As I mentioned last post, there are indeed Democrats in Massachusetts’ congressional delegation who have shown signs of a shop-worn, dessicated political temperament: inertia; sloth; special interest capture; legal-but-seedy corruption; nostalgia for bygone “better times” of bipartisanship and comity; and outright cowardly defeatism. To paraphrase our good senior Senator:
I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of [being in Congress] just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.
To be specific: I mean our own Massachusetts US Reps. Richard Neal (MA-1) and Stephen Lynch (MA-8). There are other reps that have exhibited some of these traits, but not with the vividness of a contrast-dye MRI like these two.
Let’s back up a bit: Political psychology is weird. By and large, people get frustrated at politicians not just when they have the wrong opinions or espouse bad policy, but when they’re worthless. The thing-we-must-do is often malleable in the public’s mind; but you have to deliver on that thing. This is the political genius of Mitch McConnell, who made it his job to fight Democratic proposals on everything, including popular things. His long-term play has been not to realize popular, beneficial results for his constituents; but rather to stuff the Democrats, making them ineffectual — with the Dems own cooperation, of course — and creating frustration, so that he can then enact unpopular policies that help very few.
Which Democrats know that this is the game — and call it out? Which Democrats cave in — giving in their assent, negotiating with themselves even before the game begins? Who has been so ineffectual in countering the rampant corruption of Trump, that they’ve basically given up?
I’m riffing on Timothy Snyder’s On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.
1. Do not obey in advance. Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.
This goes for public negotiation and positioning as well. Watch Lynch’s response to the impeachment question at a town hall — answer starts around 4:30:
Steve Lynch can state his case as emphatically as he wants; but his strategy is one of passivity and indulgence — of giving away his own agency. He advocates lying down for Trump by forswearing impeachment out of fear that it will “energize Trump’s base”. Obeying in advance, Lynch thereby gives Trump’s base veto power over his own actions — even as Lynch abandons his own base. This is not hard to figure out, if you’re not obsessed with playing 13-dimensional political chess, as so many Dems imagine themselves to be doing. Trust your own eyes, and your own logic: If Trump has committed impeachable offenses, then he should be impeached. To quote Charlie Pierce in another context, “All else is smoke.” And then if they vote to acquit, make Senate Republicans own that corruption. Play offense. Do your job.
Neal, we’ve talked about before. The new news is that he may not even get Trump’s tax returns before the end of 2020 — at least partly because he won’t ask for his New York returns, which New York has stood ready to give him. Note how powerless a “powerful” Ways and Means chair can be.
From Vox:
How to go about getting Trump’s tax returns — and whether House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal (D-MA), who is leading such efforts, is doing enough — has been a matter of debate on the left for months. It is emblematic of a growing feeling among some progressives that Democrats have been too hesitant to take Trump to task since taking back the House in the 2018 midterm elections. The White House’s resistance efforts have worked better than expected, and the Democrats’ strategy has not.
Trump’s tax returns have been treated as a Holy Grail that would unlock the secrets of his wealth and, depending on where you fall on the political spectrum, potentially reveal him as a fraud or as having unsavory ties to foreign interests. If that were the case, it could be an important weapon again him in his reelection campaign — but it looks like Democrats aren’t going to have it.
Whether this is timidity, or incompetence, or both, it represents an abject institutional failure in the face of unprecedented abuse of trust. The President’s finances are indeed the linchpin of his myriad conflicts of interest — some of which are blatant, like Mar-a-Lago, and some of which have been more circumstantial but, uh, highly suggestive of the most fundamental corruption. Whom is this guy working for? Is he treating the Presidency as an actual money-making hustle? Is he an actual traitor? These are not idle questions — in fact, some of them are quite blatantly true. And the guy standing guard — our guy from Springfield — has figured out a way not to find out the answers. Stop! … or I’ll say stop again!
