Feingold.
Neil nails the outcome of Feingold's censure resolution: "everybody screwed up, including Feingold." The only argument I have with Feingold's censure detractors (most overtly, Ryan Lizza) is their assumption that his censure move is an obvious play for the 2008 activist vote. That may figure into it, but on the other hand, privacy is Feingold's issue. He knows more and cares more about it than his colleagues. After only 30 Dems supported his second Patriot Act filibuster attempt, he was very upset, telling an interviewer: "If Democrats can't stand up on something like this when the president's poll numbers are 34 percent, I just wonder how much right we have to govern this country. You've got to show people you believe in something, not just that you're gaming the issues." When it comes to protecting civil liberties, Feingold may well feel, with some justification, that he's all we've got.
Feingold is an independent senator, of course, but he's not just reflexively anti-establishment (or reflexively pander-to-bloggers as his deference to Administration discretion on appointments proves.) Yesterday, for instance, he praised Hillary Clinton's presidential potential on Charlie Rose. It's really a single-issue thing. I totally agree with those who say the censure resolution is "moderate and reasonable" -- that is, when it's taken in a vaccuum. The problem is -- and this is the root of other Democrats' complaints -- there is no vaccuum. There were the chosen themes of the week, the points other Senators were planning to make before they got derailed answering or avoiding reporters' questions about censure. And there's ego. Of course Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the leadership resent and react negatively to the implications that only Feingold can be trusted to ensure civil liberties and that when he makes a move on the issue they should just fall in line.
You can argue that their resentment, their failure to swallow their pride and rally behind Feingold's authority on civil liberties, speaks ill of them. And to an extent it does. (Why not let the leadership back the censure resolution in stated deference to Feingold's obvious authority on the issue and warn him behind closed doors not to pull such a stunt again?) But it was also to be expected. And that Feingold didn't foresee, or more likely didn't care about, the human problems he was creating by springing his resolution on the party, the negative "disunity" themes he was risking in support of what right now is an essentially meaningless (though perfectly moderate and reasonable) gesture, speaks poorly about his leadership abilities. Just a few months ago Feingold did the impossible (or what only a couple of years earlier looked like the impossible): derailing renewal of the Patriot Act until its civil liberties problems were (albeit inadquately) addressed, with his caucus united behind him. A couple of disappointments later, he's essentially striking out on his own, and accomplishing very little. I don't think he's acting cynically. But I don't think he's demonstrating much effective political leadership either.
Feingold is an independent senator, of course, but he's not just reflexively anti-establishment (or reflexively pander-to-bloggers as his deference to Administration discretion on appointments proves.) Yesterday, for instance, he praised Hillary Clinton's presidential potential on Charlie Rose. It's really a single-issue thing. I totally agree with those who say the censure resolution is "moderate and reasonable" -- that is, when it's taken in a vaccuum. The problem is -- and this is the root of other Democrats' complaints -- there is no vaccuum. There were the chosen themes of the week, the points other Senators were planning to make before they got derailed answering or avoiding reporters' questions about censure. And there's ego. Of course Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the leadership resent and react negatively to the implications that only Feingold can be trusted to ensure civil liberties and that when he makes a move on the issue they should just fall in line.
You can argue that their resentment, their failure to swallow their pride and rally behind Feingold's authority on civil liberties, speaks ill of them. And to an extent it does. (Why not let the leadership back the censure resolution in stated deference to Feingold's obvious authority on the issue and warn him behind closed doors not to pull such a stunt again?) But it was also to be expected. And that Feingold didn't foresee, or more likely didn't care about, the human problems he was creating by springing his resolution on the party, the negative "disunity" themes he was risking in support of what right now is an essentially meaningless (though perfectly moderate and reasonable) gesture, speaks poorly about his leadership abilities. Just a few months ago Feingold did the impossible (or what only a couple of years earlier looked like the impossible): derailing renewal of the Patriot Act until its civil liberties problems were (albeit inadquately) addressed, with his caucus united behind him. A couple of disappointments later, he's essentially striking out on his own, and accomplishing very little. I don't think he's acting cynically. But I don't think he's demonstrating much effective political leadership either.
11 Comments:
Sorry, Laura, but I disagree completely. There is nothing at all in the record to suggest that Reid and company would have done anything but tell Russ not to make waves, now isn't the time to oppose W, the polls look good for us, don't be a hero, blahblahblah. The party leadership is composed entirely of bought-off cowards who only want to keep their individual position. They got conned into voting for the Iraq invasion, and don't have the spine to renounce their votes or denounce those who misled them. The only courage or passion to be found among the Dems is on the left. The centrists are completely in the tank for W.
Seriously, if I think the country is off the rails, why would I vote for the gang that caused it OR the 'me, too, but more competently' party? I'm going to force myself to vote the Dem party line in November out of despair for my country, but quislings like Reid & Hillary sure aren't making it easy.
nightshift, if that's really the problem, Russ could've just said, "I'm going forward with this in a week, whether you like it or not. Be prepared."
I'm disgusted with all these people criticizing Democrats for being spineless after they -- against all odds -- stood up against the Republicans and Wall Street to destroy Social Security privatization.
Yeah, nightshift, but it's not the same political environment in which Dems caught conned (or more likely, frightened) into voting for the Iraq invasion. I'm not saying the base should forgive that or support a presidential nominee who still stands by his vote -- it was horrible. But it's simply untrue that Reid at al are "in the tank for W". The Dems are more cohesive and less gossipy and handringing than they've been for years. Reid is a centrist personally, but Pelosi is not. And they're both solid Dems who are trying to whip their caucuses. For instance, there have been less than 10 yay-votes overall from Dems for any of the GOP budgets since 2002. That's not bad in a non-parliamentary system.
