On Clinton and DOMA

On the question of whether Clinton can be forgiven for signing DOMA, I think Somerby is mostly right. This is something Erik and I have been through many times, but the idea that progressive change comes from benevolent daddies in the White House taking lonely stands of principle is a bizarre and ahistorical idea. Presidents lead coalitions, and the Democratic coalition — and not just its most reactionary members, but people with substantially more consistent progressive records than Clinton — wasn’t supportive of same-sex marriage rights:

The measure passed the Senate, 85-14. It passed the House, 342-67. Did we mention the fact that Wellstone, Biden, Bradley and Daschle all voted in favor of DOMA before it reached Clinton’s desk? Not to mention Gephardt, Mikulski, Reid and Reid, Harkin, Levin and Durbin.

If DOMA had been Clinton’s initiative — if he had proposed DOMA to cynically exploit anti-LBGT sentiment — that would be a different story, but it wasn’t. It was a partly principled partly cynical initiative of congressional Republicans that succeeded in forcing Democrats to cast votes they would regret out of perceived political necessity. To make a bill proposed by Republicans and supported by overwhelming supermajorities of both houses of Congress about Clinton is very odd.

With one qualification this is also right:

So many Democrats voted for it that a veto would have been overwhelmed. But what a shame that Clinton didn’t veto the measure anyway! We could have had the best of both worlds: DOMA would have passed anyway, and Dole might have gone to the White House!

On the last point, I think that it is enormously unlikely that Clinton vetoing DOMA would have cost him the 1996 election — it’s a marginal issue in a race Clinton won very comfortably. But in being risk-averse, Clinton is hardly unusual. More importantly, I agree that this is where the fact that a veto would have been purely symbolic matters. If Clinton could have stopped DOMA, then I’m inclined to think that the small risk that it would affect the election should have been taken. But to take that risk for an action that would have been good for Clinton’s historical reputation without actually doing anything to advance LBGT rights? That’s a pretty dubious proposition. Now, the marginality of LBGT issues to national elections also means that if Clinton really advised Kerry to support an anti-SMM constitutional amendment in 2004 this would be worthy of not just derision but contempt — but as Somerby says the evidence that he did so doesn’t even rise to the level of being “thin.”

Clinton signed more than his share of bad legislation, but while it might be the most remembered DOMA is the one for which he’s least culpable.