Sylvia Smith has an article for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette on state party chairman Dan Parker’s search for a “moderate” to step in now that Bayh is quitting. What really caught my eye was the notion that “moderate” means “more likely to break with the Democrats and vote with Republicans in party-line votes” and “siding frequently with the GOP.”
So, by that definition, would it be accurate to state that there are no moderate Republican Senators? Including our own Sen. Lugar? Or are the standards different depending which party you’re in? Because my sense was that Sen. Lugar had a reputation of “moderation” because he simply talked about it before voting with his party to filibuster legislation to make sure it never even got to a vote. Or were there occasions in the past year when he, or any Republican Senator, voted with the Democrats on a party line vote?
My complaint is not about working to find common ground but about the Bayh/Broder/Village style of “moderation.” It’s bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake and only seems to matter when there is a Democratic President.
You look at the Indiana General Assembly, and you see plenty of votes where you have a mix of parties in the roll call. Working together without regard for party affiliation is even more prevalent at the local level. I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, I like it. There is some give and take based on regional preferences, personal beliefs, or any other number of variables aside from party affiliation. This strictly tribal “my team” versus “your team” in the U.S. Senate is unhealthy. But, if you’re compromising in good faith and the other side is not, you are always going to lose. It’s basic Prisoner’s Dilemma type stuff. And that’s what has been so frustrating about Bayh – that he has been willing to defect from his party even without evidence that members of the Senate G.O.P. were also willing to bargain in good faith and weren’t just going to filibuster at the drop of a hat.
and tully’s column this morning was bemoaning how hard it is out there for a moderate like bayh. pity the poor moderates! now who will filibuster his own party’s bills?
Agree with much of what you said. While party affliliation is important in several respects (example: can not get elected without it) it sometimes/often becomes a thing of unproductive behavior. The examples of the Congress and Indiana Legislature are two that could be used in a classroom situation as “prime examples”. Right now it would seem (looking from afar) that the Congress is divided into extreme conservative (read farthest edge of R) and liberal (read farthest out D) and the two shall not compromise since that is a sign of treason or sellout. The Indiana Legislature appears less polarized as to philosophy but very much along lines of party leadership telling everyone you will support this or that—did not vote for my senator/representative to lose their right to individual decison making based on facts and representing the people they represent. (And I almost always spilt my voting even at the state—and most assuredly at the local). Myself and most folks I know fall right in between these extremes (whether R or D by affliliation) –while the 1s and 2s are trying to out do the 9s and 10s on the scale—we 4-5-6 folks become more flustrated with the system.
Local –would agree–having served on many boards/councils/commissions where both Rs and Ds were there–seldom did the party affliation divide the voting. There may have been divisions but it was of philosophy not any party person pulling strings.
May the gods save us from ourselves.
I agree with you, Doug. I understand that a Birch Bayh type Senator wouldn’t stand a chance in today’s political climate in Indiana, but why is the Democratic Party chairman looking for someone who is willing to break with Democrats and “side frequently” with the GOP? May as well just give up that Senate seat to a Republican.
I’m pretty liberal, but not extremely liberal, and have in fact crossed party lines to vote in the Republican primary. Still, I mostly vote for the Democratic Party candidates, and would have a hard time voting for a Senator who is basically a Republican but claims to be a Democrat.
actually, jack, democrats in the US senate have been bending over backward trying to compromise with republicans, only to be burned again and again when it’s time to vote. bayh even cited an example of this in his statement about why he’s retiring: bayh wanted a bipartisan deficit commission, but when it came time to vote, seven of the bill’s republican co-sponsors voted against it for political reasons.
This reminds me of an old Hagar The Horrible cartoon I cut out years ago, and coincidentally ran across just the day before yesterday. Hagar is going to some big meeting with whomever the other side is and tells Helga they are going to “negotiate”, meaning the sides will take turns throwing a weapon out of their arsenals until there are no weapons left to fight with and the matter can be settled otherwise. Whereupon Helga asks him what is that thing under his helmet and he admits to her he has a hidden dagger.
I understand that a Birch Bayh type Senator wouldn’t stand a chance in today’s political climate in Indiana…
Pila, that’s like saying there’s no market here for two-headed dogs. First you’d have to find one; then you’d have to prove you actually made a For Sale sign.
