Don’t get me wrong — this is not a “they’re all crooks and sellouts” rant — I think one of the highest callings you can pursue in a democracy is elected office — it’s just an observation of a phenomenon, that I think can afflict anyone. For example, my second job out of college was to work for a City Council Member in New York City. He was a great guy, very progressive, the best schmoozer I’ve ever seen, in office for years, and I was proud to work for him. But I remember even as progressive as he was, and as progressive as I like to think I was, I remember feeling slightly affronted and offended that anyone would dare to challenge him. The one campaign I went through with him (only when I was off duty of course!) was defending against a guy who has since gone on to be a leading progressive in New York, but I remember having this feeling in the back of my mind(and I think my boss did too) of resentment and that of course it was obvious that my guy was the most progressive guy or gal in the City Council, and anyone challenging him therefore had to be an overambitious, shallow poser. I also saw this in the battle for the Clean Elections public financing law here in Massachusetts — there was a palpable feeling of rage on the part of some incumbents that we (the 67% of their constituents who approved the CEL) would dare to argue that there should be more contested races in our Commonwealth.
So what’s the cause of this disease? I think there are several causes. First, the easy one, is that the perks, privileges and accoutrements of power are their own reward. It just feels GOOD to be in the center of things and know (or at least believe) that you have some say in important things, while everyone’s calling you “Senator” or “Councilman,” opening doors for you, and carrying your luggage (well, not so much the Councilman, but certainly the Senator). But there are deeper reasons also. One is that if you’re a full-time elected official, this is your job, it’s how you make your living, and consequently any challenge to your incumbency is actually a threat to your entire career. That’s scary! But even deeper, is that if you’ve been in office for a long enough time, it becomes who you are. It’s your identity that’s at stake in any contested election, not just your principles or programs. You literally need to be in office in order to justify your own existence. So I think that some (but not all) of what is going on with Lieberman and the many others like him, is that he (and they) literally can’t imagine themselves in any other role than the one they see themselves in now, and the prospect of losing that role scares the bejesus out of them.
In the end, I think there’s one essential ingredient necessary for an effective cure for incumbentitis, and that’s to fix the system so that no-one gets too comfortable in the role of elected official. If one is forced on a regular basis to make a case to their constituents about why they, and not some other clown, should be in office, then the constituents, not the mirror, become the justification for incumbency. In other words, it’s the people, not the needs of the ego, who must then be fed, and no-one gets to the point where they start to interweave the office they hold into their self image. So what we need are more primaries, more contested elections, more challengers, and we need the reforms that make this possible. Public financing of elections, for example. Real parties and progressive movements that have the intention and capacity to hold those they support accountable by withholding support and supporting challengers if their erstwhile candidates stray.
So there’s my pop-psychology analysis of Lieberincumbentitis.
michael-forbes-wilcox says
smart-mass says
at DailyKos yesterday
<
p>
Liberman is addicted to Power (as you so rightly point out, center of attention, power, influence, perks).
<
p>
Like a reformed alcoholic will tell you about drinks, 1 drink is too many and 10 drinks are not enough.
<
p>
In Liberman’s case, 1 term is too many, and 3 terms are not enough…
<
p>
On a more serious note… an issue that faces incumbents – they get involved with projects that span longer than a term and want to see them through to the end. It’s hard to watch something you’ve planted whither because you are not there to care and feed it…
<
p>
M.
ryepower12 says
And I think you solution is absolutely imperative. I don’t think the solution is term races, if people are doing well, they probably deserve to stay. The solution is accountability – challenges that also include the occasional primary challenges.
<
p>
The power of incumbency is powerful, but the progressive movement really could be the antidote. All it takes is an active set of people paying attention and if they aren’t pleased, spreading the word about just why they aren’t pleased.
<
p>
So I guess it’s up to us! Personally, that BMG post about Steve Lynch and his competitor seems especially poignant, with your diary in mind. I’m sensing the need for a real, hotly contested race in the 9th district of Massachusetts.
rightmiddleleft says
legislature and 100% of the US congressional delegation are democrats?
jim-weliky says
Not sure which part of the above you’re addressing, or what about it you’re refuting, but if you’re saying that term limits are necessary because everybody’s a Democrat, I don’t see how that follows from the general thrust of this diary and comments — the point isn’t about which party is in power (although there’s more of an intersection between progressives and Democrats than there is between progressives and Republicans), but about what type of people are in power and how to keep them accountable. I and the commenters agree that more democracy is needed. Term limits do not add more democracy, they detract from democracy, because they deprive voters of choices (in that, even if they love their incumbent, they are deprived of the opportunity to continue to be represented by him or her). Real democratic reform increases voter choice by insuring that all alternative choices are on the table — the incumbent as well as the challengers. Public financing, say, levels (to a large but not complete degree) the playing field so that incumbents are (to a large but not complete degree) deprived of the overwhelming advantage that incumbency itself provides, but it doesn’t remove the incumbent from the field altogether as term limits would.
<
p>
Believe me though, after the Clean Elections law was repealed, I was sorely tempted . . .
ryepower12 says
I didn’t really know what he was talking about either (and I thought I was ambiguous), but I almost thought he was referring to my Lynch/Dunk comment. Why? I don’t know. Perhaps because he feels that with a majority of democrats in the state, we don’t need to go all berserk when one of them is a DINO… but I think that’s up to the people of the 9th District. I only think it’s fair that there’s a well-reported race with actual news stories (of which the Boston Globe, which covers the entire 9th district – which includes large swathes of Boston – has made only THREE stories with the name “Dunkelbarger” included in it that were actually about the race – according to their internet archives).
<
p>
But maybe I was just confused because of the ambiguous nature of that users reply to my comment =p
<
p>
That’s why I didn’t reply before now.
rightmiddleleft says
infers that democrats can solve the problem. But since most incumbents are democrats and are also claim to be part of the progressive movement ,it is unrealistic to expect much from your suggested antidote Thats the point. You need to convince me that the progressives will oppose democratic candidates in favor of a republican candidate for your antidote to work. I don”t think so.