Brooks and Capehart on the Democrats’ plan to shake up the presidential primary calendar

Judy Woodruff:

The president halts a railroad strike, lawmakers shield gay marriage, and Democrats shake up the road to the White House.

To consider this week's news, the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

Hello to both of you.

Jonathan Capehart:

Hello.

Judy Woodruff:

I'm so glad you had a good Thanksgiving meat. You just reassured me that that — that that was the case.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:

Let's start, Jonathan, with the newest news.

And that is what the Democratic Party is doing. They took a vote today. They are moving up South Carolina. This is the primary calendar in 2024. It's a ways away. It's more than — a little more than a year away, but with big consequences. What does it say to you, South Carolina and Michigan earlier, Iowa…

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, right.

It's more than just moving South Carolina up. It's a total reorganization of the calendar and cramming a lot in, in the month of February. So, with South Carolina going first, clearly, what the what the party wants to do is make sure that the first state that votes in a presidential primary election is one that demographically looks more like the country than, say, Iowa, and with, if memory serves, about a quarter of the electorate in South Carolina is African American.

And so that makes a lot of sense. And I think there are a lot of people within the Democratic Party, especially after the debacle of the Iowa caucuses in 2020, were really pushing for a state more representative of the country having a say early, if not first, about who the nominee of the party should be.

Judy Woodruff:

And, David, this is something pushed by President Biden. What do you make of it?

David Brooks:

Well, if anybody had any doubts that Biden is running for reelection, I think they were ended today. Like, he like took over the whole primary process.

The state to go first is the state he's probably most likely to win of all the 50 states. It propelled him last time, which it propelled him last time. And he just said, no, you're — we're going to do it my way. And whatever you guys have been talking about, that's nice. We're going to do it my way.

And he has prevailed. And so I think, for the reasons Jonathan said, it's not only ruthless politics, but it's also probably the right thing to do.

The one lament — because we want states that are a little more diverse up front. The one thing I do lament, aside from the heck that I like going to Iowa and New Hampshire — it's very comfortable and beautiful. The people are very earnest. But I lament the possibility that it will end small-scale retail politics.

Judy Woodruff:

Yes.

David Brooks:

Because in Iowa and New Hampshire, you — a candidate like Pete Buttigieg can come there and just live in Des Moines, and, really, 10, 15 people at a time, can build a following.

Now there's going to be big states. They're going to be all at once. You're going to have to — it'll help the candidates who have a lot of money and a lot of name recognition. And so an outsider, a Pete Buttigieg, frankly, a Barack Obama, will, I think, probably find it a little harder to come from relatively nowhere and then ride a tide.

Judy Woodruff:

I remember Jimmy Carter, who I covered a long time, sleeping in people's guest bedrooms all over the state of Iowa.

But what I'm really going to miss, Jonathan, Iowa State Fair, the butter sculptures, that big competition.

David Brooks:

I once saw the Last Supper sculpted in butter life-size.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:

It was the highlight of all my life.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:

So…

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:

I'm trying to get an image of that in my head.

So, a lot was going on this week, Congress back in session, and they moved pretty quickly to address this rail strike, imposing a settlement on rail workers, bipartisan. What do you make of what they did? Is it good for the country? Is it good for the rail workers?

Jonathan Capehart:

It is good for the country, in that, if rail — if there had been a rail strike, that would have hit 30 percent of the economy. It would have ground things to a standstill, right at the time when American consumers, when Americans are most sensitive. And that is when they're doing all of their holiday shopping.

I mean, remember the supply chain conversations we were having a year ago this time, people losing their minds that they couldn't get their gifts. This had to be done. I think this president, of all presidents, is the one who was able to cobble together the deal in the first place that then got rejected.

It's a federal law that makes it possible for the president and Congress to impose this deal on rail workers. But the issues that the rail workers were about to strike over are not insignificant. Paid sick leave is something that is — that's something that they need to discuss. That's something that is not an unreasonable ask, especially when rail companies are sitting on billions upon billions of dollars in profits last year.

But the workers had no leverage, unlike, say, fast-food workers or other workers around the country, who for whom a strike is that leverage point to get what they want and what they need.

Judy Woodruff:

And they didn't get the paid sick leave.

David Brooks:

Yes.

And it is — the administration said there could have been 675,000 job losses, costing billions of dollars a day. Nonetheless, I'm a little — not that I'm singing solidarity for every — every morning, but, basically, the government took away the workers' right to strike or their ability to strike.

And that imbalances the negotiation going — if the railroad companies think, oh, well, the government will step in and take away the ability to strike, then that alters how they're going to negotiate. And so it alters the balance.

So, I worry a little about the — sort of the moral hazard of government stepping in. And, somehow, it reminds me, in sort of an inverse case, I thought the bailout of the banks in 2008 was the right thing to do. Nonetheless, it is clear that the moral hazard, the way the government behaved had long-term moral and cultural effects on this country, because people thought, the system is rigged.

And if workers decide, if we lose the ability to strike, then the system is a little rigged against us, and that could lead to some level of cynicism and distrust.

Jonathan Capehart:

But that's why you need to — this law needs to be changed.

