On this Friday edition of The Editors, Rich is joined by Michael, Maddy, and Jack for a discussion of Nancy Pelosi’s Thursday announcement.
Jack points out that Pelosi really has had quite the long run of it. “She’s become a symbol of this kind of gerontocratic rule. What you’ve got is Pelosi, [Jim] Clyburn, and Steny Hoyer in their 80s at the head of the Democratic House caucus. And I mean eventually either through just sheer actuarial tables or deference on their part, they’ll shuffle off the stage. But Pelosi’s definitely been the most powerful of those in that trio.”
Whatever your views of Pelosi are, she’s truly had a major impact on the direction of her party, and Jack muses about what will happen now that she’s gone. “It’s been interesting to watch over the course of the past 15 years or so as she’s become a force of — I don’t want to say moderation — but at least maybe tactical restraint in her party, and I don’t think this is necessarily a testament to any sort of moderation on her part. It’s just showing how the Democratic Party has moved left while she’s been one of its most important figures and leaders.”
He further illustrates this movement by reminding listeners how Pelosi has tried to compartmentalize her stance on abortion with her Catholic faith. “Future Democratic leaders won’t even pretend that there’s any contradiction between . . . say Catholic teaching and abortion. . . . She had this complicated dance over the years because she did have a faith that she had to pretend to reconcile with her views on this matter, but such pretensions and pretenses will vanish as the party continues to drift left in absence of her leadership.”
Our panelists also covered the frustrating “Respect for Marriage Act” recently passed by the House, leading Maddy to make a very prescient observation about how opposition to the bill will be framed. “The only way that you could be opposed to this redefinition of marriage is if you’re a bigot, and they put interracial marriage in there as well to do that, and Republicans are going along with this. I think Mitt Romney said that this was necessary to signal that you believe in equality, and he also very naïvely said, ‘Oh and it’s got protections in there for religious freedom.’” These protections are very limited, however, and Maddy tells listeners how it will harm many individuals. Besides this, the bill is completely unnecessary: “There is no political movement for redefining marriage. . . . It’s clearly capricious. It’s clearly to prove a point to humiliate social conservatives, and it’s depressing, frankly, that Republicans are willing to go along with that.”
For Jack’s and MBD’s take on this topic, as well as a fascinating trip down the rabbit hole on the topic of the fertility crisis, listen below.