June 13th, 2016 – Second Reading Podcast

[0:00:00 Jim] Welcome to the second reading podcast from the University of Texas at Austin. The Republicans were in the Democratic Party because there was only one party chart. Tell people on a regular basis there is still a land of opportunity in America. It’s called Texas. The problem is these departures from the Constitution. They have become the norm. At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over the male colleagues in the room.

[0:00:33 Jim] Welcome to the second reading podcast for the week of June 13th. I’m Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. As always, I’m joined by my colleague Josh Blank. Today we have the sad task of looking at the aftermath of the horrific shootings in Orlando in national and state politics. We both want to express that we have the utmost sympathy for the victims and their families and think that this was, of course, a horrible and sad thing that said, we’re going to spend some time looking at this sad events aftermath and the politics that surround the public response. We’ll start with the response of national leaders which, especially during ah presidential campaign, were inevitable, don’t you think, Josh?

[0:01:19 Josh] I mean, not just inevitable. It’s it’s expected. I mean these air, the sort of events that presidents are expected to respond to and during the campaign season. I think there’s a lot of interest in seeing how the candidates of the major parties would potentially respond as president during these events, right?

[0:01:36 Jim] Yeah, And I think there’s a reflexive response. And we were talking about this before the podcast for people to say, Oh, you’re gonna get political right away, aren’t you? Well, there’s no way this is not gonna be political, And I think what we really have to think about are the underlying judgments that air going in here, what people’s motivations are and what the context of these responses are to somehow expect. That particularly in this case is will unpack a little further on that. There were going to be no politics, and this is completely unrealistic.

[0:02:09 Josh] There’s the old saw. Politics is everywhere and that they say that about much less. Political events are potentially political events than this, right?

[0:02:17 Jim] Right. So there’s, you know, without without losing the very real human and sad dimension of this. There was no way this was not going to be ah, political. So we want to look at some of the responses and play some clips. But first, let’s make sure that we have just the basics of the situation in place,

[0:02:36 Josh] right? It would be hard not to have heard much about this over the last few days, but briefly here. Some basic facts and these facts are still unfolding. So, you know, some of this could change. But ah, Omar Mateen, a 29 year old Ah American born in New York in facts

[0:02:53 Jim] not far from gold’s

[0:02:54 Josh] not far from Donald Trump, uh, Afghan parents. He entered the Pulse nightclub in Orlando floor or ah, a little before 2 a.m. And opened fire, killing 49 people and wounding another 53 during a 911 call. Later in the evening, he pledged allegiance to Isis. Um, you know, previously had been under investigation by the FBI on two occasions, both of which ended up not proceeding and appears to have bought ah, the guns that he used legally. Right? So those are some of the basic facts

[0:03:25 Jim] and I think that as we look at that and will impact this, you can see all of the different things that are that are converging here. And it was It was a gay was a Latin night at what is, ah, well known in high profile gay lesbian night club in Orlando. And so we have this convergence of terrorism and national security. Civil rights, particularly gay lesbian LGBT rights. Um, guns. Always volatile.

[0:03:59 Josh] I think you got them all.

[0:04:00 Jim] I think that it seems like there’s one more thing that I’m leaving out, but

[0:04:03 Josh] immigrations to some

[0:04:04 Jim] dinner immigration. That’s the other thing I was thinking of, Um and of course, because he’s the president, because his response feelings about and an attitude toward Barack Obama the president. So let’s start and play a clip from the president’s initial response, Really the morning after, as this was coming to light Sunday morning,

[0:04:24 Speaker 1] this is an especially heartbreaking day for all of our friends, our fellow Americans who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. The shooter targeted a nightclub where people came together to be with friends to dance and to sing toe lift, a place where they were attacked is more than a night club is a place of solidarity, an empowerment where people have come together to raise awareness, to speak their minds and to advocate for their civil rights. So this is a sobering reminder that attacks on any American, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, is an attack on all of us. The fundamental values of equality and dignity that define us as a country

[0:05:15 Jim] so very presidential, very somber, right? Very. You know, for the most part, I thought, very actually, not even for the most part entirely appropriate the rest of the speed. The first part of the speech laid out some of the facts as they knew them, and this was really literally just a few hours after this had happened. It was Midei’s midday Sunday, and in laying out the facts of it, which were tentative at that point, the president urged people to wait, get more of the fax, um, and but but did mention that there probably, you know, that there might have been a terror connection at this point. Um, Donald Trump’s response, which was widely circulated the next day. He was did several media appearances, but we have Ah ah, clip from Donald Trump calling into Fox and Friends early Monday morning. So let’s let’s play that

