Texas Blue Mailbag: Week of November 18

The Thanksgiving Mailbag features some surprisingly complex questions about old laws, political legacy, and public policy.

(I'd like to thank Josh for covering for me this week on the Mailbag, as I was out sick. My comments on some of the questions follow his. —GN)

phlebas asks:

is there any theoretical mechanism for cleaning up the accumulated crusts of old and outdated laws without starting the government over?

Josh says:

I'm pretty sure that most government systems, whether at the state, local, or federal level, have a method of excising old laws; the downside is that the old legislation is usually replaced with new legislation, unless the old laws expire. Which some of them do.

That being said, the new government thing does have a habit of getting rid of the old laws. The downside is that you have to make up all new laws, too.

George adds:

Then again, some would say that the size of the Texas Constitution would point to an example case of old laws not really being excised at all. The theoretical mechanism is always there — after all, one can pass a law striking existing laws — but what is more often missing is the will to do so. In the particular case of the Texas Constitution, there was an amendment passed in this last election that struck the office of inspector of hides and animals, which cleans up a tiny bit of the cruft from a gigantic document. There hasn't been a real attempt at a cleanup since the Texas Constitutional Convention in 1974, which failed.

Chris from Florida says:

what did the state of new york really hope to accomplish with that drivers license plan anyway?

Josh answers:

I think this was both an honest attempt at immigration policy at the state level as well as a test balloon to see how people feel about immigration in general. The post-game shows that A) states may indeed be capable of immigration reform, but B) what Spitzer tried won't work in New York. MSNBC has a thorough after-action report here.

AG asks:

In retrospect, almost all Americans agree that practices including slavery, prohibition and Japanese-American internment camps were unfavorable, Unamerican, or just plain morally wrong. What in the modern era is going to be a big mistake to future generations, or is wiretapping here to stay, are schoolchildren going to be taught about waterboarding mistakes in 2006, the attempted gay marriage ban amendment, etc.

Josh answers:

It seems strange to think about it, but the legacy of an era often becomes everything about that era. The period surrounding and spanning the Vietnam War contained an enormous amount of social change, some incredibly positive developments, some incredibly historical moments, speeches, and legislation. And yet the overarching thing about the entire era, the one central thing that every other event now seems attached to is the Vietnam War.

So, as for what this era will be tagged with and what will end up in history books, I don't know. Everything feels like it will end up as an antecedent to 9/11. Plenty of things have happened that will probably recorded by history with a hand that's less than kind, but the defining moment of our generation, thus far, is 9/11.

"Cash Cab" asks:

Is this election likely to be a turning point for America, in that it will possibly end the domination of American politics by the neo-con agenda? Who are some of the candidates who could allow said agenda to continue being in the forefront, effectually negating any election?

Josh replies:

The era of the religious right is over, and on many things the members of that movement and those who championed the NeoCon agenda aligned ideologically. They are not one and the same, though — the true Neoconservative movement began before Karl Rove was even born, and it has been kicking around and shaping itself into what largely made a mess of the ship of state for decades. It won't go away, but I think the alliance with the religious right is really gave it the strength it had for the last seven years or so. Could you imagine Barry Goldwater, one of neoconservatism's founding forerunners and most influential thinkers, turning religion into a partisan issue? Yeah, neither can I.

Some people might say Huckabee could turn it around, but they're entirely wrong. Huckabee is fiscally liberal, while on social issues he's far enough right to please Focus on the Family. Romney wouldn't work because, while he's in the right place fiscally (or at least describes himself as such now), he's Mormon, and Pat Robertson would never embrace him. I guess if you had to pick someone it might have been Sam Brownback, but we see how that turned out.

And George adds:

Though we may want to be wary. The religious right may be over, but if so, that's due to the right, not the religious. The hold the right had on America's religious population was because of the concept that religious social policy was easier to pigeonhole on the right than their fiscal policy was to pigeonhole anywhere. The article points out that such pigeonholing isn't working any more, but that doesn't mean they can't find a candidate that crystallizes their beliefs and rally behind him. Of course, classic fiscally conservative Republicans aren't as likely to back the same candidate, so for a while the Republican party may have to figure out exactly where there loyalties lie now that the economic Republican/religious Republican coalition seems to be gone. And in the likely possibility that the party eventually realigns away from being the exclusive religious party, which seems likely, the scramble for those votes should be interesting.

The Religious Right is gone — say hello to the Religious Center. I bet you'll see that one more often within the next few years, but remember: you read it here first.