Saw a two-headed calf once. Wasn’t for sale, though.
Seriously, are there any electable “Birch Bayh Democrats” in Indiana today?
Why are “moderation” and “compromise” presumed to be virtues?
Karl Hess hit it spot-on.
Personally, I think we need a third party to weaken the other two so that there HAS to be compromise. Bayh could start and run such a party. In my mind it would be socially progressive, long term solution oriented, but fiscally conservative. Jobs for Americans, in America so they can buy American goods, BUT coupled with the education and social system support so that we can be productive and world leading workers. (Along with a host of other issues, like energy independence, poverty, etc.)
Frankly, I think the majority of Americans would fall into that grouping. It just needs a movement and a name and to be run like a real party – not like some radical offshoot like the Greens, the Libs or the Teabaggers.
I guess Kurt meant this is spot-on: “Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
That’s just rhetoric is why it’s not spot-on.
Moderation and compromise are virtues (but I concede not in every situation) because without them you always have winners and losers. Now, if I win-some-and-lose-some, that may balance out for me. But if I lose all the time? I will either become apathetic and drop out of the process, or I may foment something. Neither option is healthy for the individual or for the whole.
@Doghouse: I guess I should have said Senate candidate. :) There are old style liberals here in Indiana, but none of them would run for the U.S. Senate.
@Dave: I think that Bayh is way too conservative to start a third party such as what you describe. Furthermore, he is way too self-interested, despite what he said in his exit speech. If he really gave a d**n about serving Hoosiers, he would have stuck out his neck and fought for a real health care reform bill, instead of being obstructionist. I don’t see much particularly honorable or moderate about his Senate service. Evan Bayh did whatever he could to help Evan Bayh–period. He’s getting out while he can still use his name and past political offices to land some other career. Or he may run for President in 2012. I have to revise what I said about him the other day in another thread. At the first whiff of trouble, Bayh couldn’t even be bothered to defend his own seat in the Senate.
Isn’t anyone bothered that the Democratic voters have been given no say whatsoever in the choice by the fact that Bayh dropped out the day before the signature deadline?
Coming from a Republican activist other than you, Paul, I might take that as concern trolling. But, I’m reasonably certain you are sincere in your belief that a good primary fight is a better way to choose a candidate.
I have no real confidence that the state party, with very strong ties to Mr. Bayh, will choose anyone much different from Bayh. I suppose the strategic decision was to 1) sideline as many strong – but afraid of Bayh – Republican candidates as they could; 2) avoid a bruising primary fight on the Democratic side; and 3) hand pick a nominee.
The first is a canny political strategy. The third doesn’t do anything I like. And, I think the second is overrated as conventional wisdom. Often as not, a primary fight seems to give the winner momentum and organization that outweigh the negatives associated with the primary fight. (I suppose the 2008 Democratic gubernatorial primary is contrary evidence.)
“But, I’m reasonably certain you are sincere in your belief that a good primary fight is a better way to choose a candidate.”
Let me tell you what makes that statement bad: Jill Long Thompson. Definitely a primary fight there and it ended horribly.
Ive always considered myself a ‘moderate’,so it’s interesting to see a discussion defining what that might means in today’s politics..Ben Johnson of Nebraka single handedly got the desperate Dems to agree to have all Nebraska’s
Medicare obligation paid forever by Fed Govt. ( at least that’s what I remember the arrangement being) This seems very extremist politics to me for a so-called moderate,like Nelson to accept …..It’s little more than a bribe paid disporportionately by all to please one.
An agreement in moderation would be more like this:Repubs agreeing to a public/government-run health care option and Dems agreeing to serious tort reform. That’s my definition of common sense moderation .Each side gets basic stuff,and gives us basic stuff.And public option and tort reform do go together logically in a balance of mutual protection.
What good would a 3rd party do for bipartisanship? I’m familiar with the French model where without a coalitition one party simply does not have the votes to control. But to form a coalition the two or sometimes 3 political parties have long negotiations as to what each party will be allowed to support and which platform beliefs they must eliminate from their agenda.Obama should have sat down with Dems Caucus and set ground rules;it would be the same process.We dont need the liberal party vs the moderate party to set down rules for making legislation.
