Bill Clinton, DOMA and Cynicism

Here's an insightful take on Bill Clinton and his now opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which he signed into law while president.  DOMA simply said marriage for purposes of federal law is one man and one woman and a state can't be forced to recognize a same sex union if they don't want to.  Now he says DOMA is discriminatory and unconstitutional. As Paul Mirengoff asks, then why did Clinton sign it into law.

In a Washington Post op-ed, Bill Clinton argues that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which he signed into law, is unconstitutional. This raises an obvious question: Why did Clinton sign an unconstitutional piece of legislation into law?

As slick as he is, Clinton can’t provide an answer. He does explain why he signed DOMA in 1996:

[At that time] in no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.

Clinton appears to be saying that he signed DOMA to head-off a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But that’s no excuse for signing unconstitutional legislation. After all, Clinton took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately, oaths have never had much meaning for Clinton.

Clinton also says “I know now that the law is discriminatory.” But he also must know that not all “discriminatory” laws are unconstitutional.

Moreover, DOMA’s potential for “discrimination” was apparent when Clinton signed it. At that time, as he acknowledges, some states were moving towards legalizing same-sex marriage. DOMA meant that same-sex couples who married in these states would not have certain federal benefits available to other married couples. Yet Clinton signed DOMA into law.

I wonder what Bill Clinton hoped to accomplish through an op-ed in which he admits to another act of cynicism and lawlessness. Does he think that one or more of the five Supreme Court Justices who may be inclined to uphold DOMA will be moved by this op-ed to switch on the issue?

I doubt it. More likely, the judge Clinton has in mind is History. That arbiter already has him pegged as lawless cynic anyway. So why not try to explain away his endorsement of DOMA, and get on what he assumes eventually will be the prevailing side by hopping abroad the gay marriage express before it arrives at the station?

This reminds me of a cartoon of Clinton, probably when he was president, showing a band marching down one fork in a road while Clinton, formerly ahead of the band, goes down the other fork.  He turns around and sees they're going in another direction.  So he runs across country to get in front of the band.  

Good overview of political climate and anti-big government sentiment by Vin Weber.

Vin Weber came a good overview at the Humphrey Institute of the public's mood compared to past elections in 1980, 1982, and 1994 and what can be expected this November.

He sees big Republican gains this November. Likely Republican takeover of the US House and close in the US Senate. And he anticipates continuing conflict after the election because Obama sees himself as a "transformational" figure who will push his vision for bigger government whomever is in Congress.

When Clinton faced a similar disaster in his first midterm, he famously moved to the center and “triangulated” with the two parties in the House, announcing that the era of big government was over. But Weber recalled an interesting moment from 2008 when Obama got in some trouble for stating that Reagan had been a more “transformational” figure than Clinton. Obama sees himself as similarly transformational, and he will not triangulate, Weber predicted.

“This president has a different view of himself and his place in history,” Weber said. Obama will push for more change, and the kind of change he favors will continue to expand government and cost money.

But the Republican Party is also in the midst of a “transformation,” into a less pragmatic, more ideological, harder right, more libertarian party.

Obama will face a House dominated by “people who were elected by voters who are ready to throw out anyone who votes for any kind of spending or expansion of government,” Weber said. Every spending bill that comes along will cause those members to wonder whether this might be the one that will cost them their seats the way votes for TARP and the Obama stimulus measures appear to have ended the careers of long-serving members of Congress. Once you get into that mindset, Weber said, the safest, easiest vote on any spending bill is going to be “no.”

Weber views this election as more ideological than some of the other ground shaking revolutions we've had in the past few decades

Comparing the coming midterm earthquake to its most famous recent predecessors in 1982 (Ronald Reagan’s first midterm) and 1994 (Bill Clinton’s), Weber said this is a more ideological election based on that severe backlash against the Dems misreading.

The country has “moved further to the right in a shorter period than has happened in a long time,” Weber said, which is best reflected in poll results that show widespread public hostility to government spending and public debt and a near collapse of public confidence in the government’s ability to solve problems.

He also touched on the governor's race where there are some cross winds blowing. The national mood versus democrat's passionate desire to gain back the governorship for the first time since Rudy Perpich sat in the governor's chair in 1990.

Interesting insights into Obama, ideology and State of the Union Address.

Peggy Noonan wrote an interesting piece on President Obama's state of the union speech. She was Reagan's speechwriter and therefore have an interesting perspective on it's content.

She said the speech was OK, but nothing special.

President Obama's speech was not a pivot, a lunge or a plunge. It was a little of this and a little of that, a groping toward a place where the president might successfully stand. It was well written and performed with élan. The president will get some bounce from it, and the bounce will go away. Speeches are not magic, and this one did not rescue him from his political predicament, but it did allow him to live to fight another day. In that narrow way it was a success. But divisions may already have hardened. In our current media and political environment, it is a terrible thing to make a bad impression in your first year.

At the heart of the speech was a contradiction.

The central fact of the speech was the contradiction at its heart. It repeatedly asserted that Washington is the answer to everything. At the same time it painted a picture of Washington as a sick and broken place. It was a speech that argued against itself: You need us to heal you. Don't trust us, we think of no one but ourselves.

The people are good but need guidance—from Washington. The middle class is anxious, and its fears can be soothed—by Washington. Washington can "make sure consumers . . . have the information they need to make financial decisions." Washington must "make investments," "create" jobs, increase "production" and "efficiency."

At the same time Washington is a place "where every day is Election Day," where all is a "perpetual campaign" and the great sport is to "embarrass your opponents" and lob "schoolyard taunts."

Why would anyone have faith in that thing to help anyone do anything?

I thought she also had some interesting insights into Obama gleamed from a Republican member of Congress. Her friend said that Obama won't, can't move to the center because he's an ideologue. He's committed to his agenda right or wrong, whether people are behind him or not.

As the TV cameras panned the chamber, I saw a friendly acquaintance of the president, a Republican who bears him no animus. Why, I asked him later, did the president not move decisively to the political center?

Because he is more "intellectually honest" than that, he said. "I don't think he can do a Bill Clinton pivot, because he's not a pragmatist, he's an ideologue. He's a community organizer. He mixes the discrimination he felt as a young man with the hardship so many feel in this country, and he wants to change it and the way to change that is government programs and not opportunity."

He also told Noonan the big problem is spending. Democrats don't get it and Republicans are only a little bit better than Democrats on this issue.

The great issue, this friendly critic added, is debt. The public knows this; Congress and the White House do not. "To me the Republicans are as rotten as the Democrats" in terms of spending. "Almost."

"I hope we have big changes in 2010," the friend said. Only significant loss will force the president to focus on spending. "To heal our country we need to get the arrogance out of the White House and the elitists out of the Congress. We need tough love. We need a real adult in the White House because we don't have adults in the Congress."

Given who's in power and their mindset, I think we're headed for greater economic difficulties. Tough and tougher times are still ahead of us. The President and Congress aren't willing to change course, so we'll keep heading down the path of more government spending and more debt and the resulting economic dislocations and problems.

As Noonan's friend suggests, everybody is at fault, but Obama and the Democrat Congress will take us in the wrong direction faster.