This post demonstrates perfectly why I like Radley Balko's writing so much. He pulls no punches while puncturing the nonsense put out by the partisans in both parties. First he tells us why Lieberman was a lousy senator:
Look, Lieberman is a likeable guy (in the same way, as the lefty bloggers have noted, that Willie Tanner was). But he embodies so much of what's wrong with Washington. He's the prototypical David Broder candidate, a big government liberal who's willing to engage in magnanimous gestures of bipartisanship . . . on issues where Republicans also support big government. So he's cool with bombing and nation building, and state-sponsored health care. He's okay with government censorship of video games and cable TV, and heavy-handed regulation of business.
Golly. What a moderate!
In other words, he's wrong on every issue. He's a culture warrior, a values cop, a Nanny Statist, and a big government foreign policy hawk. He favors high taxes, and a massive welfare state. He's pro-pork, pro-status quo, and pro-business as usual.
Then he goes after the ridiculous Republican spin being put on the situation, this absurd notion that Lamont's victory shows that the "far left fringe" is in control:
Let's also cut this crap about Ned Lamont's position on the war being "fringe" or "extremist." More than 60 percent of Americans now think the Iraq war was a mistake. Fifty-six percent think we should set a timetable for withdrawal. That's the American public at large. I'd imagine the bulk of Democrats in Connecticut skew much more dovish. It's the hawks' increasingly untenable position of support for a trillion dollar war that's now claiming 100 Iraqi civilians per day that's now at the margins, not Ned Lamont's.
Then he tells us why the Democratic leadership is just like Lieberman and have shirked their duty in keeping Bush's imperial presidency within its constitutional limits:
I have no doubt that Lamont will eventually disappoint, just as I have no doubt that if the Democrats take either house of Congress, they'll disappoint, too. For all the talk about "ideaological cleansing," or that Lieberman was "ejected" from his party, the truth is, for all practical purposes, there's little difference between Lieberman and the Democratic leadership. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid may talk in tough opposition to President Bush on the Sunday talk shows, but when it comes to truly holding this administration accountable for its mistakes, overreach, and out-and-out corruption, they've been cowards. Which frankly makes them no better than Lieberman. That Lamont's comparatively minor divergence from Lieberman on a couple of issues somehow makes him a "radical" shows just how entrenched, incestuous, and status-quo Washington really is.
And then he tells us what needs to happen next:
More incumbents need to lose more often. From both parties. The position of federal politician should be a short-term privilege, not a career.
Here's hoping that Lieberman is only the first of many incumbents to lose this year.
Hear, hear. It won't happen, of course, because it never does. Polls may show that Congress only has a 30% approval rate by the public, but that public will still return 95% of all incumbents to office regardless of political party. That's because the vast majority of voters simply don't have a clue. They vote on vague feelings and familial ties to one party or another. They know nothing of how Washington works and even less about the substance of real issues. They are swayed by the superficial and the meaningless, the quick sound byte and the honest looking face. Anything but what actually matters.
- Log in to post comments
Great post.
That's why we need to push through voting reform (but those in power would fight it every step of the way.
I had a thought on this, the gist of it was - give incumbants a pass on the primaries and set up the ballots like this:
Automatic run offs would be nice, but I think the ballot's would get unwieldy.
I still like the idea of people getting voted into a political office in a prison. Once there, they have to do a good enough job to get voted back out again. Crappy politicians simply stay in prison.
If I ran as an Independent in the Primary and lost, could I then run as a Democrat?
At least in Missouri, primaries are only for established parties. Independenents show up only on the November ballot.
"Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid may talk in tough opposition to President Bush on the Sunday talk shows, but when it comes to truly holding this administration accountable for its mistakes, overreach, and out-and-out corruption, they've been cowards"
What should a party that holds no power, no majority and no subpoena power do to curb this administration?
Scream Louder?
How about getting a forceful and coherent message out, and re-focusing the public debate on Republican incompetence, divisiveness and corruption?
I couldn't agree more Bee, however it seems the message is often lost amongst the right-wing noise machine. How do the Dems counter a cowed press?
Don't be so quick to assume primaries are still so safe as they've historically been.
Two other incumbents lost their primaries yesterday, one Republican, and one Democrat.
What should a party that holds no power, no majority and no subpoena power do to curb this administration?
They could, for instance, have supported Feingold's censure motion rather than running away from it as fast as they could. They could ask serious questions in hearings rather than admiring the sound of their own voices. They could not agree not to filibuster Bush's Supreme Court appointments (not Reid and Pelosi in this instance, admittedly). They could actively campaign on a platform of oversight of the executive rather than near as dammit promising not to impeach Bush whatever happens. There's a whole lot they could do. Whether it would have much effect (beyond demonstrating to the electorate that Democrats do actually have spines) is another matter, but the point is they haven't even tried.
In other words, he's wrong on every issue. He's a culture warrior, a values cop, a Nanny Statist, and a big government foreign policy hawk. He favors high taxes, and a massive welfare state. He's pro-pork, pro-status quo, and pro-business as usual.