[0:06:08 Donald Trump] We’re led by a man that is a very well led by a man that either is, is it’s not not smart or he’s got something else in mind and the something else in mind. You know, people can’t believe it. People cannot. They cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words radical Islamic terrorism. There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable that going

[0:06:38 Jim] so two interesting things that became have become very prominent and gotten a lot of play in the last 48 hours. First, the kind of dark insinuation without, you know, quite saying anything explicitly that there was something off and inexplicable about the president’s response and then the substance of that being this reference to, ah, his unwillingness to use the phrase Islamic terrorism or at a lot of Islamic radical Islamic terrorism. Terrorism, basically, you know, and the president has been reluctant to use the term radical Islamic terrorism or radical Islam orb radical Islamism for reasons that had to do with the their strategy from the Obama administration’s perspective of not further antagonizing. Ah, the Islamic world,

[0:07:34 Josh] right? Or Or elevate your sort of, you know, elevating the idea that America is hostile as a country towards Islam, in the sense that that is not helpful strategically has been their position

[0:07:45 Jim] right. And Donald Trump has adopted this from others. Frankly, I mean, this has been, ah, line of criticism of the Obama administration priority. Donald Trump even declaring his candidacy. Ah, that’s been prominent in recent years is a way of as a as a kind of stick to beat the Obama administration in terms of their their foreign policy.

[0:08:07 Josh] And that’s a pretty it’s pretty, a common criticism among Republicans. Marco Rubio was doing it a lot during during the presidential apartment. Ted Cruz. In fact, I think, you know, Trump was a little a little late to the game on the bashing Obama over this. I mean, the piece that got of that comment that are that set of comments I got a lot more coverage was sort of his implicit linking of Obama towards some kind of complicity.

[0:08:30 Jim] Yeah, I mean I mean and this this obviously re invoked the fact that Donald Trump was almost certainly the most prominent birther,

[0:08:40 Josh] right? What’s the birther?

[0:08:41 Jim] Ah, that is the people that you know claim that that there was no real evidence that President Obama had been born in the United States, that he was born somewhere else. And Trump had been very prominent in this Ah, in the earlier part of the decade and has still not entirely renounced that position,

[0:08:59 Josh] right, even after even after the president released his birth certificates

[0:09:04 Jim] And there and there is a degree of, you know, from a very kind of pure, nonjudgmental kind of attitude or a very analytical point of view. Donald Trump’s use of rhetoric and two step right up to the edge of saying something. But be able to say, Well, I’m not saying it. I’m just suggesting it. Or, you know, he often uses addiction. I’ve heard this or people say

[0:09:27 Josh] People tell me all about

[0:09:28 Jim] it in this one. You know, it’s like people can’t believe it, even though it’s not entirely clear what he’s saying. They shouldn’t believe. But the implication is that somehow you know, I’m back in the Cold War. You know, we used to talk about people being soft on communism, and this is the implication. Here is the link these questions about Obama’s identity to him being quote unquote soft on terrorism.

[0:09:49 Josh] And he doesn’t have to make the link directly because the media will do it for him

[0:09:53 Jim] and which they did very quickly and within moments of him saying that it was in pretty much all the media outlets. I mean, it was on Fox. It leapt across the spectrum of political coverage. I think I heard it on the way to work that morning on NPR, so

[0:10:07 Josh] I saw it in multiple morning news letters I read and

[0:10:12 Jim] they covered the waterfront. Now Trump was also trying to extend that criticism to Hillary Clinton and has in fact said that and basically lumped them together. And that makes sensible political point of view. She was Obama’s secretary state,

[0:10:26 Josh] and you should expect to hear that happening throughout the rest of the campaign is just the Democrats. When Obama, when Obama’s running 2008 linking John McCain to George Bush, which was even even mawr sort of ah, particularly

[0:10:39 Jim] given this Isis your match, not a lot of love between

[0:10:42 Josh] now, But this is a common campaign tactic,

[0:10:45 Jim] right? And it makes a certain amount of sense, and certainly right now. For her part, Hillary Clinton is hugging up on the president pretty good, which one would expect nonetheless used. And so, to that extent, Hillary Clinton’s response, which came very quickly in her own set of multiple media media appearances, um, approach Trump’s criticism on that in an interesting way and that she just, you know, she basically pivoted away from it. So let’s let’s listen to a clip from Hillary Clinton.