This is how bad guys win. They figure out a way to push the system so hard that it breaks; and the institutional defenders are themselves too timid or conflicted themselves to hold them accountable, because they’re just not that used to being uncomfortable. Gosh well we tried.
We need to revivify our Congressional delegation, right here in Massachusetts. There is work to be done in the primaries. This is the whole game of democracy right in front of us, and Neal and Lynch are failing the moment. They have to go.
Christopher says
My question would be if Neal is out who is next in line to be W&M Chair and will s/he be more aggressive in seeking the returns. Otherwise is the point of primarying Neal not so much to win as to spook him into going after the returns for fear of his job?
Charley on the MTA says
Both might be spooked — Neal and his successor.
Elections are blunt instruments. Would that this primary challenge were unnecessary. That’s not on us.
jconway says
Alex Morse is running a strong campaign against Neal. and having a Kennedy-Markey race will boost turnout that will benefit his challenge. Brianna Wu’s challenge was a joke, and I do hope that a candidate who is a) politically literate and b) actually from the district runs instead. The challenge is too serious to give it over to an Andrew Yang/Marianne Williams hybrid like Wu. Hopefully that somebody exists in the district.
The reality Charley is that the 8th as drawn is not a particularly progressive or minority heavy district the way the 7th is. Perhaps activating Asian American voters in Dorchester, Quincy, West Roxbury, and the more affluent suburbs in the district is a smart strategy. The right Wu to run might be Roslindale resident Michelle Wu, following in the footsteps of her former council colleague Ayanna Pressley.
If she loses, she still keeps her day job, albeit as a weaker Mayoral challenger against Walsh. Tackey Chan is another person who could carry voter rich Quincy while appealing to the more progressive parts of the district like Milton and Westwood. 2013 mayoral runner up John Connolly could make a comeback as a socially progressive/fiscally moderate aggressively Trump fighting alternative to Lynch. An unfortunate side effect of redistricting is that compacting minority voters into the 7th doomed Capuano and protected Lynch.
pogo says
I’m not the one to do this, because I do feel Neal and Lynch deserve to be challenged in the primaries. But both have passionate defenders that would argue that they’ve upheld strong liberal values and are much to valuable for the the power their seniority wields in Congress. And this is clearly a strong argument for Neal especially. So Neal especially is to valuable to lose, the argument would go, and his supporters will rattle of a litany of things he’s done for the environment, health care and other progressive issues. So the argument goes, we should not primary him. People should wait for him to retire and then run.
To me this an absurd argument. Indeed Neal has done a lot of good for Springfield and the state in general in his time in Congress. But his time has come and gone. I feel the very same way about Markey. Sure you can present a passionate argument to keep him and I can cite the litany of corporate sucking up he does, while pulling the shirt of the eyes of voters. (Remember the “privacy advocates” you cited who praised Markey, but they turned out to be from a trade group funded by Google, Amazon and FB?)
So I don’t see the difference between the need to get rid of Neal and Markey. Sure one plays a better game at pretending to be more progressive, but they are both long-time creatures of a corrupt political system that they’ve thrived in for decades. They both need a primary challenger.
Charley on the MTA says
Perhaps you’d like to provide a scintilla of evidence for Markey’s alleged shortcomings? A link of your own?
bob-gardner says
There’s this: https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=57686187&itype=CMSID
fredrichlariccia says
Someone said balance does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.
Charley on the MTA says
Yeah … I remember that story. A little odd … maybe sketchy? But if that’s all you’ve got against the guy — an issue which makes precisely zero impact on the vast majority of our lives — for a 40-year career in Congress, then you’re proving my point for me. *high five*
bob-gardner says
Well, Charlie, I guess if you don’t like the answer, you can always change the question. You asked for “even a scintilla” of evidence. with a link..
I think that this story is a lot more than a scintilla.
As to your contention that the ability of a billionaire hedge fund manager to get Congressmen to run errands for his market manipulations has “zero impact” on our lives—well, that’s just pathetic.
