Congratulations to Seth Moulton for landing the Globe’s endorsement — for what it’s worth. He appears to be a very credible candidate with a fascinating resume, and a solidly progressive issues page. His TV ad is lame, but that’s not unusual, nor a disqualifier.
But the Globe wastes a lot of pixels worry about how Moulton might deal with the intransigent Republicans, whether he can help out in bringing them to reason:
Still, there is something problematic about Tierney’s full-throated partisan stances and his staunch defense of Congress’s business as usual. Returning him to Washington would do little to change a system that is widely seen as gridlocked and broken. Moulton and Tierney share nearly identical political views, but Moulton’s background, and his approach to discussing the issues, suggests an openness to new perspectives …
Moulton’s work in Iraq — negotiating with warlords, developing on-the-ground relationships in tense circumstances — might bode well for his ability to deal with recalcitrant Republicans, and to broker agreements between the two parties.
So … Tea Party Republicans … a lot like Iraqi warlords. Chew on that.
Harder to swallow is the notion that somehow Democrats are responsible for Republican stubbornness, for their refusal to take yes for an answer, for their willingness to chuck the economy under the bus by shutting down the government … and for what? In many ways they’re even harder to deal with that Iraqi warlords, since they often don’t act in their own stated interests. Making a deal — whatever its actual terms — is a sign of betrayal to Tea Partiers.
One must respect the factors that we have absolutely no control of in Massachusetts. There is an entire nationwide, profitable industry dedicated to inflaming partisanship from the right, and little old John Tierney had nothing to do with it. Talk radio helped deliver the votes that croaked Eric Cantor. Eric Cantor. They took down reliable conservatives Dick Lugar and Bob Bennett and almost bagged Thad Cochran. Compromise is bad radio. Fox News doesn’t want it — too squishy.
Do you really think Seth Moulton, for all his virtues, is going to be able to help out with this? And a conciliatory tone hasn’t exactly put President Obama in a better position to deal with Congress — QED. Wouldn’t we better use Ted Kennedy as the exemplar of how to use politics to your advantage? That is: Full-throated public advocacy without; and private relationships, persistence, and compromise within. That’s politics.
The better case for Moulton is in his resume and experience. I don’t believe that incumbents should hang onto seats by default, particularly in a state so tilted to one party. I don’t especially feel strongly for Tierney one way or the other — I think his wife’s and brothers-in-law’s convictions don’t necessarily disqualify him. But primary challenges are good. People in the district will have to decide whether Tierney’s constituent service, experience, and seniority put him above Moulton.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
I’m confused. What exactly IS the difference between Eric Cantor and the candidate than beat him? Why are we upset Eric Cantor lost? How did he distinguish himself to deserve our attention?
Between Tierney and Moulton, let the best candidate win – on his own merits, not as a tool to resist the Republicans.
I suggest people re-read Matt Taibbi’s “The Great Derangement”. It’s a book six years old, but nothing has since changed. Both Dems and Repubs in Washington have a sorry record of vocally disagreeing on 1% of the issues, while otherwise doing the bidding of their highest campaign contributors when later nobody’s watching.
jconway says
You put it better than I did!
David says
The Globe’s ridiculous fantasy that Moulton (or anyone else) would both be able to stand for progressive principles and broker some kind of compromise with House Republicans is just that – a ridiculous fantasy. It’s related to the bipartisanship fetish, much discussed here over the years, that imagines that policies are necessarily better when supported by members of both political parties. What nonsense.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
If that’s the criterion, how are we sure Tierney is the more principled progressive of the two, able to resist Republican pressure, etc?
A principled man would not get into these kinds of entanglements.
Christopher says
Ted Kennedy was well-known for both being very liberal and able to work with Republicans.
JimC says
I don’t know that I can articulate this any better than I did yesterday, but here’s a shot.
I agree with everything said about Republican obstructionism and all that. There are a few things I would never compromise on, like Social Security, voting rights, and privacy protections.
But we have eroding bridges in Massachusetts and Missouri while we drop bombs around the world. We agree to concepts like “deficit neutrality” (not increasing the deficit) on human services, but not on defense. We could apply deficit neutrality to defense, and modernize the military. We could cancel SDI like we mothballed the supercollider.
We could look seriously at things like voter ID, if it meant we could get immigration reform and register MILLIONS of Democratic voters. I know all the arguments about the oppressive nature of voter ID, but how many voters does that really apply to? The proverbial old lady who forgot her ID would be cheerfully driven home and back to the polls by whatever campaign was running. (And next time, she’d remember the ID.) We destroyed ACORN, a nonprofit that did good work, over a video. But we can’t move on immigration. Partly because they know what party the immigrants will join — but really, we can’t push it through? We lack will.
We’ve got different insurance regulators in every state, and sometimes in larger cities. I am told, but have never verified, that we allow some unions to OPT OUT of Social Security — why the hell do we that? Doesn’t it contradict everything we stand for?