[0:11:15 Hillary Clinton] First of all, from my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say and how it matter. We got bin Laden, not what name we called him. And I have clearly said that we face terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people and, you know, whether you call it radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing. I’m happy to say either, but what I won’t do, because I think it is dangerous for efforts to defeat this threat is to demonize and demagogues and declare war on an entire

[0:11:49 Jim] religion. So we hear Hillary Clinton adopting on one hand adopting the administration’s logic on the language,

[0:11:56 Josh] which is not surprising. She was secretary of state administration. Probably she was there probably had a part.

[0:12:02 Jim] And and as as we heard the president, you ah, a couple days later, the next day, uh, reminded people of the fact implicitly I was in the room when we all killed bin Laden. Um, but also so you know, two things. So maintaining the logic of the position, but also an interesting pivot away, an attempt to dismiss this whole matter of language by just saying Sure, I’ll say it. It doesn’t really matter now. The next day, President Obama met with his national security team Ah, and then gave a pretty notable about a 30 minute speech after that meeting. The first part of the speech, um, was policy nuts and bolts. Update on the logic of the of the administration’s approach to terror. What’s going on with the fight against Isil? Just, you know, pretty nuts. Nuts and bolts Policy policy Report to the American people, if you will. Um, the second half was a very notable and to quote a headline that was actually on The Washington Post wed website pretty clearly pissed off President Obama, speaking to the intimations from from Donald Trump and from the Republicans, we’ve got, Ah, longest excerpt from the president. But let’s let’s listen to that.

[0:13:21 President Obama] And let me make a final point For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against Isil is toe criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase radical Islam. That’s the key. They tell us we can’t beat Isil unless we call them radical Islamists. What exactly would using this label accomplished? What exactly would it change? Would it make Isil less committed to trying toe kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction

[0:14:37 Jim] that is actually even one of the milder parts of of that speech. Yeah, he really, you know, he called Trump out all but by name. He made a reference in another part of the speech to the presumptive Republican candidate. Yeah, referred to all the yapping out there, Um no. But also very much gave a of a speech that was about saying, This is very serious business and implicitly is, as we were talking about earlier, made the distinction between running for president and being the president. Yeah, and I think you know, in that distinction here, I think also serves in looking at Obama and Clinton’s response in a subtle way and the differences there. Hillary Clinton is very much in again, not toe. Not to say she’s not being serious, but it’s a very tactical move, I think, to simply say it doesn’t matter. You sure all say fine right where he’s saying, Look, I’m the president, This gets no results. I’m here trying to run this deal and make things happen, and this is not helping. I mean, there’s a There’s a There’s a later part in that speech where he’s he’s kind of sarcastic, and he says, You know, not once, To paraphrase, not once is one of my advisers said, Hey, you know, if used to start using this term, it’ll just turn this whole thing around, and it kind of boils down the point of what he was after.

[0:16:03 Josh] Yeah, and then there’s a recognition of the fact you know that as president, not as someone running for president. He is the figurehead of our country. And what he says, you know, carries import in the rest of the world in a way that, you know, Trump may be interesting. And to some people’s, you know, scary right. And Clinton may, you know, be, you know, let’s say expected, probably toe win. The next election, which may be served somewhat, speaks to her a little bit more careful logic about some of this stuff. Um, but neither of them are president. Neither of them are commander in chief of the armed forces. Neither one of them, at this point, represents America and the rest of the world. And I think that’s where that is, right. I mean, that’s a nice parsing there, and I think that we’re listening to the club where you see that distinction where Clinton is very one to say to a large degree because she’s on the campaign trail. Yeah, If it makes a difference to you, I’ll say radical Islamic terrorism. She

[0:16:55 Jim] always just went find

[0:16:57 Josh] right. But I’ll tell you, you know, if she were to win, if you were to win in November, I don’t think you’d see her saying it. A bunch, Right, Right,

[0:17:06 Jim] Almost Certainly not. Almost certainly not. So now that we’ve got a blade some of this out and looked at these political responses, let’s let’s take that apart a little bit. I mean, and really, what we see here is different. Different elements really remember the two parties when you come right down to it, looking at these different issues that we’ve laid out that this intersex and looking for what we would think of is a frame that suits their purposes. And that’s in the most. And again, this is where we probably it probably feels a little uncomfortably mercenary to be talking about it that this way. But this This is how it’s working, right?

