So much to say about so little
The Tennessee House of Representatives has expelled two of its members, Justin Jones (Nashville) and Justin Pearson (Memphis), and attempted without success to do the same to Gloria Johnson of Knoxville, coming one vote short in her case. All three are Democrats, and the House is run by a supermajority of Republicans. The votes for expulsion came after the three broke the rules of decorum by occupying the House floor in a non-violent protest of what they saw as inaction with regard to new gun control measures following the mass shooting at The Covenant School in March.
So much for the facts, at least in overview. Jones and Pearson will likely be returned to the House by their respective county commissions, thus making the whole process a lot of sound and fury that will raise the ire of Democrats and Republicans while having no effect on legislation. Memphis, Nashville, and Knoxville probably will be all the more supportive of their representatives, but any votes past fifty percent plus one are only so much cushion.
It is worth noting that Johnson is a white woman, while the other two are black men, and this inevitably suggests an interpretation of racism with regard to the expulsion of Jones and Pearson, along with possible sexism in that the “little lady” was not tossed out—i.e., perhaps an attitude on the part of Tennessee Republicans that women being women must be allowed more leeway.
But what are we to make of the expulsion? The reporting on the subject says that such a removal of elected representatives is done only in cases of the member having taken a bribe, engaged in some sex offense, or committed a felony. Which is to say, if I may let the cynic in me speak, expulsion is the reaction only when the member does something that goes beyond the normal bounds of political corruption. All three members did break the rules, and my mother and elementary school teachers would tell me that those who go out of bounds have no cause to complain if they are punished while other scofflaws get away with infractions.
This is all occurring in the context of a post-January 6 political environment, and I can see an additional factor here beyond racism, namely a kind of tu quoque on the part of Republicans—see, Democrats burst into a legislative chamber to disrupt business, too. That the two events were very much different—the protest in Nashville being verbal and non-violent—may not carry much weight with those on the right, but one may as well say that a puff of breeze is the same as a hurricane. They are the same, but they are also unalike in so many ways.
As a purely tactical matter, the Republicans have erred here. I would ask them what part of “supermajority” they do not understand and recommend that magnanimity would have been the better choice. Allowing Jones, Pearson, and Johnson to speak their minds, especially if someone on the other side had been ready to respond, would have satisfied both decorum and fairness. But it may be that the Republicans have no one capable of making a sound reply. Even so, the pointless maneuver of expulsion over a trivial offense guarantees that this incident will remain in the memories of many Democrats. Tennessee may be a while in undergoing a political swing, but other states and the nation are watching.
If only the Democrats had been protesting on behalf of something worth doing. They were not seeking to guarantee healthcare or a living wage or higher education for everyone. A red flag law could be useful if it were done in a way that respects basic rights—such a law could have stopped the Nashville shooter, if it actually would have been applied—but an attempt to ban so-called assault weapons is nothing but political theater in a state as solidly Republican as Tennessee and with cases challenging the constitutionality of similar bans working their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The passage of that sort of bill would do nothing but feed the bank accounts of lawyers before being overturned.
And this, really, is the problem here. Jones, Pearson, and Johnson, along with Kamala Harris on a visit to Fisk University, have expended a measure of energy on a cause that Democrats seem unable to let go of, and yet outside of a handful of states that already had heavy restrictions on gun rights, gun control is all but dead. Congress is not going to pass anything significant at least until 2025, and most states want no new burdens enacted. The laws in California and New York at present are serving as vehicles to get more and more gun control ruled unconstitutional on the federal level.
Mediocre rhetoric and tepid protests are not going to move anyone into a new position, and flailing about after an ill-chosen goal will solve no meaningful problem. Making life better for everyone is the answer, but this requires the courage to give up a campaign slogan in favor of getting good work done.
It is, alas, in the interest of neither major party to do that.