What is so dismaying is that truly ignorant, spitwad-throwing tactics ,such as calling Obama a ‘socialist’or questioning his citizenship actually go for honest debate.Make a charge and then have a discussion with ‘both sides’ presented…
Will Republicans and Democrats have a fair and honest debate on C-span how Republican fascism is better than Democrat socialism? It would be honest if not productive,and probably lots of fun to see politicians explain in context the words they use.
Lets see more people critical of those they support.
Ben Nelson Of Nebraska I mean
Paul, I’m disturbed by it, as I was disturbed by Carl Brizzi pulling the same thing. This is why I’m a member of neither of those parties, nor any other. It’d be nice if people who are party members smacked those two upside the noggin. It’d be better if they’d’ve been smart enough to strangle each in his crib. But then they wouldn’t be party members, and we wouldn’t have the problem in the first place.
Pila, what I actually meant–and covered up trying to be clever–was that if you had a real Birch Bayh Democrat capable of raising the money to run, the first thing he’d do is hide the fact, per that conventional wisdom you note. But why? Who says one can’t win? Dems have been running away from that for forty years now without ever trying it. Maybe if they showed some balls they’d get some respect. The Republican party is no more populist than the leftward end of the Democratic party, which has at least as much in common with libertarianism, and as much opposition to Big Government as the saner end of the Teabaggers. Evan Bayh could have been a liberal voice and won just as easily in Indiana; he never stood for anything except getting elected anyhow. It’s the one option the majority of Indiana voters have never been offered. It’d be nice to see it tried sometime, rather than just rejected out of hand.
@Doghouse (almost typed “Doughouse!”): Yeah, I think we are on the same wavelength, but dancing around each other. I just think that it is too easy for someone who is evenly remotely liberal to be painted as some sorto pinko, commie, fascist, Nazi elitist who’s gonna take away Constitutional rights, brainwash your kids, and let terrorists run amok in in federal courthouses. I don’t care about the polls saying that Bayh had a 20-point lead on Coats. Coats may not end up being the Republican nominee, but even if he were, Bayh’s recent Senate “service” along with the appearance of conflict of interest from his wife sitting on corporate boards would have been used against him, and very effectively. Furthermore, if Bayh ever even once did something that was in agreement with President Obama, or something that could be distorted into being in agreement with President Obama, that would have been used against him. He knew it and ditched office before he’d have to face a bruising, and likely losing, general election. If Evan Bayh can be thought of as a liberal, and if the NY Times and Indy Star fora are any indication, several Hoosiers think he is too liberal, what hope would a Birch Bayh type candidate have? I’d love to see someone like that run, I really would, but I ain’t holdin’ my breath.
@Paul Ogden: Heck yeah, I’m mad that Bayh’s timing basically means that he (or rather his proxies in the state party) will get to hand pick his potential successor. Bayh knew what he was doing.
@Lou: why tort reform?
Pila, I’d say we’re on opposite wavelengths (but, to be clear, it’s a matter of opinions, not fact). Evan Bayh, Evan Freakin’ Bayh is portrayed by Indiana Republicans as Castro without the beard. And this is a man who can’t move any further to the Right without crossing into the 19th century. What more would you have him do, just in order to be elected, and at what point does it stop being worth it?
The Democratic party has been apologizing for being Liberal since 1973. I think that at some point the average voter figures that all that apologizing means you think you’re doing something wrong. Heaven forbid a Democrat defend trades unionism (unless he’s in a union district). Heaven forbid national health care permit a woman to make her own reproductive decisions despite that being a Constitutional right. Don’t even suggest that tax expenditures might lead to a public good or two, unless that good is our 20th aircraft carrier, another high-tech bomber that can’t fly supersonic, or any of the other Defense expenditures that require us to support a military force greater than the next 50 largest combined. If you’re in a really secure district you might allow as how all those Teabaggers would be making their Obama=Hitler signs by candlelight, and organizing by Pony Express instead of email, if not for the durn guvment. But probably not.
And as a result, over forty years, the center moves Right, then more Right, then somewhere slightly above Dan Burton’s left earlobe, and Democrats can’t get anything done with bulletproof majorities in both Houses. It ain’t partisan rancor has done this, or insufficient compromise; it’s pure cowardice, greed, and careerism. When do we get to say it failed?