[0:17:46 Josh] Right? I mean, the reality is, is, I think, any sort of in these sorts of situations, often times the person who says like we need to set politics aside, is the worst, because then they go and they start being completely political. So in some ways, you know, this is what we expect. I mean, it’s easy to sort of dismiss the languages is crass or craven or opportunistic or whatever, but the reality is that Ah, you know, in a time like this, people are looking for solutions. They’re looking for understanding. They’re looking for meaning they’re trying toe, um, they’re trying to sort of go beyond the basic headline and figure out where this fits into what’s going on in America, even myself. You know, when I woke up and started reading the news Ah, you know, my first thought was Oh, this this was that. Ah, this was it. Ah, gay and Lesbian Club because this was, you know, an attacking Cruz is a hate crime. And then I instantly saw Oh, this is being investigated as terrorism. And I thought, and it’s for me, I thought, Well, which one? Which one is it, right? Right. And I was trying to figure out Is this is a hate crime? Is this a terrorist attack? What is this? And I think that’s what politicians are trying to help people do. But as politicians are want to do, they do it in a way that is, ah, going to be helpful to them now. It doesn’t mean it’s just again. It doesn’t mean is totally crass is just that. There’s a different understanding of the world. Is someone, you know, sort studies public opinion. You know, there’s something about this event that’s extremely interesting in that these elements that we’ve talked about, a top of this podcast, you know, we have a terrorist, you know, with the sort of question of loosely this connection a question of immigration, which is a loose tied to sort of the fact that, you know, even though he was an American citizen whose parents were from another country Ah, you there, sir. Victories of discrimination, intolerance both in terms of gays and lesbians but also in terms of Muslims because you know he is a Muslim and Latinos and Latinos. Where was the one that kind of gets forgotten about alive? You know, they’re actually been some. Some prominent ah Latino commenters have been pointed out like, Hey, let’s not forget that these were also mostly Latinos, right? And so you notice in the response to the top you hear the Republicans talking about Trump, but also other Republicans were talking about terrorism. Barack Obama and immigration. And the point of a frame is to sort of tell people what to think about influencing how people ah, individuals perceive meaning in this situation. And so, you know, we don’t think of things in isolation. It’s not like we can just say, Oh, this was this one thing. We define it like Like, this is it’s just a terrorist attack. Well, what else should we think about? How do we understand? And Sandy,

[0:20:21 Jim] how would you? I mean, what do you think is a good operational, like working definition off of frame, something like elements selected to provide for a, ah, particular context of political events?

[0:20:31 Josh] Yeah, I think that’s pretty good. I mean, I said, yeah, it’s definitely about

[0:20:34 Jim] don’t even have that written. You

[0:20:35 Josh] know, that was great. You should write a text book or something. Um and so, yes, the Republicans were sort of trying to, you know, in this event, they want you to be thinking about you know, the president and his response to terrorism. Whether it’s been adequate, they want you to think about terrorism. They want you to think about unchecked immigration because those are issues that they’re basically running on right for the Democrats. You notice that Obama’s initial you know, Obama’s response was quick to highlight the fact that you know the club lowers were gays and lesbians, and he specifically mentioned civil rights, right? Ah, you know, in some of the responses that follow, the Democrats are likely are likely to continue talking about gun control.

[0:21:13 Jim] And the president talked. Did we didn’t play those, but the president talked about gun control guns in both of his prominent statements. All

[0:21:20 Josh] right, so here, you know, we heard a lot about gun control discrimination, and I mean to a lesser degree, but still so terrorism, right? And so the idea here is How are we supposed to understand? You know, these events, right? And that’s sort of what this fall out has been into. Some degree, there’s some sort of, ah, there’s some perceived advantage, and I think it’s two ways to look at this, I guess, is on the one hand, you say, there’s some perceived advantage to getting ah, large degree of the public to think about these issues on your terms. Um, you know, on the other hand, in a less sort of just totally self interested sense. This just reflects the way that you know, the parties and the ideologue and the people who sort of, ah who who identify with them tend to think about these issues. It’s not that you know they’re going out and sort of creating this opinion. It’s that this opinion exists and you’re sort of the politicians. And a lot of response in the responses are trying to activate those attitudes and remind people, you know, if your Republican, how you feel about how Obama’s handle terrorism or if you’re a Democrat, you know how you feel about gay rights, right? And gun control. And that sort of explains, the different kind of language is coming out of both sides

[0:22:29 Jim] because right now I think they’re they’re, you know, again he feels a little awkward. But there are interesting gray areas in which the definitions and and how those frames get set are very fluid here, Um,

[0:22:46 Josh] especially in a case like this, where there’s so many of them present already?

