Democrats Could Pursue Liberal Principles Over a Political Cliff

The question for Democratic legislators is whether they’re going to tarnish their party brand name in California by chasing two unpopular goals: same-sex marriage and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

Both issues are easily grasped by voters, riling conservatives and making many moderates uncomfortable.

They’re of particular interest after the presidential election, when the Republican red tide continued to spread across the American heartland and into California’s interior.

For many voters, the Democratic brand name has become increasingly synonymous with the label “liberal.” If not for the fear of liberalism, why would nearly 61 million Americans -- including 5.5 million Californians, 44% of the state’s electorate -- vote to reelect a president who had so mismanaged both a war and the national treasury?

After the election, Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco -- emphasizing she wasn’t “casting a value judgment” on gay marriage -- asserted that the volatile subject “did energize a very conservative base. It gave them a position to rally around....

“The whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon, and people aren’t ready for it.”

Neither same-sex marriage nor driver’s licenses had any detectible effect on legislative or congressional races in California because district lines were rigged to protect incumbents and the political status quo.

But politics is cyclical, even in this presently blue state. Just 16 years ago, California was red. Three of the last four governors have been Republican. Sometime in there, GOP politicians began engaging in political masochism by attacking abortion rights and fighting gun control, isolating themselves on the far right of the mainstream and scaring voters.

Some Democratic lawmakers realize they must be careful not to fall into the same trap of fighting futilely for causes that offend voters.

Moderate Democratic Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla of Pittsburg says he became particularly concerned watching TV news reports about last week’s opening of the new legislative session. The bills most often mentioned were Democratic proposals to legalize same-sex marriage and provide driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

“Republicans are defined as trying to create jobs and balance the budget while we’re defined as the party of gay marriage and illegal immigrants,” Canciamilla says. “It’s a tremendous mistake. If we’re going to be taken seriously, we have to be dealing with more important issues.”

Darry Sragow, a veteran political consultant and former strategist for Assembly Democrats, puts it this way: “The strength of Democrats is that we are viewed as the party that stands up and fights for ordinary working men and women.

“Our weakness is that we are viewed as big spenders and -- I’ve come to believe -- the party that condones breaking the rules....

“If Democrats are going to push for legislation to legalize gay marriage or to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants -- because we think those are the right policies -- we have to be prepared for the political consequences. And we are being unnecessarily self-destructive if we don’t frame our proposals in a way that avoids having them stick in the throats of moderate swing voters.

“The term ‘gay marriage’ is difficult for a lot of straight voters. There may be a way to accomplish the same goal by using a more palatable, less frightening term like ‘civil union.’ And giving driver’s licenses to people with no right to be in this country is an oxymoron to many voters.”

Longtime Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, however, rejects the notion that lawmakers are hurting the party brand name. The public doesn’t pay much attention to anything in Sacramento except Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, he insists.

But Times polling has shown the unpopularity of gay marriage and driver’s licenses for illegals. A February survey found that 32% of California voters thought same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, 40% supported civil unions without marriage and 23% favored neither.

A Times poll in October found that 63% of voters supported Schwarzenegger’s veto of a driver’s license bill.

Voters also have spoken directly: In 2000, 61% approved an initiative declaring that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California. In 1994, 59% voted for an initiative to bar illegal immigrants from nonemergency public services, although much of that measure was scuttled by courts.

But the champions of these causes are undeterred.

Moments after introducing his bill to legalize same-sex marriage, Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) told me: “Either we can cower and shake in fear at what might happen, or we can go forward. Do I sit on my hands and let [opponents] disparage the way I and others who are gay and lesbian love, or do we stand up for ourselves? We’re human beings. We love.”

But must they call it “marriage?” I asked. He replied: “To call it anything short of that is like, ‘OK, I admit it, there’s something faulty about me. Something unworthy.’ Would you please point it out. I haven’t found it yet.”

Sen. Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), after introducing his latest driver’s license bill, declared: “OK, so it’s not popular. That’s OK. I’m sure a lot of things aren’t popular. But we’ve done them and they’re good for us. Seat belts. Nonsmoking. Reducing air pollution.

“Doing the right thing is not necessarily what’s popular.”

Nor is it necessarily good politics.