What does Ned lamont offer that is different? I've heard his (now popular) position on the war, but I haven't heard anything else. Did he rail against high taxes or does he agree with Bush and the Republicans that they need to be cut? Is he against big government or for the Democrat health care plan?
I just don't know, I don't live in Connecticut, but Ned Lamont looks like the type of guy that will have his own primary defeat in 18 years.
"I just don't know, I don't live in Connecticut, but Ned Lamont looks like the type of guy that will have his own primary defeat in 18 years."
You may well be right. I look at this primary as a big picture thing. The message sent to to the Democratic and media establishment is far more important than the individual seat. The Democrats are in real danger of throwing away their best opportunity since the 1994 calamity, and the consequences of them doing so are too horrible to think about.
I'd also add that if Lamont serves as a competent Democrat for 18 years I'd be delighted. 18 years is a hell of a long time.
Jason said:
He's not Joe Lieberman, that's what. Sometimes when you screw up bad enough you get fired, and the qualifications of the next guy aren't the main issue. The main issue is, he ain't you.
Lamont's actually pretty moderate, not that different from Lieberman on many of the big issues. But he's different on the Really Big Issue -- kissing George Bush's ass and trashing Democrats while doing it -- and that's what mattered here. It's like getting Lieberman again, only with a spine.
Gordon Said:
True, and it's looking like at least a couple more will get upset in upcoming primaries as well, not the least of which is Lincoln Chafee (R) in Rhode Island.
Incumbents are in trouble this cycle. People are pissed at the status quo and are looking for change.
Willie Tanner? I thought it was just my nutty coworker who saw the resemblance. I never did.
Does this make Lieberman a Max Wright-winger??
Nonsense. Utter, utter, nonsense.
The reason is not "clueless voters" - it doesn't HELP, no, but that is not the reason incumbents are virtually invincible.
The reason incumbents are so invincible is becuase they can only realistically lose in the primaries.
After the primaries (which they rarely lose because the party officially supports them, so challengers are basically doomed), they're "competing" in a district gerrymandered to be 95% safe for their party. They won't lose, because the gerrymandered districts ensure that. Clueless voters aren't the problem so much as reliable voters.
We need to do something about gerrymandering - I suspect a lot of problems would wind up getting fixed if gerrymandering were fixed.
And here's a suggestion for a possible simple way to eliminate gerrymandering (from David Brin): Require Congressional districts and the two types of state-level districts to have minimal overlap.
Sotek wrote:
Those are synonyms, I would argue. They are reliable precisely because they're clueless and easily manipulated.
I made that point on another message board and was countered by the assertion that money is a more important factor in winning an election than gerrymandering. I haven't had a chance to investigate this yet, but the argument seemed plausible. Certainly money is huge when it comes to elections, and the incumbents have a major advantage when it comes to raising funds for their campaigns. But then, even if you limited the spending, incumbents will always find more ways to remain in the public spotlight than the challengers. Incumbency is a big advantage no matter how you look at it.
District vs. money is an interesting sort of chicken-egg problem. Senate races are more volatile than the average House district; they are not gerrymandered, but then, they also attract much more money.
It takes a lot of money to run a competitive House race these days, which makes life nearly impossible for opposition candidates with low name recognition. If the party can't get a "celebrity" candidate to mount a run, they usually don't have a chance. Since the national party then does not support the race, this only compounds the problem by locking in the incumbant.
I have always opposed a term limit on the grounds that it is undemocratic. Given the failures of the current system, its worth a go, certainly if we don't see a significant number of incumbants bounced this November.
Like Democrats taking over would be some tremendous fucking improvement over the Republicans. With these two parties we're screwed either way. Baring the extremist Libertarians pulling their heads out of their collective asses and moderating their platform, thereby making the party a more viable option, the best we can hope for is a split government with the House and Presidency held by one party and the Senate held by another. That way they spend most of their time posturing and demagogueing (is that even a word?) and get less screwing up the country done.
I'm with kehrsam on this. Celebrity, in the form of some feel-good name recognition, is the most valuable asset a candidate can bring to an election. Why did Schwarznegger win so easily? Yes, I know his opponent was Gray Davis, but if Schwarznegger had been John Smithson, smal town lawyer, he wouldn't have stood a chance.
Here in Pennsylvania we have Bob Casey challenging Santorum. The Democratic party determined Casey would be their man because he's got celebrity, his father having been a very popular governor back in the '80's. If his name were Bob Smith, accountant from Scranton, he wouldn't have gotten out of the primary with more than a token vote. Incidentally, Casey, despite being a Democrat is anti-gun-control, anti-abortion, for abstinence only sex education and so on. In some ways he's not that different from Santorum, but I will vote for him, albeit while holding my nose. As for money it does matter, but name recognition and/or celebrity is a much cheaper route to go, which is why the party power brokers love it.
I'm very much of the mood that there should be a pox on both parties. In that vein, I think it's very important that Congress and the administration never be under the control of the same party, a situation that's brought us disaster for the last six years. But if each party controls only one branch, then we're more likely to have gridlock, which can only benefit the country. So here's to gridlock. We need more of it.