[0:22:49 Jim] Exactly. Exactly. So. I mean, is this You know, if if you’re thinking about this is an immigration issue or you’re thinking about this as a knack to terrorism. But, you know, from the Republican I mean, I think they’re ambiguities on both sides. You know? I think. But, you know, from the Republican side, for example, if you know you think that this is an act of terrorism and the Democrats have been too weak on this and this is a tragedy, but you have very conservative attitudes about gay and lesbian rights, you know, there’s some tension there, and not that you know, Not that because you don’t believe in gay and lesbian rights, you would be happy about this. It’s not to imply that, but it is a kind of counter, you know, there’s counter pressure there.

[0:23:35 Josh] It can. It can be, but it can also. But they can also reinforce each other, right? I mean, I think that if you’re someone who feels, you know, let’s say that the country has moved too fast on Let’s say, you know, civil, some civil rights issues recently and you’re also generally, you know, I think that we should have closed borders and that terrorism is is this huge is the one of the biggest problems facing the country. In some ways, this can work you. This could be very easy for you that you say, Hey, this was a terrorist attack because of our open borders. Of course, the Democrats are gonna talk about civil rights. They just missed the point.

[0:24:07 Jim] So and so you’re able to do, you’re actually able to deflect the parts that are that are dissonant,

[0:24:12 Josh] right? Exactly.

[0:24:12 Jim] Right. Your values. So, yeah, that’s and I think that’s an interesting way. Thinking about it. Um Okay, so to be to be just a little gross about

[0:24:21 Josh] this, let’s get as gross as possible. Which which

[0:24:23 Jim] party has an edge in their response to this? Do you think I

[0:24:27 Josh] I mean, for me? I think it’s just it’s for a couple reasons. I think the GOP, the Republicans have have sort of a native response to this. And this is this is something that, you know, there’s sort of this idea native advantage, native advantage, right there something you know, this idea of local science called, you know, issue ownership and the ideas is that, you know, is each side runs in an election and tries toe tries to win. They try to tell the voters what the election is about. And so the idea. Basically, this doesn’t always work, and it’s got its problems. The theory is a theory, but the idea is, you know, if the election is about, let’s say, education, the Democrats Aaron Advantage because in the end, no Republican is going to say, Let’s spend more on education than a Democrat, right? If the issue is about, you know it’s a crime and punishment, right or you know, let’s say we’ve got a problem. You know, we’ve got a problem with crime. Republicans are probably gonna win because in the end, Republicans were ableto you know, let’s say, pursue much stricter sentencing guidelines and put more cops on the streets and all these kinds of things. And Democrats are gonna have trouble with this,

[0:25:23 Jim] right? Historically, parties have been have succeeded by with when candidates or leaders or usually it’s an individual or strategist, find ways to overcome that. So you, as you’re using that example of crime, you think about Bill Clinton and the crime bill,

[0:25:37 Josh] right? And this is where Democrats and, well, let’s just put let’s put, you know, a lot more cops on the street because we like, because we’ll spend money on it. It was a way for them to actually flip the issue. But for the most part, this is what happens. And this isn’t. This isn’t gonna be the campaign issue, but you can think about this is like a little microcosm here, which is to say, um, you know, as you come out of this and people are trying to understand what it’s about and there’s this competition over one of the things that I think about with all these elements involved is one how how proximate are these attitudes to what actually happened, Right? So I think for Democrats had a little bit of a disadvantage outside on the civil rights cause, though it was the Gay and Lesbian club. And though you know, most of people in there were minorities and a couple cents is both in terms of his gays and lesbians, but also in terms of his being Latinos and Latinas. Um, you know, for a lot of people, it’s kind of well, is that this would, But this isn’t being called a hate crime, really. I mean, they’re sort of mean again,

[0:26:28 Jim] and there’s a little bit of dissonant information out there right that but But it’s it’s awkward, the leverage that for political purposes I mean the, you know, the the killer’s father kind of prominently said on the record, um, that he really deplored what his son had done. It was completely wrong, but then kind of followed up with because it’s up to God to punish gays and lesbians.

[0:26:51 Josh] Right? And there were Yeah, and there was some. There was some indication that he had said that his son had gotten upset seeing two men kiss on the street prior to this, and and so it’s definitely part of this. I mean, there’s no doubt about it, but But again, how I say, like, proximate, how close is it to sort of, you know, your understand of what happens? I mean, for some people will be a little bit easier

[0:27:09 Jim] videos and that that that that factory doesn’t go in a direction. The Democrats can really

[0:27:13 Josh] now and then whether the other democratic responses to talk about gun control Well, you know, we’ve had, you know, a number of incidents of mass shootings, you know, over the last eight years. Plus before that and and, you know, I think there was a an article that came out on box that basically said, Oh, and here were the other 48 shootings that happened in the country s on the same day.