It's not like the president and Congress said, well, we will just make you take it just by fiat. The law says that that's what they — they have the power to do that. So, to do what you're saying, David, they need to change the law to give those rail workers the opportunity to strike.

Judy Woodruff:

And you were saying weighing it against what it would mean for the economy if the — if this went on, if it wasn't resolved.

Another thing that the two parties were able to come together on, Jonathan, was on protecting same-sex and interracial marriage in America. What does this amount to? What's the significance?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, I'm smiling from ear to ear. As someone — an out, gay married man in an interracial marriage, I'm double — doubly covered.

(LAUGHTER)

Jonathan Capehart:

Look, in the grand scheme of things, this is a terrific thing, to have — to ensure that, if Obergefell is rendered unconstitutional, my marriage will still be recognized by the federal government.

Judy Woodruff:

Supreme Court decision.

Jonathan Capehart:

The Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage.

If Obergefell goes away, though, this is where — the problem I have with the law, my marriage is protected, but if my husband and I move back to North Dakota, where he's from, same-sex marriage is banned, by Constitution — in the Constitution and in — by state law.

If Obergefell goes away, same as when Dobbs overturn Roe v. Wade — instantly, 35 states ban same-sex marriage. So, if we meet friends, a same-sex couple that wants to get married in North Dakota, they would have to leave the state, go to New York, go to California, go somewhere where marriage is — same-sex marriage is legal, and then come home.

And the state would be forced, because of this law, to recognize their marriage. That is a burden, an unfair burden, on couples who all they want to do is solemnize their relationships, and also protect their families, because, more often than not, these same-sex couples want to get married either to start a family or to protect the family that they have.

And if Congress really wants to do something to protect LGBTQ Americans, and certainly same-sex — same-sex married couples, they would pass the Equality Act. It's out of the House. It's been sitting in the Senate. All they need to do is pass it in the lame-duck, and things would be great.

Judy Woodruff:

So how much of a step forward is this?

David Brooks:

I think it's a very significant step forward, first, in the matter of justice that.

I think there are now over a billion same-sex married — same-sex — a billion.

Jonathan Capehart:

Billion.

David Brooks:

A million.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:

More than…

David Brooks:

A million. A million.

So, what, we're going to take away those people's marriages? Like, is that pro-family? So I don't think — I don't think — that would be just a tremendous wrong to do that. And, as Joe Biden says, love is love, and people should get married.

I think the thing I'm also very hopeful about is that this represents a path out of some of the culture wars. So, the history of this is that, in 2008, the LDS Church campaigned against gay marriage in a California proposition. The blowback was so strong, they said, wait, we got to rethink this issue.

So they went to the LGBT community in Utah and said, let's have a compromise. Gay marriage will be on the books, but our religious freedom will be protected, so the government will not take away our tax status.

And so they made this compromise. And this is sort of what happened here. So, the National Association for Evangelicals supports this. The CCCU, the — all the Christian colleges support this, because they were terrified that they would get their tax status taken away because of their religious beliefs.

And so this was a group of people coming together across the culture war, saying, what you want is to protect your marriages. What we need is to not have our tax status taken away. We want religious freedom.

And so they both got what they want. They did a deal. And that's the way politics should work.

Judy Woodruff:

We are…

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:

I see your face, Jonathan.

Jonathan Capehart:

No, no, I was…

Judy Woodruff:

I see the look on your face.

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, only because, I mean, I — the religious exemptions offend me personally, because there are some people who are going to use their personal beliefs and hide behind religion to discriminate against people like me and families like mine.

And there's no — there would be no legal recourse for me and my husband or other, these billion, million same-sex married couples in the United States to hold someone accountable for not giving us the services we should constitutionally be able to avail ourselves of. That's all.

David Brooks:

I'm sympathetic to that.

But, as I understand this law, if a — if you went to a baker and said, we want you to bake our wedding cake, he still has to bake the wedding cake, because I understand that it's mostly what they were worried about is their view of Scripture is that God doesn't support gay marriage or same-sex marriages. And they don't — if — they don't want to be forced to perform gay marriages or face losing their tax status.

And I do not agree with them, but there are a lot of people in this country who believe in Scripture and believe this is what Scripture says. And I think it's a willing sacrifice to give people their religious freedom so we can live together.

Jonathan Capehart:

And, to be clear, it's both those things.

It's not putting their tax-exempt status to risk, but also not putting themselves at risk for denying service, i.e., foster care or other services, in all sorts of institutions.

Judy Woodruff:

Only a few seconds left, but I did want to say it's a little over a week since former President Trump had dinner with Nick Fuentes, the known neo-Nazi, and every other — I think now you can — you can say that it isn't positive.

We asked members of Congress for their reaction, and many of them are still not commenting on it. Interesting.

David Brooks:

There's a glass half full or half empty. A lot did not comment. But, more than usual, Republicans condemned Trump, more than average.

Jonathan Capehart:

It's reprehensible.

If a Republican is in leadership, they should have been out there within hours of finding out about this dinner. This is what's leading to the corrosion of political discourse. And, in our society, we have people who are openly, openly antisemitic, and no consequences. That's outrageous.

Judy Woodruff:

Tough to think about.

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, thank you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks, Judy.