Marc Fisher is one of my favorite political writers, almost always thought provoking and original. Today is no exception, with his Washington Post column, "Va. Politicians Amend Own Views on Rights." What Fisher's getting at - the tradeoff between individual rights on the one hand, and government involvement in restricting said rights for the "common good" on the other - is profound, as it lies at the heart of many if not most political debates in our country. Are taxes a necessary evil for the greater good or just an evil, taking away "your money?" Does government have a role in determining what people do with their bodies - sex, abortion, Terri Schiavo "right-to-die" issues, etc.? Should our political leaders stick to principles, or bend with the wind of ever-changing public opinion? These are all critically imporant questions, and they don't necessarily correspond cleanly to the standard Democratic-Republican partisan divide. For instance, the Republican Party is divided between more "libertarian" types on issues like abortion and homosexuality, and more "Pat Robertson/Bob Marshall social/religious conservative" hard liners. Same thing with Democrats on both of those issues. Same thing with guns. To an extent, these divisions cut along rural-urban/suburban lines, but that's not necessarily clean either, with some of the most socially conservative Virginia politicians (Bob Marshall, Ken Cuccinelli) hailing from increasingly "blue" Northern Virginia.
Anyway, Fisher points to the 21-18 vote last week in the Virginia Senate which would "ban smoking in restaurants and virtually all other public places," as emblematic of the way Virginia is changing. According to Fisher:
...the shocker was not merely that a tobacco state would turn against one of its most important heritage industries, and not even that the state's hospitality business would remain virtually silent about the prospective ban, but that Virginia values apparently no longer include an individual's right to choose his own personal behavior without worrying about the government playing nanny.
Why is this happening? In large part, it's because of changing societal norms and mores. It's also a result of politicians' personal experiences with smoking-related lung cancer, with family members and friends who are homosexual, or with tough medical and "end of life" issues in their own personal experiences. Recently, we had the case of a Republcian delegate, Emmitt Hanger, softening his views on illegal immigrants due to his son's fiancee being from the Philippines. We've seen this type of thing before as former hard liners against stem-cell research realize that their loved one's Alzheimers, Parkinsons, cancer or diabetes might be cured by such research. And, of course, politicians DO care about being reelected, and they DO listen to their constituents - at least some of the time. For instance, take the case of House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith (R - Roanoke):
Griffith, a Republican from the Roanoke area, seems genuinely torn about the prospect of a smoking ban: "It's one of those balancing things -- private property, public health. Both are legitimate. My best friend, my mother, my wife -- they're all concerned" about the danger of secondhand smoke. "Maybe we have to beef up the health standards. It gives me an odd feeling -- negative -- if I have to tell a restaurant how to run its business."Griffith takes pains to note that "it's not because of Tim Kaine that I'm softer than I was last year on this. It's because my constituents are banging on me."
And, as Fisher points out, the same societal changes that made smoking in public close to unacceptable are also changing in other areas, such as sex:
Popular attitudes toward nontraditional living arrangements are shifting as quickly and dramatically as attitudes toward smoking. Most Americans believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but on many other aspects of modern coupling, attitudes have changed considerably.Americans are so accepting of the idea that same-sex partners should have the right to participate in a loved one's end-of-life decisions, or share in government benefits, that even many social conservatives in government carve out such exceptions from their attempts to legislate against same-sex marriage.
Virginians will soon be asked to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and other legal bonds between unmarried partners. Will those same personal connections that are making legislators question the definition of their Virginia values prompt the state's voters to think anew about individual rights?
This will be a fascinating debate this year. How will Virginias react to the "marriage amendment" that looks certain to appear on this November's ballot? As another article in today's Post points out, the Senate voted unanimously last week to require the amendment's full text to appear on the ballot. That includes vague language about "not creat[ing] or recogniz[ing] a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage." Whatever that means.
The bottom line here is that social mores keep changing - on smoking, sex, or the tradeoff between "individual rights" and "general welfare." The questions, as always, are a) how quickly will our politicians adjust to changing mores; and b) how will they balance the age-old question of the individual vs. the society at large. Here in Virginia, we see this being played out. "Change is in the air," as Fisher points out; the question is, how much change and how fast will prove acceptable. In a sense, that's what politics is all about, and the lines are not neatly drawn politically (e.g., Kaine "opposes a smoking ban and supports gun rights" while Bill Boling says "if you want to have a crusade against smoking, I'll help lead it."). Politics may be dirty/sleazy/nasty/cynical much of the time, but it's also fascinating and very human. Which is why I, personally, find it so fascinating.