We argue over smart technology for guns, while 30 people are shot in Chicago every month. When the President demanded at least a vote, the Senate balked.
The job of government is to govern. Republicans exist. We have to work with them. I know, it’s tiresome, they can’t be trusted to honor agreements. But if it’s so damn hard, maybe we need new leaders. That’s not a shot at Tierney or a call for Moulton. It’s a call for all of them to do their damn jobs.
Mark L. Bail says
I know you’re trying to work out something our for yourself. I don’t know if my disagreement will help, but I’ll give it a shot. You write:
Most of your premises here are not valid.
First of all, we may not like the job our government is doing, but it is governing, and on an operational level, we are working with the Republicans, though not without problems very much felt by the GOP leadership.
Secondly, the GOP is uncompromising. Thus the main way of working together is voided. Democratic leaders might be able to change GOP intransigence by capitulating on our core issues, but what would that accomplish? What would working with the GOP accomplish if we had to give up we stand for and seek to accomplish? It seems like you’re concerned about the means, but they don’t justify the end. Usually, it’s the other way around.
The fact is, our government is divided. As vehemently as I disagree with the platform and methods of the Republican Party, I don’t doubt their adherence to their core beliefs. It’s existential crisis time: neither they nor we can give much without losing our souls, tainted as they be.
JimC says
… that we don’t compromise on our core issues. They don’t have to either.
But we compromise on little things, to boost employment. To get some 40 million Americans off food stamps, and to fix rotting infrastructure (or replace it).
Sorry but I don’t think it is working, on an operational level. The spy apparatus is out of control, we have cops running around in tanks. California has a water crisis; large parts of New Orleans still need to be rebuilt. Detroit is bankrupt. Aforementioned Chicago is awash in violence.
It aint good enough, Mark. Who’s going to fix it? The next generation of elected officials?
Is gun control one of our core issues? I think it should be, because it damages everything else. So F the electoral damage, and press on for gun control. Stop running for the next cycle, and govern.
Mark L. Bail says
You assume that it can be fixed and/or changing people in Congress will make a difference. I don’t believe politics or society is that simple.
The GOP as KBusch points out won’t compromise. Period. Not on big things, not on little things. Theirs is a scorched earth policy.
If there is an issue on which we agree, we may be able to work together, i.e. our intelligence apparatus. Militarized police? Probably not. Gun control? That’s funny. Kicking people off food stamps? That would be a go for the GOP. Infrastructure? They won’t even replenish the Highway Trust Fund.
JimC says
I have to. I can’t live any other way.
Mark L. Bail says
that’s hardly an argument.
JimC says
It’s an operating assumption.
kbusch says
Jimc, you are just so nice that I think the national situation must be highly counter-intuitive for you. The right-wing currently regards liberalism as quite a bit evil. So in the first place, there are lots of folks on the right who regard compromise as a sort of Chamberlain moment, i.e., very dangerous.
Your model of the world, if I understand correctly, runs a bit like this:
1. There are some things badly, badly wrong that must be addressed.
2. Partisanship prevents their being addressed.
3. Since we liberals can’t get everything we want, we could accomplish a lot of got by bartering the stuff we care about but care about least for things we could actually achieve.
The problem is that the Right is unwilling to barter. They’re unwilling to trade. They’re willing to accept concessions and will regard that either as a sign of weakness or as a sign that some liberals have finally come to their senses. If you recall, one of the reasons the Transportation Bill got stuck in Congress was because the House refused to send anyone to a conference committee! They simply did not wish to compromise in any way. They didn’t even want to risk the possibility of compromise.
So I think your whole thing hinges on a model of conservative behavior confirmed by your hopes in our better natures but repeatedly refuted empirically.
JimC says
We all agree that the current situation is unacceptable, and we seem to agree that they won’t change. But they can get away with that, because of their animosity toward government, and because we let them.
So we have to be creative about not letting them. We could, for example, push for a working Ethics Committee. Congress banned earmarks, and I heard Mike Capuano complain about that, because earmarks were currency (you vote for mine and I’ll vote for yours). So what’s the NEW currency? I don’t know, but somebody has to find one.
The voters don’t care who obstructs, but they do care that government doesn’t function, and that they can’t trust it (and some cared that they were being spied on technically while healthcare.gov failed to work).
I don’t know what we do for the next two years, I really don’t. But smarter people than me have to think of something.
I’ll happily accept the charge of being nice, thank you. Maybe what we need to do is find the fun of governance. Get some happy warriors who propose increasing Social Security, or major infrastructure projects. Maybe someone could propose a Ronald Reagan Green Energy Initiative.
Mark L. Bail says
it’s hard to work with Republicans is that without earmarks, there is nothing to motivate them to work on things. There used to be a currency; now there is none.
Elizabeth Warren did propose increasing Social Security. Democrats could try to promote projects more, even if there were no chance of them passing.
JimC says
Personally I don’t mourn earmarks. They seem lazy, and might lend themselves to corruption. We’re probably better off without them.
They clearly mourn them, but they should learn to live without them.