On Thursday, October 18, the House Education and Labor Committee votes on legislation banning workplace discrimination against homosexuals. But the bill being taken up is not the original one introduced last April.

The panel will be considering a version that does not include policy toward transgender individuals. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts and the bill’s author, filleted the measure because he and other House leaders were not able to find enough votes to get it passed if it included the gender identity provisions.

Frank walked reporters through the realpolitik of the situation last week in a forthright press conference that mostly consisted of a 40-minute soliloquy about the state of American politics.

The first rule is that in a nation whose political plurality is so evenly divided, it is necessary to reach into the middle to get things done. For Democrats, that means they cannot simply put together coalitions of liberals and hope to ram bills through Congress.

If they try, they’ll almost certainly be stopped in the Senate by Republicans, who have a large enough minority to conduct a filibuster. But Frank’s sexual orientation bill proved that getting conservative Democrats in the House on board can be a challenge as well.

Many of the Democrats who have helped form the majority that took over the House last November come from districts that President Bush carried in 2004. I know these kinds of districts well, because several can be found in my home state of Indiana.

Asking Indiana Democrats to take a stand for gender identity might ensure that they become targets for right-wing attacks in their 2008 re-election campaigns.

Here’s how it works: When a bill that includes gender identity comes up for a House vote, Republicans will introduce what is called a motion to recommit. This parliamentary maneuver is designed to highlight a controversial part of a bill and recommend that it be sent back to the committee level to change that piece.

The motions can be complicated and tricky. But they also can force Democrats to take difficult, politically awkward votes that are then turned into campaign commercials by their opponents next fall.

Frank, who strongly supports including gender identity in the sexual orientation bill, will take out that provision to ease its passage. It may still be a close vote, but Frank has a better chance of getting three-quarters of a loaf than the whole loaf this time around.

With Senate approval unlikely and facing a potential presidential veto, at least Frank will be able to get the House to pass a bill that has been near the top of the homosexual community’s agenda for a long time.

After building momentum this year, they can return after conservative Democrats have had some experience voting for the sexual orientation bill—and surviving a re-election.

“Getting that passed now is going to put us in a better position in 2009,” Frank said. “I don’t think any discrimination bill in the history of this country has been passed on its first effort.”

For now, the sexual orientation bill would help a lot of people immediately. Trying to include gender identity may have to wait for another day.

“The transgender issue is a relatively recent vintage,” Frank said. “It’s a higher hill to climb. We don’t have the votes for a transgender-inclusive bill.”

But many gay advocates won’t accept that answer. They would rather see lawmakers hold the sexual orientation bill until it can move forward with gender identity included.

Frank took exception to that tactic. “It is a lot easier to add to an existing [bill or law] than not to do anything at all,” he said. “Moving the goalposts is good, but after you scored the goal.”

Anticipating that answer, homosexual groups have attacked Frank and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, accusing them of being sellouts.

That brings us to another reality of today’s politics: The winner-take-all mentality courses through left-leaning groups just like it did through right-leaning groups for the 12 years that Republicans were in control of Congress.

Frank argues that attitude undermines the ability to reach out to the other side, or at least to those who are wary.

“There is a failure to understand reality” demonstrated by interest groups, Frank said, “because people talk too much to each other.”

Getting potentially controversial legislation passed like the sexual orientation discrimination bill requires compromise and, well, politicking. Stridency isn’t helpful.

“The anger is very counterproductive,” Frank said. “It’s going to make it harder for us to mobilize support in the future. This is a moment of truth for responsible liberals in the Democratic Party.”

This blog entry turned out to be a soliloquy itself. Sorry to make you scroll so far. But I thought it was worth going into some depth on the Frank exegesis. He crystallizes why it’s so hard to govern in Washington.