Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
TALLAHASSEE - Democrats have two privileges in Tallahassee these days. They can say what they think and vote as they will, rights denied on the pain of spiteful punishment to the Republican members of Johnnie Byrd's Little House of Horrors. Other than that, the Democrats are a lonely crowd. It was an even lonelier subset of them who called a press conference the other day to proclaim themselves "Florida Mainstream Democrats."
Of the 54 Democrats in the House and Senate, the "Mainstream" number only 18, which is smaller than even the press corps, only a few of whom paid notice to the event. Neither minority leader is a member, perhaps because both are in their last terms. But neither are the incoming minority leaders. Of the 23 African-American legislators, only three, including Rep. Frank Peterman of St. Petersburg, are "Mainstream." According to one of the organizers, however, the exclusiveness was intentional. "Everyone that we asked to join, joined," said Sen. Steve Geller of Hallandale.
Others of local interest: Charlie Justice of St. Petersburg and Bob Henriquez of Tampa.
The 18 represent a mixture of urban and rural districts. Some of them are potential candidates for governor or Cabinet, like Sens. Rod Smith of Gainesville and Walter G. "Skip" Campbell Jr., Fort Lauderdale. Others are House members from safe seats, like Loranne Ausley of Tallahassee, who may want to run someday for Senate seats that wouldn't be so safe.
The one thing they have in common is a yearning to avoid the "liberal" label that the Republicans work 25 hours a day to hang heavily around all Democratic necks. The purpose of the new group, as Campbell put it, is to demonstrate that the Democratic Party "is not made up of just "ultra-liberals.' "
Among democracies elsewhere, "liberal" is no more pejorative than "conservative." The word is sometimes an adjective, sometimes a noun, but never an epithet.
Here, however, there are people who can't say it without spitting or sneering, as the Republicans did in defeating Kenneth "Buddy" MacKay Jr. - "Hey, Buddy, you're liberal!," said the ads - for the U.S. Senate in 1988 and for governor 10 years later.
The Democrats are overwhelmingly disadvantaged in the rhetorical war because there is no pejorative connotation to "conservative." The phrase "right-wing extremist" fits many of their tormentors, but it is not nearly so convenient to use.
Labeling seems to be the strategy dictating most current Republican tactics. One would expect and hope that in a democracy good policy means good politics. Here, "good" politics often depends on bad policy. George Washington, who warned against all factions, would disown the Florida Legislature.
The parental consent amendment, HJR 1, exemplifies that. One extreme in that debate rejects all restrictions on abortion. The other would, if it could, prohibit all abortions. Somewhere between is where most Floridians, like most Americans, probably are. It is not reactionary to suggest that there could be some different considerations where a 13- or 14-year-old is concerned. On the other hand, it is irresponsible to assert that she has no rights that the law should be bound to respect. HJR 1, unfortunately, embodies the latter extreme.
As passed by the House, where party-line votes defeated attempts to temper it, it would give the Legislature a blank check to require notification to a parent or guardian before any minor undergoes an abortion. By restricting any modification, the Republicans got what they wanted: 25 Democratic votes against the bill; 25 Democrats who can expect to see that vote come back at them in attack ads.
As passed by the Senate, somewhat improved, it would require the Legislature to provide for exceptions for notification and for a procedure to allow judges to waive notification. As everybody knows, the federal courts would require something of that sort anyhow.
But after that, it had to be all or nothing, even in the Senate. Six Democratic senators offered an amendment to spell out the safeguards, which hardly anybody in the Senate really wants to trust to the eventual judgment of the House. They proposed exceptions for medical emergencies and for victims of sexual or child abuse. There would be entitlements to speedy, expense-free, confidential hearings and, if necessary, appeals. To realists who understand how ugly some family situations can be, and how bigoted even some judges can be, the Democrats' amendment was good policy. But, from the Republican point of view, it was not good politics. On final passage, all but one of the 14 Democrats had to vote no, including the six who offered the amendment.
Not by coincidence, they are the same six senators who belong to the new "Florida Mainstream Democrats." They say they would have voted for HJR 1 if their amendment had been accepted.
Senate President Jim King said later the changes failed not because of political malice but because "we started to lose votes when we started to include the listing." What he neglected to say was that it was the extremists' votes that would have been lost. What could have been wrong with that?