The influence of money on Congress, is pernicious and well documented in many studies, which show over and over that Congress acts in the interest of the wealthy to the detriment of the rest of us, both in the laws it enacts and in the strings it pulls.
Markey’s actions in this case (like the actions of the Keating Five) are particularly salient examples of this. Making excuses for this stuff is hardly an occasion for “high fives.”
SomervilleTom says
Even a stuck clock tells the correct time twice a day.
In this case, the “billionaire hedge fund manager” was doing the right thing — using his funds and market mechanisms to try and take out a predatory pyramid scheme operator. You’ve shown no evidence of any improper behavior by Mr. Markey (which is not surprising since there is none). Two independent actors with a common purpose (taking out a fraudulent pyramid operator) happened to act simultaneously.
Meanwhile, the following text of your comment: “Markey’s actions in this case (like the actions of the Keating Five)…” is an outright and flagrant lie.
Mr. Markey had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Keating Five — that was a Republican scandal. Just in case folks don’t remember Charlie Keating and John McCain, here’s a quick primer (emphasis mine):
Ed Markey has NEVER behaved anything like what Mr. McCain was doing. At no time was Mr. Ackerman doing anything like the illegal acts of Mr. Keating.
Your attempt to conflate Ed Markey with this kind of corruption is beyond “pernicious”. I’m surprised the comment is still here, since it is so egregiously both false and vicious.
bob-gardner says
Of course Markey had nothing to do with the Keating Five. I was comparing the improper actions of Markey and his office on behalf of Ackman with the improper actions of the Keating Five on behalf of Charles Keating. I thought that was clear from the way I wrote it; let me make it clear now.
The Keating Five scandal was not, as you claim, a Republican scandal, but bipartisan. The other four Senators involved were Democrats. In the interest of not being negative I won’t accuse you of “an outright and flagrant lie” or of being ” beyond ‘pernicious”’ ” or” egregiously both false and vicious.” You do seem to be confused though.
The similarity of the two scandals is as follows. In both scandals actions which seem on the surface to be legitimate
(in Markey’s case calling for an investigation, in the Keating case calling on bank regulators to explain their actions) were done in such a way as to show an improper level of influence on the Senators involved.
No investigation, no matter how legitimate it seems, should be launched even in part because someone has taken a short position on the stock of the company being investigated.
I don’t care about motivations. After all, Keating told everyone that he was just trying to save us from pornography.
SomervilleTom says
“Of course Markey had nothing to do with the Keating Five” So you know and admit that the two have nothing to do with each other.
I stand by my characterization of your comment.
Charley on the MTA says
Ok, and this defines his career? Got it. Well done.
bob-gardner says
You know, Charlie, that anyone can scroll up this thread and see that you didn’t ask for something that defines Markey’s career. You asked for “. . . a scintilla of evidence for Markey’s alleged shortcomings. . . . ”
That’s what I provided. It may or may not define his career. A vigorous primary campaign might throw light on that.
Knowing what I know, I would still pick Markey over Kennedy at this point. But I’ve seen it on this blog before that some people think that preferring a candidate means that they don’t want to hear anything but the highest praise, and will indignantly reject any criticism, even when it’s the truth.
Charley on the MTA says
I can provide worse vs. Markey than Herbalife: He voted for the Iraq War. I won’t be defending him for that.
“Scintilla”, congrats, you provided. Good work — you have something to say! Is it enough to change your mind? In your powers of discernment, does that change your vote?
Markey’s got a long list of accomplishments and fighting good fights. Rather than trash JKIII I’ll be spending my time on those.
Trickle up says
What Charlie said.
You know, if someone were to run for this seat from the left, against Markey’s regrettably mainstream foreign-policy record, I would have to take them seriously, my deep respect for the senator notwithstanding.