Feingold needed to give a heads up and think about the reaction he was going to engender among his colleagues -- and he needed to show concern for their feelings and objections, even if he eventually went ahead with introducing the resolution. That's leadership. He's shown it before. Afterall, he was able to lead his caucus (including Lieberman, Baucus, Bill Nelson, Conrad, all of the centrist wafflers) in a successful filibuster of the patriot act just a few months ago. What's changed?
Wait -- I just set myself up. The obvious answer is "The Dems chickened out on the second filibuster. That's what changed." OK, but 30 still supported Feingold the second time (more than supported Kerry on Alito). There's a long way between rallying even two thirds of your caucus (let alone all your caucus) around a filibuster attempt on a subject you strongly believe in and dropping bombshells on your caucus from the Sunday morning shows.
Neil, if RF had gone forward after meeting w/ them, they'd have said the same things as now (showboat, not a team player), and had more evidence for the charge. Further, the Dem leadership had about as much to do with stopping the SS disaster as they did with stopping the Harriet Myers nomination: none.
Laura, good catch: that is exactly what I was going to jump on.
Look, I'm too old & observant to expect much from a politician. I only have two real core demands. (1) say what you mean, and (2) act consistently therewith once elected. I am fully aware of the complete weakness of the Democrat's position. But I don't see how being repub-lite is supposed to persuade anyone. Prez Truman said if you give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll take the Republican every time. It's still true today.
nightshift, I think you sell the Dems (who resisted cw calls to present an "alternative" plan for months, thanks to lots of whipping of "maverick" congressmen from the leadership) short on derailing social security privatization. That was an excellent and long-held display of party unity.
I'm personally undecided on the politics of censure. I can see the case against it: red-state Dems who face re-election in 8 months may not be rewarded by being attacked as having "voted against the president's ability to montior terrorists". On the other hand, there's a good case for it: a unified Dem vote for censure is defeated, which makes a perfect setup for re-introducing censure (or more) after the midterms, when the Bush defenders' majority has been repudiated and he's been proved more politically impotent. A concerted censure attempt now could be a good long-term investment.
Feingold could have tried to sell that argument to his caucus, but he didn't. And the poltics of what has resulted is awful. Is that partly the leadership's fault? Of course it is. But Feingold should have seen that coming and done some prep to head it off. You can't be so dedicated to the righteousness of your issues that you ignore how they play in the real world, when your authority bumps up against egos. That's my point.
Still, you make good arguments.
Maybe it's the weather but I've had it with modern politics. Here's the only way out of our mess: we get ourselves a leader.
There's a huge, cranky, happily dim chunk of America, 40% of it, who decided they had a leader in W and bought his act hook-line-sinker. The conservative mindset loves a warrior and wants to believe they got phat one, scepter-waggling at the world and all.
We liberal progressive commies of the left-wing tilt, a different 40% of American, don't need a leader to worship. We're too busy with pleasanter pursuits. We have neither time nor bad taste to support untold millions of dollars worth of radio and TV cranks like the right wing. We tend to spend our lives in indivudual rather than collective pursuits. And we are suspicious of power.
Therefore we aren't hungry for a leader-ish fop to fill a void. We prefer unflashy politicians who get the work done.
Alas, now we must admit it: we need a leader. Quick. Feingold? You're starting to get it. Anyone? Hit the pulpit, start reminding voters what old-fashioned liberal pragmatism is, and how the right wing is pulling a mass-delusion misdirection, obliterating the primacy of the individual over the chritianist collective.
Seriously? Russ, you up for it? There's tons of great material. All we need is the orator.
Democrats sunk SS privatization the same way Republicans sunk Clinton's health care plan in the 1990s -- by making it clear from early on that it wouldn't get any votes. That's a perfectly impressive way to defeat a president's proposal, as far as I'm concerned.
I admit, I was speaking from frustration when I didn't give the D's any credit for stopping the destruction of SSA. They had many of the same advantages the Reps had when they stopped ClintonCare (a hot button issue, easy to understand, and huge majority of the public with them), but they held together on it.
That said, it remains to be seen whether or not they can (a)convert Rep weakness into congressional majorities in November and (b) if they do, whether they'll have a green light to do anything more than oppose Bush.
Neil and Laura: there never was a real Bush plan on SS Reform. Sure, he had the three options (Model 2 being the best of a bad bunch), but the American people were never going to support proposals that slashed benefits AND included private accounts, so it was a dead issue politically in ´05. Even conservative Bush economists admit as much (see for example Andrew Samwick at www.voxbaby.blogspot.com).
Put more simply: if the right wing had really wanted to push a SS bill through congress they could have and the dems. wouldn´t have done s*** to stop it...
DanK
Sure, DanK, what you say is true. But technically the GOP, if their caucus stays united, could push anything through. They control all three branches (it's less likely with Bush at 35 than it was when he was still at 55). The GOP never wanted to have to introduce a plan. They wanted to wait and see if they could trick some Democrat into introducing a "bipartisan" or "compromise" plan, which then the Repubs could have taken into and carved up in comittee into something Eric Engle could love. Since no Dems bit (thanks to much whipping from the leadership), the whole idea fizzled out. But I don't agree the Dems deserve no credit. They held together. Except for a filibuster, that's all they could do.
Post a Comment
<< Home