There are apparently 20 Senators who can be called, perhaps unfairly, pro-lynching.
While there are, in my opinion, more elements of this story that are worthy of the Pit than of GD, I am curious about whether there is any debate to be found regarding the motivations, and the political calculus presumably employed by, these 20 Senators.
I can certainly understand the thinking for those Senators who might be pro-lynching, or at least soft on the condemnation of lynching, but who would sign off in support of an anti-lynching bill because they recognize that it might look better to do so in the eyes of their constituents.
On the other hand, the only meaningful reason I can fathom for not signing off on such a measure is that these Senators feel it is in their political best interest to at least remain neutral when it comes to lynching.
So: 1) Is there any other meaningful reason to not sign off on this legislation? I am excluding (from my thinking, but not from debate) reasons such as nitpicking about whether such a measure is redundant in regards to other prohibitions of murder, as well as whether the Senators just didn’t have the time or opportunity to sign, because I cannot believe that greater political consideration regarding the effects of their actions would outweigh these reasons.
- Is it really likely the case that, in this day and age, voters represented by these Senators would be moved to vote against them because of their support for an anti-lynching measure?