Instead these candidates are basically primarying this man from the right. May they sabotage each other.
bob-gardner says
@Charlie. Did you know about Markey’s vote for the Iraq War when you dared us to provide evidence of his shortcomings? What were you thinking?
fredrichlariccia says
That’s pretty weak tea. C’mon, Bob. In 40 years of honest public service, I’m sure you can find more ‘dirt’ than that against our progressive champion, Senator Ed Markey.
fredrichlariccia says
“Any jackass can kick down a barn but it takes a good carpenter to build one.” Harry Truman
SomervilleTom says
Same Republican talking point posted twice here at BMG (in the case resurrecting Brian Herr’s 2014 complaint — that went nowhere, just like his campaign).
With “Democratic” commentary like this, who needs Republicans?
jconway says
I think these are valid questions Bob brings up. Just as valid as Markey supporters bringing up Kennedy’s ties to fossil fuel companies. I also think if one is going to cite 40 years in Congress as an asset for Markey, then he should also be asked about his anti-busing and anti-choice record from the start of his career. He found the light on choice only after he began an aborted run for Senate in 1984, and to date, I am unsure if he has ever walked back his opposition to busing.
I find it interesting that Charley called Capuano a hack in an earlier thread while I feel Markey basically has an identical voting record without a whole lot of legislation to his name, either as a member of the House or as a Senator. I get the Green New Deal is important, but the cynic in me cant help but think he cosponsored that with AOC after Capuano lost to Pressley and not while we had a Democrat in the White House. This does not prove the case for Kennedy by any stretch, but people are making Markey out to be some kind of latter day master of the Senate when he’s really been a consistent second fiddle to Warren his entire career there.
I find Steve Pemberton to be the most interesting challenger. A foster kid unlike a rich kid like Kennedy, a biracial black man unlike another Irish Catholic, a progressive businessman unlike a career politician. From New Bedford instead of Metro Boston. I’m more open to him as a challenger to Charlie Baker than to Ed Markey, but I hope we have debates with all four candidates. I want to really hear from all of them and make an informed decision. Closing the debate or insisting that the incumbent is untouchable when a majority of democratic voters have no opinion of him seems like the same kind of hubris that doomed Capuano and Clinton.
SomervilleTom says
I’m fine with examining Mr. Markey’s role in the Herbalife story. In my view, “examining” is different from conflating it with John McCain’s relationship with Charles Keating. “Examining” is different from saying that Mr. Markey threw his staff under the bus.
It seems to me that the questions I asked Bob are also legitimate:
1. Do you think Herbalife is good for consumers? Do you know anything about the company? Are you familiar with how pyramid schemes work?
2. Do you have any evidence that Mr. Markey knew about the short position of Mr. Ackerman?
3. Assume, just for the sake of discussion, that Mr. Markey did not know that Mr. Ackerman stood to gain and that Mr. Markey’s staff did know. In that scenario, what you call “[throwing] under the bus” I call holding his staff accountable.
There is a middle ground between “closing the debate”, “insisting that the incumbent is untouchable”, and relentlessly repeating stale Republican talking points from a failed campaign years earlier. Especially when the centerpiece of the talking point — the utterly false accusation that Mr. Markey colluded with Mr. Ackerman to manipulate the price of a publicly-traded stock — was addressed and dismissed years ago. A complaint was filed. That complaint was dismissed.
I’m disappointed that your last paragraph includes absolutely NOTHING about policy differences. I see a litany of identity characteristics — foster vs rich kid, biracial black man vs Irish Catholic, progressive businessman (?) vs career politician, from New Bedford instead of Metro Boston.
If our political process is going to be driven by battles among identity groups like you enumerate, then I’ll have nothing to do with it. The more we go in that direction, the more we devolve into useless and dysfunctional posturing that solves nothing and serves only to divide the electorate into alienated tribes and creates a government of inexperienced and ill-informed caricatures.
This is, to me, the most destructive result of Donald Trump’s ascendancy.. We no longer debate issues, policies, or values. We instead argue about “bi-racial black” vs “Irish Catholic”.