[0:27:35 Jim] Yeah. I mean, I think I probably agree with that mostly in terms of this being a better natural frame for the for the Republicans. I mean, the one with one thing that qualifies that a little bit is that with Donald Trump at the top of the ticket, you have a lot of unpredictability. And and already you can get Donald Trump providing a lot of noise in the lines, you know, and things that that are, you know, to use the notion of framing again that don’t necessarily work with the frame seamlessly. So if he goes out and picks a fight with the president by implicating the president somehow in some kind of conspiracy or, you know, he uses something that drives the media narrative in a way that doesn’t quite work with the traditional use of or or the the reflexive use of the frank

[0:28:23 Josh] What? I think you’re talking about two different things here because on the one hand, there sort of is there A. Is there a natural advantage to one part of the of the other? And then there’s Can the party take advantage of it? And so, for, you know, for Republicans, natural advantages is that for them, you know, the attitudes are very proximate. It’s about it’s about terrorism. It’s about immigration. It’s about, you know, the president and the Democrats sort of inability to deal with this issue. And the thing is, those attitudes air reinforcing for the most part, Yeah, you know, a restrictive immigration attitude towards immigration? A you know, sort of strong, you know, sort of concern about terrorism and a very negative view of the president are likely to go hand in hand in hand amongst the type of voters that Trump and the Republicans are trying to mobilize Ah, in the next election cycle. Or right. So that’s one thing. I mean, that’s a natural vantage. But the other side of it is this Trump make it hard for them to actually realize that because of the way that he addresses it. So that is a is a congressional Republican. You know, you write someone running for re election instead of responding to the tragedy. You’re responding to Trump’s response to the tragedy.

[0:29:27 Jim] I mean,

[0:29:28 Josh] yeah, yeah, exactly. And that’s where they lose the advantage. So So let’s let’s turn to taxes. So what was the response here in Texas?

[0:29:35 Jim] Well, Texas has always was an interesting filtering of of national politics. Now, on one hand, there was the, you know, and expect a response to be expected in a broad public sense. There were marches and vigils in sympathy with and support for the Orlando victims and their family and and for the cause of of LGBT security rights. Um, and that that happened near as I can tell, in most of the major Texas city, there was, ah, pretty big march here Sunday night in Austin. In the political world, a kind of weird thing happened, but weird in a very kind of expected sense. So at 7 a.m. Sunday. So a couple hours after after the new act, after really the situation, at least resolve was resolved and the police had gone and they went in a little after five. I think so. Seven o’clock. So it may be a couple hours later, given the tired, even just an hour later, given the time difference. Ah, the Lieutenant Governor, Dan Patrick on his social media pages, uh, posted a biblical quote. Now, this is something he does generally every Sunday morning. And the quote was from Galatians and it read, Do not be deceived. God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he says now. This was immediately read as a response to the events in Orlando and just is immediately widely condemned by especially by Democrats and and by liberals and social media. And it got picked up very quickly by the national media that morning,

[0:31:18 Josh] right? The implication being that, you know, the lieutenant governor was was blaming the victims and using a biblical quote to justify

[0:31:25 Jim] since to say, yeah, essentially, they got what they deserved. Now Dan Patrick was out of the country as he is, he pointed out and communicated relatively quickly. I’m on an island with poor Internet connectivity and the past team. Patrick’s response was that we scheduled these social media posts Ah, you know, weeks in advance. And you know that the quote was with a kind of a nice little GIF. You know, we have to produce those graphics ahead of time we schedule. Um, you know, if you’ve done social media campaigns, this is not implausible. On the face of it,

[0:32:02 Josh] it’s very it’s very rare. I mean, you know, it’s very rare that if you run a social media account, which, you know we have and we do. And I know a lot of people who do that you’re actually getting up. On Sunday morning at 6 30 Teoh put together a graphic

[0:32:17 Jim] and then posted it. Seven.