Money is the most valuable asset. The only valuable asset, really. Being knowledgable on subjects will help you with about 1% of the population that values that (or can recognize it). Being famous helps for name recognition, but it helps even more with getting money.
Even Schwarznegger, who's been fairly unpopular because he found out that California is a difficult state to govern, can't win on fame alone. He's become just another politician who has to work to get money (by selling his soul, of course) in order to win.
Money wins elections because, positions aside, people vote for the guy that they're more familiar with. More ads means more familiarity and more votes at the polls. (Obviously, things like party affilation and the issues determine which voting blocks people associate with, but the outcome of each block seems to depend more on how much a candidate is seen.)
We get the outcomes we deserve -- the problems with politics in this country proceed directly from the reality that we are stupid. How're you going to fix that, hmmm?
I have been reading this blog for some time and am amazed by the naivete shown by the blogmaster concerning politics. The criticism of Lieberman could be made of almost everybody in the Senate and House. The reason they act the way they do is because no sitting congressman or senator was ever defeated by an opponent who argued that the incumbent brought too much federal spending into his/her district. Many is the congressman or senator who was defeated when his opponent accused him/her of not bringing sufficient federal spending into the district (i.e. the incumbent was neglecting his/her state/district). The fact is that voters like federal spending to be brought into the districts/states within which they reside. Its considered a return on the investment made when they pay federal taxes.
An important factor that few seem willing to discuss at all, is the effect of all those campaign finance "reform" laws that have been passed since the 1970s. Could that be having an impact on the ability of challengers to raise money to run against entrenched incumbents?
I notice that a lot of people, mostly moderate-left in my experience, keep yammering about the need for "reform" and to "get money out of politics," but have absolutely nothing to say about the "reforms" already passed into law.
That's only because the current "reforms" passsed into law have been woefully inadequate. Even with these "reforms," there are too many loopholes that special interests and corporate based PACs can wiggle through to unfairly sway the electorate.
I still think the best way to fix this problem is to turn the House of Representatives into a Westminster-pariamentary House of Commons type of body. Have proportional representation and allow other third parties like the Greens and Constitutionalists be a part of the system. That way, there would be more choice than just the D's and the R's, and there would be a greater chance of increasing the marketplace of ideas. Plus, countries with a proportional system have more voter turnout, and frankly has more legitimacy than our gerrymandered districting system.
Any thoughts?
SLC wrotee:
Wow. I've never been accused of naivete when it comes to politics before. Cynicism, yes; naivete, no. I would suggest that if you think I am naive about politics, you haven't been reading this blog for very long, or with any comprehension. But I do like the term "blogmaster".
Of course it could. Who said otherwise? The fact that I called for continuing to throw the incumbents of both parties out of office would seem to indicate that I understand this quite well. The fact that I've written a few hundred times in the past that both parties are beholden to those who fund their campaigns, to whom they transfer large amounts of our tax dollars as repayment for that largesse certainly does as well.
And you accuse me of being naive? You're missing a large element to this. It isn't simply that voters like Federal money brought back home (which is true, of course). I doubt your average voter has the first clue how much money a given incumbent has managed to steer toward their district, unless they actually benefited from it directly. What is missing from your statement is that the vast majority of such spending goes not to the local district, but into the pockets of corporations who fund the campaigns. Those corporations spend enormous amounts of money to guarantee the continued flow of our tax dollars into their accounts (in the form of tax breaks, direct subsidies, government contracts, below market mineral or grazing rights, and much more), and those enormous amounts of money are then turned into campaign commercials, the vast majority of which are packed with lies and exaggerations. But the person with the money to put the most lies and exaggerations on the air is almost always the one who wins. Thus, the key to getting elected and reelected is not merely to bring Federal money back to the local district, but to push as much of it as you can to those who fund their campaigns. The more you funnel into the coffers of Goldman Sachs or Eli Lilly or Enron, the more they will kickback to you and the more manipulative and dishonest commercials you can put on the air to convince people to keep you in office. That's how the game is played, by both parties.
Sonik: your failure to discuss specific legal requirements pretty much undermines the credibility of your statement about the "inadequacy" of the laws. People who have actually worked in political campaigns, such as Kerry's, have told completely different stories: they say they were forbidden to do certain basic things that would have made their activities run more efficiently; they've also complained about restrictions on free speech that can't be justified by any compelling interest; and the job of managing a candidate's or party's money has been described as a nightmare due to a maze of complicated finance regs. That's hardly proof that the laws are "inadequate."
Raging Bee: Actually, that's closer to proof that the laws are inadquate than that they're adequate.
A hallmark of poorly designed laws is that they're difficult to follow, restrict things that don't matter, and don't restrict things that do matter. Campaign finance laws clearly follow that pattern.
Yes, but "poorly designed" is not the same thing as "inadequate." There's lots of overlap between the two meanings, but they're not the same.
Based on the blogmasters' rant, take back my naivete comment. That rant could have been written by the late and unlamented Gus Hall.
I certainly don't lament Gus Hall. That rant comes from a libertarian perspective. It is the government's bloated involvement in virtually every aspect of our lives that makes it an all you can eat buffet for corporate interests.