I think that’s an absolute dead-end, and I think we need to consciously choose a different direction in our exchanges.
jconway says
I have a broader post to make about their relevance. Suffice to say, I’ve been present where conversations are different when women or people of color are in the room when they weren’t before or when they are in positions of leadership when they weren’t before. I think his background is very compelling, and not unlike Barack Obama or Deval Patrick.
SomervilleTom says
I don’t doubt that conversations are different (though I’m not really happy about that). I disagree with a straight line from that to leading with identity in a campaign.
I think that “identity” is a seasoning that is best applied to underlying substance.
Barack Obama was and is a superb leader. On issue after issue, he correctly identified the issue, gathered all perspectives, and nearly always came down in the correct place. Even when I disagreed with him, his position was always well-informed and well-explained. Deval Patrick was less skilled, perhaps because he was less experienced in the public sector.
Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Patrick campaigned on a voter-for-me-because-I’m-black platform.
I’ve read various sketches of both Mr. Pemberton and Ms. Liss-Jordan, as well as Mr. Kennedy. I am unimpressed by pieces like this Mass Live piece from earlier this summer:
I don’t doubt that Mr. Pemberton has overcome major challenges, and I admire him for that. I don’t doubt that he’s an excellent HR officer and motivational speaker. None of that is what I’m looking for in a Senator.
I find the following more interesting (from the same piece):
I hope that we see a primary campaign dominated by exchanges on these last items. I want to be able contrast and compare the views of each candidate on these.
I do not yet see any daylight between the policy provisions of this last excerpt and the positions of the incumbent.
In my view, wealth concentration is our most immediate and urgent issue to address. I don’t see how the race, gender, or age of a candidate is remotely related to how effectively that candidate can address wealth concentration as Senator.
jconway says
Oh absolutely. Identity is certainly insufficient by itself. I won’t be voting for Tim Scott or Will Hurd anytime soon. Certainly not for the even Trumpier John James in Michigan. I would take a white progressive over a black conservative any day of the week. Until we have multi member districts and proportional representation, the reality is blacks and women are underrepresented in Congress. Primaries like these offer us a chance to change the composition of the room where it happens without losing a seat to a Republican.
A great example of well meaning white progressives mucking things up is the switch from free and reduced lunch to SNAP benefits as marker for what constitutes poverty for school funding purposes in Massachusetts. It was a white paper out of the left leaning Harvard Graduate School of Ed, backed by Deval Patrick and later Charlie Baker, backed by DESE and implemented. On paper it replaces a voluntary counting mechanism where parents and students might undercount themselves with a federal metric that’s far more accurate. This increasing aid to places that need it without relying on self disclosure.
In reality, this ended up robbing Revere, Lawrence, and Chelsea by sending more state dollars to Boston and Springfield. Why? Undocumented children are ineligible for SNAP benefits. Nobody at any stage of the process had that thought. I suspect they would have had there been more immigrants or immigration education specialists in the room. Or even just a teacher from a high immigration district.
So I think it’s helpful when we talk about reforming systems and who has power and privilege to consider those historically with the life experience to understand being on the receiving end of these policies. Of course their ideas should come first. It’s very obvious Pemberton identity and background has informed his progressive identity too.
Obviously it’s on his policies that we should ultimately vote, but I look at identity as one asset (of many) that shapes a candidates worldview. How they will govern is always the more important question. It’s why this social democrat is backing Warren over Bernie-her governing agenda matters more to me than his ideological identity.
bob-gardner says
1 .”I’m fine with examining Mr. Markey’s role in the Herbalife story” Can anyone read this from Tom and not laugh?
2. Let me repeat–again–that I only brought up the Markey, Ackman, Herbalife connection on this thread because Charlie strongly implied that no one would be to provide even a “scintilla” of evidence about Markey’s “shortcomings.”
