The blessing of a growing, expanding majority is that it gains more power; the curse is that managing that expanding majority becomes increasingly unwieldy.
Since the civil rights era, the Democrats have, without doubt, been the more heterogeneous party, even today in their minority status. Still, it is axiomatic that, all else equal, the GOP coalition becomes increasingly harder to maintain and satisfy the larger it gets. The political corollary to this axiom is that wedge politics become more fruitful as a political tactic for Democrats and the progressive Left to use against the Republicans.
That said, I'm curious to get some feedback on the following, as Proposal #1 for wedgifying the GOP majority in Washington: A proposed constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Consider the Texas-sized horns of the president's dilemma:
*If he deems it necessary to defend the "culture of life" by endorsing the amendment, he risks alienating many social moderates, including millions who vote Republican on fiscal/defense issues but are less comfortable with the social conservative wing of the GOP. Moreover, Bush will be perceived by many (including constitutional conservatives) as a reckless leader who wants to settle yet another controversial policy dispute by meddling with the language of document intended to design the basic rules and paramaters of government, not decide temporary policy battles best resolved by the majoritarian branches of the national and state governments.
*If, on the other hand, he dares to fall silent - or even oppose it - he will have a full-blown mutiny on the bountiful values-voters deck. It will be a nice little test case of Thomas Frank's claims in What's the Matter with Kansas?
For all their whining about the havoc wreaked by "activist judges," you can be sure many Republicans do not want to go public, especially via constitutional action, on the abortion question. They'd much rather chip away at abortion rights more quietly in the courts. You may recall that Bush ducked (twice) when asked during the debates about Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees; he does not want to append to his call for banning gay marriage by amendment a call to ban abortion by amendment, too.
By making the president and Republican congressmen - and "men" is, generally speaking, the accurate gender usage - take stands in the form of public statements and/or roll call votes, we can ascertain who has the political-electoral guts to support banning abortion by federal constitutional amendment.
I think Minority Leader Pelosi should come forward, tell the nation she wants to get this issue settled once and for all, and call for the vote. Values voters who would love to have this issue settled by constitutional amendment will ratchet up the national conversation to cacophonic levels. Then, after the proposed amendment goes down, when those court appointees start issuing their rulings, the pro-choice community can complain, and rightly, that "conservative activist judges" are trying to undermine the will of the public, as expressed by their democratically-elected national representatives.
The GOP plays wedge politics because they love forcing Democrats to go on record so they can later pillory those who vote against them, and neutralize those who voted with them. The last thing this Republican majority - and its politically-capitalized president - wants is to be assaulted by the same wedge-political tactics they have used for years.
So, what say you, aspiring Speaker-to-be Pelosi?