John Hudak is a fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. He is an expert in campaigns, elections and presidential power. He is the Managing Editor of the FixGov blog and the author of “Presidential Pork.”
Brown Political Review: You’ve written that marijuana policy will be a key topic of discussion in 2016. Why is that?
John Hudak: A lot of states right now allow marijuana in a variety of ways — either through decriminalization, medical marijuana or access to recreational marijuana — and this is creating serious legal, constitutional and federalism questions. These are not just state-level issues, but also ones that the next president will have to address. Marijuana policy is unique in the sense that it doesn’t cut nicely across party lines. There are Democrats who don’t like legal marijuana. There are Republicans who don’t like legal marijuana. And there are Democrats and Republicans who are perfectly fine with it. It creates this odd dynamic in American politics that we don’t often see. It allows candidates, particularly Republicans, the ability to distinguish themselves from each other. In a competitive presidential primary, with a party that tends to agree on almost everything, any chance that a candidate has to say “I’m different” is an opportunity to get votes.
BPR: What is the ultimate goal of legalization?
JH: When you look at a social issue like abortion, it’s fairly black and white. On marijuana, however, different groups of people support legalization for different reasons, which makes it a unique issue for a policy discussion. Some people see it as a way for states to get tax revenue in order to balance budgets and extract money in a legitimate way from a system that otherwise would operate illicitly. Other people want legalization because they see it as a freedom issue. A lot of Libertarians think that it’s just not the government’s business to regulate what drugs you use. I think in general, though, most people want to see the black market displaced and to remove the criminal element from the production, sale and distribution of cannabis. I think there are also greater guarantees for users that they are getting a safe, regulated and consistent product in a legal market. Those are types of regulated certainties that consumers want, whether they’re buying marijuana, ordering a cocktail, ordering a pizza or buying a car.
BPR: What will we see happen with immigration reform in the year leading up to the election?
JH: Immigration reform in Congress is dead in the water. There won’t be enough votes in the House to pass it. So it’ll definitely be an important issue in 2016 for both sides. For Democrats, this is an issue that they care deeply about. They almost unanimously feel that the President’s actions are important, and that the people who are covered by the President’s orders need the type of protection that those orders offer and that the system needs to be reformed. This is also true of Secretary Clinton, who is the likely nominee. For Republicans, this is interesting because they get multiple things from this policy. Republicans almost unanimously think that the President overstepped his bounds…and so they are coming out against his reforms on technical or procedural grounds without necessarily passing judgment on the substance of the policy. The substance, however, is one of those areas where there is a little diversity among Republican candidates. There are some Republicans that are in favor of comprehensive immigration reform and several who are opposed. There are a couple of politicians who have had multiple positions on it. And like marijuana, maybe to a lesser degree, immigration gives candidates an ability to distinguish themselves from each other, making immigration a bigger issue in a presidential campaign.
BPR: Will Republicans use immigration issues to court the Latino vote?
JH: It’s tough for Republicans because the party as a whole tends to be opposed to comprehensive immigration reform, and the issue is important to the Latino community. I think voters tend to hold parties accountable as a whole. So if you’re a Latino voter and you look at a stage of Republican candidates, a majority of them are against immigration reform and a couple of them are for it, so it’s going to be hard to pick among the Republicans. It’s going to be the easier choice to vote Democrat. Now if there is a Republican candidate who is in favor of immigration reform, then Latino voters face a more difficult choice. At the end of the day, I think there is real skepticism among the Latino community about a Republican president’s ability to push for immigration reform. Frankly, the Republican primary may hurt Republicans among Latino voters. I think 2012 was a pretty good metric of how Latinos are going to vote in 2016.
BPR: How should Republicans handle other divisive social issues like gay marriage or abortion?
JH: Republicans are in a bit of a tough position because, while I do think that they want to try to appeal to some of these nontraditional groups who aren’t committed to them, like Latinos, African-Americans or younger voters, they’re hampered in a pretty serious way because the messages that tend to resonate with those groups do not resonate with the base of the party. It’s going to be hard for Republican candidates to take strong views on key social issues in ways that will connect with some of these other demographic groups without offending their base voters. If you can’t talk about social issues in a way that garners favor among all the groups that you want, you’re often better off just not talking about them. That’s of course hampered by a crowded primary where candidates want to talk about those issues and also by other events of the day. For instance, Republicans in 2012 largely avoided discussing gay rights, but now with the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana and other similar legislation elsewhere, those issues get forced into the conversation in ways that Republican candidates can’t avoid.