3. Tom’s pandering to party affiliation should fool no one except maybe Fred. The Keating Five scandal was bipartisan. The five senators were McCain, Cranston, Glenn, Riegal and DeConncini,
Tom surely knows this since he did his usual research yet he characterized it falsely as a Republican scandal, and has not corrected himself.. Neither were Markey’s actions on behalf of Ackman’s financial position merely a Republican talking point .but a serious ethical breach, one that Markey didn’t defend but instead shifted the blame to his staff.
SomervilleTom says
More of the usual commentary from Bob.
Charley on the MTA says
Really? Seriously, are you kidding me, JC?
Ed Markey *passed a cap-and-trade climate bill with his name on it through the House* when we had a Democrat in the White House. It is emphatically not his fault that the Senate booted the chance.
And it surprises me not at all that he worked with AOC on the Green New Deal. It was a perfect, natural fit. But enviros were enthusiastic about him in 2013, too — it’s just that the rest of the public has come along in treating the issue with urgency.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/ed-markey-senate-massachusetts-environmental/
(Incidentally, “getting your name on legislation” is a tiny part of what a legislator does, and it’s not necessarily meaningful. But even then, Markey did it.)
I would never say an incumbent is untouchable. I think that in this case, the incumbent is better — about as good as you can ask for. I want more Ed Markeys, not fewer.
fredrichlariccia says
I want more Ed Markeys, too and I can’t believe we’re even having this debate.
jconway says
Yes seriously Charlie, effective legislators should be tooting their horn not hiding in the shadows. I am not a climate activist like you are, I don’t routinely go on interstate bike rides to raise climate awareness. You’re wicked awesome on this issue and I sincerely admire the single minded focus-but I was in Chicago and busy working a crummy 9-5 job and enduring a 90 minute commute every day when that stuff went down. My wife just moved here and was in nursing school and has no idea who these people are. Neither do our close friends who moved here a year after we did. I’m sure there are a lot more voters like me than like you, and it’s incumbent on the incumbent to advertise his achievements if he wants to win.
So far I’ve had a local climate activist who knows the Senator personally, a local elected official, and a town committeeman and state committeeman respectively and somewhat incredulously show surprise that Markey is even getting a challenger. I think his communication team sucks (obvious with the guy he had to fire) and he hasn’t had to really campaign since 1976. This is why he is vulnerable. So I appreciate your reply since it’s informative, but you should recognize I’m way more informed than the average voter and even I wasn’t aware he got a climate bill through the House. So should Ed Markey. He will be a far more effective Senator on the other side of this fight and we should all welcome it like he has.
SomervilleTom says
Perhaps if our mainstream media spent even a tenth as much effort informing the public about what our elected representatives do as it spends celebrating the current favorite Red Sox, Bruins, or Patriots celebrity, it would be more likely that people like you (and me) would know about Mr. Markey’s many accomplishments.
I suppose that in the absence of a functioning news media, it becomes more necessary for elected officials to blow their own horns. That also leads to complaints from some (including several here) that those same officials are “too self-centered”.
More importantly, it contributes to the general sense that all such information is “political” and therefore not to be trusted.
I agree that our electorate should be better informed. I agree that it is difficult for even motivated voters to obtain real information about what government is doing.
I’m not sure I agree that relying on the elected officials themselves is the best or even a good strategy.
This is why we have so zealously protected a free and independent press. I think we should demand that our mainstream media actually practice real journalism.
terrymcginty says
What a weird place to put energy. You are making wholly unjustified assumptions about what is happening here. You are totally ignoring the possibility that jumping on the NY statute could jeopardize ongoing litigation. Give me a break.
bob-gardner says
Maybe Lynch can redeem himself, https://mondoweiss.net/2019/09/democrats-detention-activists/
Sponsoring HR2407 would be a positive accomplishment for any of the Massachusetts delegation.
SomervilleTom says
I’m genuinely happy to see this comment describing something the commentator supports.