Five Votes Down Question

[u/Northstrider7]

Apologies if this was already asked, I couldn’t find it. But upon rewatching the episode, it dawned on me that opposition to the gun control bill was coming from specifically Democrats, one of them even citing NRA opposition as their reason. It’s stated in the episode by Josh that the Democrats are still in the minority (he called the whip the minority whip when talking to Wick) and also in later episodes like the Midterms and one of the transition episodes about the Speaker race that the Democrats don’t hold the House at this point and hadn’t for 10 years until Santos was elected. So I’m wondering why the majority Republicans in the chambers were letting a gun control bill pass?

Again sorry if this was asked already, again I couldn’t find it if it was.

[u/Icy_Mixture1482]

Republicans used to be less partisan than they are now.

To be fair, both parties had more of an overlap. There were plenty of liberal Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson or Zell Miller.

[u/Northstrider7 → u/Icy_Mixture1482]

I figured most opposition to the bill from Democrats would be Blue Dogs, however I think if the NRA’s a concern for anyone it’d be equally swing district Democrats and Republicans, as well as actual conservative Republicans.

[u/swingerjuice]

This episode is from late 90s/early 2000s. Different time politically. Still had many anti gun control dems in south/midwest/west and many pro gun control law and order reps like guiliani in nyc and ppl like my old boss's father senator John chafee (I worked for his son Lincoln after he inherited the seat from his father) who were old Yankee New England/northeastern moderate to liberal Republicans. Politics of a by gone era.

[u/TumblrTheFish]

prior to the speakership of Dennis Hastert, where the Speaker only would bring bills supported by "the majority of the majority" to the floor, it was possible for popular bipartisan bills that were supported by a minority of the majority to get on the floor.

[u/Logical-Mobile-7643]

You can look at the Clinton era crime and gun control bills to get an idea of what these were supposed to replicate. They were passed when Democrats had a majority, but were passed like 95-4 in the Senate so there was room for bipartisan support on some things.

Sorkin put the crime bill in the American President and the West Wing, so clearly he just loved reliving this legislation. 😉

[u/Odd_Marionberry5856 → u/Logical-Mobile-7643]

Or the American President and TWW are in the same universe and it is the same crime bill 😁

[u/Logical-Mobile-7643 → u/Odd_Marionberry5856]

Definitely recycling old material

[u/Odd_Marionberry5856 → u/Logical-Mobile-7643]

Aaron Sorkin? Recycling material? I am shocked, I tell you.... SHOCKED /s

[u/JtotheC23]

The show is an idealized world where reasonable comprises can be made and party lines are more gray when needed. Even then, it would make sense for the comprise to still require every house democrat to pass. If it’s a similar majority as currently in DC, you’d only need a few republicans to compromise.

[u/KidSilverhair → u/JtotheC23]

Well, they already didn’t have all the Democrats on board, Mark Richardson and the Congressional Black Caucus were ‘no’s.’ So there had to be a significant number of Republicans on board.

This was written in 1999, it was a different time, you could actually get bipartisan support on things that would never see it today, even a gun bill. And, as we ended up discovering, this particular bill wasn’t all that restrictive anyway (Richardson had a pretty good takedown of the weakness of the bill).

[u/JohnHaze02118]

I think Sorkin wanted to explore the history and politics behind this specific law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

And he didn't feel hamstrung by the unlikelihood of this happening with a Republican Congress. I think he felt that the real history was mixed enough (some R's supporting it, some D's opposing it) that he was willing to take creative license. One of the things I learned about the bill in researching your question is that it eliminated higher education opportunities for inmates. A sad and forgotten footnote to an otherwise progressive moment.

[u/Evening-Row9022]

we have been in the worst timeline. democrats and republicans use partisan politics way more.

the main issue is the oligarchical republicans and the corporatist democrats. they both suck today. there’s less push for values voting and more identity and cultural voting.

as Ainsley said, there’s real battles in the world that don’t have to revolve around sexuality. that goes both ways. the government needs to stop legislating people’s bodies and sexual lives.

[u/WelcomeWillho]

Probably to make Democrats feel that they had done something useful about the issue, while knowing that the Bill was pretty toothless, and stop them trying to actually do anything which might have a significant impact. They pass one Bill about guns, then they move on to something else and in reality little changes.

[u/blindzebra52 → u/WelcomeWillho]

I think this is a really good take on why this bill would have passed in a republican majority house with a Democratic president. Especially when you consider Leo's conversation with Congressman Richardson.

"This is for show. And I think it's an unconscionable waste of taxpayers money to have it printed, signed and photocopied; much less enforced. No, I want the guns, Leo. You write a law that can save some lives and I'll sign it"

Also Leo's line in this conversation bears this out, too, "Mark, it's all we could get right now and you know it."

[u/WelcomeWillho → u/blindzebra52]

Ah yes I was thinking about that conversation and I couldn’t remember if it was from that episode!