@Lou: why tort reform?
Only because that’s what conservatives contend would save the health care systems loads of money. So fine,true or not,give them that but get something good back. In as much as tort reform might save money in law suits,then if we had a public option the money wouldn’t automatically be grabbed by drug and insurance companies. It would seem like a reasonably balanced deal to make to get things moving for everyones benefit: tort reform along with a public option.But probably that time has passed.
According to this mornings paper we now have all republicans dug in against any kind of tax increase on anybody as a response to Obamas call for a bipartisan approach to deal with the growing deficit. It’s either grandstanding or blind ideology,maybe both. I’m suspicious that the deficit is only a shouted-out issue since Obama became president,but its best not to waste time speculating on others’ motives. That’s literally all the conservatives do : point out how disingenuous the opposition is.
I learned a lot from kids in my 35 yrs teaching that also relates to the adult world in general and one of them is that if someone is wasting lots of time ,it’s probably part of their strategy for not having to explain themselves..Kids can fillibuster too,but they don’t know what to call it… What irks me no end is that the conservatives have so many enablers to help their strategy along.As I just read above,being branded anything tinging on’liberal’ is enough to stop any legislation in its tracks..No examination required.
Obama needs to develop a more strident approach.
@Doghouse: Actually, I think we’re saying pretty much the same thing, but disagreeing about what Bayh did. Bayn is no flaming liberal, yet he knew he’d have been portrayed as one in the general election, and was being portrayed that way already by some. I think we agree on that. I think where we may differ is Bayh having any no options other than quitting or moving even further rightward. I don’t think that his quitting has revealed anything other than that Bayh wasn’t willing to put up a tough fight for his seat in the Senate. Maybe you think it’s not worth it to run a tough race and likely lose. I don’t like the man, but unless a better candidate is likely to be chosen by his party buddies, Bayh’s timing was terrible. I would have liked to have a hand in choosing the Democratic candidate for his Senate seat. Did Evan Bayh have no idea that he was vulnerable last summer or fall? Was it the emergence of Coats as a not-so-viable Republican candidate that made him realize that he was up for re-election and didn’t want to face a fight? Did Bayh plan this “sudden” resignation some time ago, but time it so as to make sure that his potential successor would be hand-picked by his buddies instead of voted on by the registered Democrats in Indiana? I don’t know the answers to those questions, but the Bayh’s sudden realization that Republicans in Congress don’t want to work with Democrats seems disingenuous at best.
I was a kid in 1973, so I don’t know exactly when the Democratic party started apologizing for being liberal. :) I agree with everything you are saying in your final two paragraphs, however.
@ Lou: I wondered why you suggested tort reform, because so many people throw that phrase around, yet they don’t know the difference between a tort and a torte, if you get my drift. Not that you would be one of those people, of course. :)
Tort reform is a phony issue in the health care debate, in my opinion. Sounds good, and everyone hates plaintiffs attorneys (until they need one, natch), but I don’t think anyone really knows what tort reform in the realm of health care would entail.
Pila wrote:
@ Lou: I wondered why you suggested tort reform, because so many people throw that phrase around, yet they don’t know the difference between a tort and a torte, if you get my drift. Not that you would be one of those people, of course. :)
Thats probably true.But tort reform is what John Boehner and Rich McConnel always present as the keystone step to their health care reform.Call their bluff,is that’s what it is.
The Tea Party movement wants to ‘take back america’ and that’s why it’s important for this administration to get something positive accomplished.They should have been making deals..Maybe they can’t but they also didn’t seem to try very hard..That’s why I’m dismayed with Obama and Dems lack of accomplishment,for whatever reason. They had 60 Senate votes ! They still have 59. What’s waiting in the wings to ‘take back the country’ is more unamerican than anything we’ve seen for a while.It’s getting sinister;nothing good ever fills a void.
Lou, the Dems never, EVER had 60 votes. Joe Lieberman is not a Dem.
@Lou: I don’t think that the Democrats should even consider tort reform. No matter what they do, Boehner and his buddies aren’t going to go along anyway. People always demonize trial lawyers until they need one.
@Lou: I have a friend who likes to say, “The Republicans have a 41-59 majority”. I’m convinced that both parties are only any good at being the opposition.