especially the elected officials, it isn’t like they haven’t been heard. TV and radio programs play their comments, and even they themselves take-off, sometimes to a whole other state. I understand they are upset at the situation, and their money is being threatened, but the make-up of the House is the make-up of the House. Their claims about being silenced would be taken more seriously had they actually showed up for work day one instead of meeting with at least one union leader behind closed doors. Seriously, when you can say the exact same thing outside the chamber to five to fifteen TV station cameras, is there really any difference if it is done “officially?”
It seems to me that RTW is a simple way to try and hit the Democrats in the pocketbooks. Why should Republicans care at all? If the unions would have been smart, they would have limited their unreasonable demands, both in the public and private sector over the last decade or so. They then would have actually donated at least some of their money to Republicans. Unions seems to hate “evil corporations” or “big business,” yet if there were no GM, no Chrysler, no Kroger, no AT&T, there would be no UAW, no UFCW, no CWA.
So I see it as kinda a get back at Democrats. As far as the Republicans being a fluke, I think that is laughable. What did the Democrats in at the state level was their “K-12 at any cost” philosophy, at least in my opinion. It could be argued the Indiana K-12 industrial complex pretty much ran the Democrat party to some extent. Isn’t there a tunnel from the ISTA building to the state house? K-12 went on a spending spree. They spent lots of money on fancy building facilities instead of focusing it towards the classroom, teacher pay/benefits, etc.. Taxpayers were feed up, and they blamed the one party who seemed to back the spending spree more than the other.
I’m not a big fan of forced unionization, but I also don’t care much for “at will” employment. I see both sides of the issue, and it is hard for me to really take sides.
Union members are still going to be angry, but upending the usual process for no other apparent reason than to shut them up is throwing kerosene on the fire. And, it resonates with (and angers) people who don’t have a particular dog in the RTW fight. They might not care about (or understand) the ins and outs of who wins and loses if RTW passes; but it’s pretty easy to understand that abandoning the normal rules when you have the upper hand isn’t consistent with fair play.
I will agree that Republicans could face backlash for their ramrod tactics here. However, the Democrats don’t have a leg to stand on, and I think they end up looking worse for their actions. Yes, this year the Republicans looked bad, but that is vastly overshadowed by the running away the Democrats did last year. And to make matters worse for the Democrat image, this year they just refuse to play ball. The voters picked the teams, and they expect both teams to show up and play ball. Had the Democrats not ran away last year, or hide behind closed doors this year, they actually might have been able to gain some ground in terms of representation.
I recall seeing somewhere that when Republicans passed RTW in the 1950s, that there was a political backlash, Democrats got elected, and repealed RTW, which repeal has last a half-century. Anyone have the facts on that?
Republicans passed RTW in ’57. Democrats won the House, Senate, and Governorship in the next election.
However, the Republicans won back the House in ’60, and lost it again in ’62.
And RTW was repealed in ’65.
So the cause/ effect relationship is not exactly established. There was a long lag between the cause and the alleged effect.
“..but the make-up of the House is the make-up of the House.”
But I believe it was Madison warned of the ‘tyranny of the majority’. Is that correct, Doug?
———-
As to exhoosier’s remark (” that overall voter demographics are trending against [Republicans] with each passing year”), you may prove wrong.
The demographics of those with whom you associate (e.g. UCC) may be trending that way, but that’s not to say the trend is adequately informed. As I like to quote Artemus Ward, “”It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we do know that just ain’t so.” Ignorance runs rampant.
The upcoming presidential election may enlighten many in your demographic. I hope so, otherwise we’re doomed.
“..but the make-up of the House is the make-up of the House.”
But I believe it was Madison warned of the ‘tyranny of the majority’. Is that correct, Doug?
——————————————–
I have heard that phrase used before, but obviously it is only “tyranny” to those who disagree with what is happening. If Democrats were in charge and they were doing something that the minority disagreed with, the phrase would also fit. To me, unless the elected officials try to change the rules of elections (not district boundaries, as those are always redrawn every so often, and it doesn’t mean a minority party member can’t run in the new districts), there really is never any tyranny. If the majority party really screws up, the voters will throw them out. Democrats had control of the state for a while when I was growing up. Voters revolted for many reasons, and I think K-12 spending and property taxes were just one issue of many.
Tom: Not to put too fine a point on it, but when I say the demographics are trending away from Republicans, I mean that the populace, by all measures, is getting blacker, browner and more religiously diverse. I don’t have the figures offhand, but I believe in the last 20 years, Indiana has gone from more than 90 percent white to about 80 percent, and the youth minority population is far higher. Marion County is now 60 percent white, and one township is majority minority (Pike). Hamilton County had 66,000 more white residents in 2010 than 2000. The other 91 counties combined had 1,000 more. (And Hamilton County had sizable minority growth as well). The existence of a much larger minority voting population was widely credited with putting Obama over the top in Indiana in 2008.
Not that minority voters will go in lockstep with Democrats, but Republicans have treated this fast-growing population, particularly Hispanics, as a threat instead of an opportunity — the voter ID laws, the Mike Delph “papers please” efforts — that is designed KNOWING that it will have a greater effect on populations who lean Democratic. Republicans aren’t going to reach out to new voters, even though many of them culturally and philosophically might align with Republican ideals. Daniels, who is Arabic, did do some of that, to his credit — Mike Pence, who has represented an economically decaying district full of resentment of the foreigners who took their jobs, sure as hell won’t.
So if the numbers are running against you, what do you do? You find ways to game the numbers. You ram down bills while you still can. Indiana is a long way from, say, having a politically make-or-break minority voting populace (and Texas shows how you can game things so much you can nullify its influence). But Republicans legislators are sure acting like that day is rapidly approaching.
Sorry, ex, but that *is* trying ‘to put too fine a point on it’. Indeed, it was like bending over backward to do so, like a contortionist. The ‘logic’ sounds plausible — on a blackboard perhaps, but not on the ground. It’s mostly rooted in distrust and misperception.
That’s OK, I understand — it’s “UCC-think”. I grew up in that church and would never set foot in one again; they’ve gone way over the edge.