[0:32:18 Josh] Yeah, that’s that’s so you know, for those of us to do this, it’s a very plausible

[0:32:23 Jim] right. So we’re you know, So we’re We’re, um We’re sliding into the into the end of the position of giving the lieutenant governor the benefit of the doubt, which many people did not, and he was roundly criticized. Um, and I think if you unpacked this rapid response to Patrick’s post by the Democrats and the national press, um, you know you can you can look at two things and and we’re still going around about this. My gut feeling and this is ah, gut feeling, and I can intellectually see other alternatives is that it probably was not certain almost certainly not Dan Patrick himself deciding to post this message in response. And there are, at the very least, political reasons why he might not do this, though reasonable people could disagree on this and say, But this really gives the second point. That’s really the more interesting point about this, which is that the response? The Dan Patrick didn’t happen in a vacuum. There was a context for this, you know, well before the Orlando shooting, some of which we’ve talked about it in here, which is that Dan Patrick has attempted to be not only ah leader in this state, but a leader on the national stage in resisting the Department of Education or the Department of Justice. Advisories on LGBT access the bathrooms in public education facilities and schools, but also even kind of jumped in the fight when Target, the target stores announced that they would allow transsexuals to you use the appropriate bath into their chosen gender. Ah, he got out in front of criticizing targets so that we could come up with other examples policy. Well,

[0:34:10 Josh] it’s even before that, right? I mean, he was the leading voice against Houston’s hero ordinance.

[0:34:14 Jim] Who’s against he was dead, set against gay marriage and in fact, wanted, you know, was supporting efforts in the Texas Senate to ah passed legislation or at least a resolution opposing gay marriage. I

[0:34:26 Josh] believe he was the one who ah, who requested from the attorney general a decision or, you know, about whether or not ah, clerks in Texas could, you know, refused to marry gay couples after the Supreme Court decision.

[0:34:38 Jim] So that so that so in some there are lots of reasons to both. I doubt his intentions, right. But I think more interesting in terms of thinking about the contrast between the state and the national response to put Patrick in a frame

[0:34:54 Josh] right in the this This is framing again, right? So the question is with, you know, in terms of interpreting ah, Dan Patrick’s tweet and his response, you know, is this just someone who made a mistake? Is this just another example of the perils of social media? Or, you know, is this you know, the bigoted lieutenant governor going and ah, blaming the victims in a mass tragedy so that he can, you know, increases bona fides with social conservatives

[0:35:22 Jim] and and there’s you know, And so that’s been, you know, part of the discussion. Then you have given the way that political organizations work in the modern world. It’s possible that there’s something in the middle there that might have been an aggressive staffer and lieutenant governor is known to have some ideological people working for him.

[0:35:43 Josh] Sure, you’d expect that

[0:35:44 Jim] you would expect it, and so that there is kind of a middle thing that somebody may. It may have made an error in judgment, but in the end, it’s probably not likely to hurt the lieutenant governor with his base in any way and in fact, might even be, ah, soft positive, shall we say,

[0:36:02 Josh] Yeah, I mean, we we serve you say this all the time, and it’s and it’s, you know, I I’ve sort of seen it again and again enough that I have incorporated into my understanding of things, which is, you know, if you’re a Texas Republican politician, a negative editorial in The New York Times is like something you send out, you know, as a campaign mailer, right? You know, if if Huffingtonpost is criticizing you, you know it’s not really going to hurt you with your base voters here in Texas.

[0:36:31 Jim] So there’s kind of a dual dynamic here, and and our friend Jonathan Tile of had a really great column

[0:36:36 Josh] totally worth reading. And his is the first reading in the second

[0:36:39 Jim] exactly first reading. And it ran Monday that really broke down both the patch. You know, the the initial Patrick media postings. Patrick’s long explanation, which you know, probably even more irritated Democrats of that going into it. And also it’s the way that the Democrats and the national media went after him and much of the national media coverage covered the tweet and then didn’t front to be fair. Didn’t get around to actually provide on the explanation. And And what? Patrick’s cleanup waas So

[0:37:12 Josh] you know, just just just a pause on a point for a second. You know, one of the main one of the main points of Jonathan Tile of Made in that piece was, you know, if you just step back a second and think about the logic here, you know, you have to believe that Dan Patrick, you know, woke up, saw this tragedy taking place and thought, I know I’m gonna go on my social media account and blame the victims with a biblical quote. And you know, it’s one of

[0:37:36 Josh] these things where this happens. I think on both sides a lot of talk about this right now about sort of effective polarization and sort of the negative views that people have towards the other party. Um,

[0:37:46 Jim] explain what just briefly what you mean by affect of polarization.

[0:37:49 Josh] The idea here is that, you know, it’s not that people are becoming necessarily more ideological or, you know, or sort of moving in their policy positions, but that what? They’re actually what you’re starting to witnesses, sort of these just negative attitudes towards people of the other parties. And the polling out of the people most often cite is, you know, would you have a problem with your son or daughter marrying? You know, unedited Jewel, who identifies, is the other party is a Republican. If you’re a Democrat and the number of people the percent of people in America who increasingly feel they have a problem with that just keeps going up and up and up. I think it’s like I think it’s north of a majority wouldn’t want their child right. I mean, the truth is, you know, if you sort of, you know, I don’t trade in politics and move around the people, most people are not awful. You know, most people are not, you know, terrible. And just as you know, Dan Patrick, you know, whether you agree with his politics or not, You know, you may not agree with how he gets to his solutions or what he thinks we should be doing. But you know, he’s doing what he thinks is best, right? The same thing with the president. I mean, that’s the thing. It’s not as though the president is sitting there, you know, and not doing things to make terrorist attacks on the people that he represents. Easier, I mean, And if you just sort of think about for a second pause, you know, in the moment that sounds pretty crazy and just isn’t sounding whether you’re

[0:39:02 Jim] to be fair,

[0:39:03 Josh] to be fair, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, you know, to think that the president is sort of involved in the Jackson House, right? Islamic terrorists, right? Or that the lieutenant governor is sitting here, you know, having a party because 49 people were killed and they happened to be, you know, gay. It’s it’s, you know, it’s just totally It’s crazy.

[0:39:22 Jim] Yeah, I think that’s right. So we had we had one more thing we’re gonna talk about quickly and we’re gonna run out of time. But we should end by saying So does all of this. Whether it’s stand, Patrick’s the mix up there, the mbradley over to over Dan Patrick or the fallout from this. Does this have policy consequences in Texas? The thing that people are are talking most about is the possibility of maybe some gun legislation or you’re the national or the state. Now we’re talking about the state level, and I think the general sense is it certainly at the state level, this is unlikely to result in any any action in the Legislature the at least any that gets

[0:40:04 Josh] anywhere. Yeah, I mean, it’s short, absolutely not. You know, you know, what we tend to see is after these sorts of tragedies, you know, we might see a slight uptick. Ah, in terms of sort of support, maybe for universal background checks, which is already extremely high. Even here in Texas. Ah, you know, maybe support for some or mental health screenings on mental health. Resource is both of

[0:40:25 Jim] which are kind of consensus points in public opinion.

[0:40:28 Josh] Yeah, absolutely. Um, but, you know, as these events sort of happened with greater frequency and with greater coverage, you know, the, you know, the effect it has on public opinion with each of you know, subsequent events seems to sort of lesson just a little bit. Each time is people just sort of see, this is kind of the status quo. Now, in Texas, we have very, ah, we’re bees in terms conservative, liberal here. But have conservative views about guns in this case, meaning you generally, we classically liberal, classically liberal, but ideologically conservative in the here and now about guns. And I mean the last legislative session. We actually, you know, passed open carry legislation, you know, uh, concealed carry on college campuses. And so it’s not as though you should expect in the in the next legislative session to see them go back and reverse any of those or add significant checks. Really? You know, I would say, barring a major tragedy here in Texas, but even you even then probably not.

[0:41:26 Jim] Yeah, I think. I think that’s right. It’s just the fundamentals for it aren’t there in either broad Republican public opinion, which is what the majority party here is looking at, Um, but even but even among

[0:41:40 Josh] Democrats, and that’s the thing that makes Texas a little bit unique is that Democrats are more conservative international counterparts. It’s worth reminding people that, you know Wendy Davis came out, you know, in the gubernatorial campaign for some form of open carry right, although she later she later rescinded that. But that’s but that’s a reflection of the reality of the electorate.

[0:41:57 Jim] Yeah, the sense of what? The pressure, You know what the pressures that they feel they’re coming from public opinion. Yeah, I think that I think that’s right. And I as I thought about this. I mean, the only riel consequence we see here is not a policy consequence. It’s a political consequence. It’s were seen, you know, we saw a little bit of we’ve seen some of the Republicans in in Texas that are making a point of distancing themselves from Trump ding him a little bit, but it was hard not to look at the people that were doing that and have it feel just as opportunistic as everyone else

[0:42:32 Josh] over determined. I mean, there’s a lot of Pete. There’s a lot of Republicans sort of distancing themselves from Trump, you know, seemingly every day for various reasons.

[0:42:40 Jim] Yeah, and it’s about, you know, that’s that’s just really handicapping right down to it. I think so. On that note, Thanks for joining us. As always, be well, and we will talk to you next week. Second Reading Podcast is a production of Texas Politics Project and the Project 2021 Development Studio at the University of Texas at Austin.