In an ideal world, people evolve and grow. Our actions are based on the historical period and political climate in which we live, and I don’t think we should punish politicians who take in new data, and change their minds. But hypocrisy is among the characteristics I find most loathsome, and when we hold ourselves out to a be a paragon of virtue (or, progressive ideals), while failing to mention our own limitations, it irks me no end. That is why I’m left shaking my head at the fundraising duo of Schumer and Markey.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is scheduled to be in Boston on Thursday to help Senator Ed Markey at a fundraising event. On the surface I don’t like it – just as many progressives were up in arms about the Democratic Party allegedly favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Presidential Primary, I don’t like to see party leadership put their thumb on the scale like that. But when I paused to consider their histories, it made me even more unhappy.
In 1994, then-Representative Ed Markey voted for the now-infamous Crime Bill. Worse yet, then-Representative Chuck Schumer championed it. He fought for it. As Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Chuck Schumer wrangled Republicans and liberal Democrats alike to get the 1994 Crime Bill passed. Democrats at the time were accused of “rushing to the right” on crime. Then-called “liberal Democrats” (aka “progressives”) felt that the heavy emphasis on punishment was a problem. The ACLU was appropriately outraged at the implications for communities of color and social justice. This was the law that created the 3-strike rule (mandating life imprisonment for federal crimes), expanded the number of crimes punishable by death from 2 to more than 60, elevated drug-related crimes to warrant more severe punishments, increased funding to build more prisons by billions of dollars, and eliminated higher education for incarcerated individuals, among other things. It fueled mass incarceration in this country, an issue most affecting communities of color (and black men, in particular). At the time, Chuck Schumer said, “Those on the left are wringing their hands, but they’re going to wind up voting for the bill.” (In fairness, he also noted that Republicans were unhappy, for the opposite reason.)
Then-Representative Schumer was right – the progressive (then-“liberal”) wing of the party voted for it, including the full MA delegation. This is not an issue specific to only Senator Schumer or Markey. But it is an issue that warrants more careful shading of Senator Markey’s progressive record. It is a reason for him to speak out about it now. And it is a reason to stop pretending that Senator Markey is a progressive angel, who is alone in his ability to deliver on progressive ideals. I’d like to hear a lot more (anything?) from Senator Markey on this issue, the sooner the better.
Worth reading on the topic:
Full disclosure: I am a volunteer for Joe Kennedy and have voted for Ed Markey.
doubleman says
Schumer is terrible.
Markey has bad votes.
Support for an incumbent is very different in terms of a “thumb on the scale” discussion than an open primary.
The issue is that Markey is running against Joe Kennedy, and while Markey is not perfect, for many here replacing him with a less experienced and less progressive person (who could likely be there for life) doesn’t cut it.
jconway says
I think the bigger scandal is how the DCCC is muscling out women and candidates of color to protect anti-choice and anti-immigrant incumbents like Dan Lipinski.
I think we have three good candidates in this primary and have gone back to the undecided camp. Lately I’ve been just as underwhelmed by Kennedy’s campaign as I’ve been by Markey’s tenure in the Senate. I wish we had ranked choice voting so there would not be nearly as much acrimony over minutiae.
doubleman says
Yes, absolutely. Lipinski and Cuellar (among others) absolutely need to go. Maybe a good test would be that you get support as an incumbent if you actually support the party in Congress (and, especially when you live in a blue district). Tying party support to playing along on legislation seems like very fair arm twisting – like, almost the point of having a party driven funding apparatus.
Christopher says
I am shocked, shocked I say, to discover that House Democrats are supporting their current colleagues! It’s almost as if it’s in the DCCC’s job description or something:)
jconway says
Wrong Christopher. It’s job is to protect the majority. Neither of these primary challenges threatens that. They are both solidly blue D+5 or more districts.
When their current “colleagues” support the Republicans more often than any other Democrat, I question the judgment of rigging these primaries to protect them. I know Lipinski’s district quite well and it’s demographically similar to Lynch’s, but Lynch (sorta) adapted with the times while Lipinski is still partying like the Reagan Democrats are alive and relevant.
His district is majority Latino now, has a high population of Muslims, and he’s still voting like the Polish Union, the Daley’s, and local K of C councils move votes in Chitown. They don’t. His Chicago area “colleagues” and the mayor are all endorsing his opponent by the way. So it’s really tone deaf for the DCCC to be intervening like that.
Christopher says
I think we just accept that DCCC and DSCC will support incumbents. Nothing personal against challengers – it’s just how they roll.
petr says
I think there ought to be priorities of the Congressional/Senate campaign committees. I think those priorities ought to be first unity, then majority, then incumbency. Incumbency is not an entitlement and should be earned.
Unity is a tough nut but if Lipinski truly is anti-choice and anti-immigration then that weakens the majority and argues against his incumbency.
SomervilleTom says
The current criticism of the 1994 crime bill ignores the nearly universal demand from communities of color that the federal government take strong and effective action against gang violence in the inner city. It also ignores the political reality of the era.
It is all too easy to forget that three terms of GOP control of the White House meant that for twelve long years, the federal government steadfastly ignored black-on-black violence. Drug-related crimes and violence were rampant in the inner cities of America. American voters and the GOP were all too happy to ignore all that so long as the oceans of blood stayed within the banks of the ghetto and left the lily-white suburbs dry and pristine,
GOP voters of that era simultaneously called for lower taxes, complained of “welfare queens”, and demanded that more (white) cops be hired to even more aggressively defend the borders of (white) suburban communities. What they called “smaller government” was, as always, a euphemism for letting corrupt crooks do whatever they want so long as they paid their dues to the GOP. Democrats were portrayed as “soft on crime” — the infamous Willie Horton spot was typical.
When newly-elected President Bill Clinton turned the tables on the GOP, he did so with the full-throated and enthusiastic support of black and urban community leaders and voters. He announced “100,000 additional police” — and ensured that those new hires were black, were hired by and deployed in black neighborhoods, and were well-trained in conflict de-escalation and community service.
However misguided by the standards of American culture more than two decades later, the Crime Bill of 1994 was huge step forward from the inner-city carnage that preceded it and from the racist and bigoted policies and pronouncements of the GOP of that era. Bill Clinton has spoken often about the mistakes he and his administration made at the time. Sometimes the best-intentioned actions are not good enough.
When we demand that our elected officials take immediate and aggressive action to attempt to address urgent and pressing issues, we MUST be tolerant, in retrospect, of mistakes they make while trying to do just that. The early days of environmental regulation resulted in policies that had terrible impacts — it was only through the scars of hard-won experience that America learned what did and did not work. Children MUST fall down while learning to walk, and must learn to walk before they can run.
The actions of Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party of 1994 should be compared against their contemporary counterparts and the prevailing policies of 1994. None of this ancient history is relevant to the choice facing voters in the upcoming Senate primary.
BKay says
I agree that we need to consider historical context, and even-worse alternatives being peddled. That’s why I began my comments by saying, “In an ideal world, people evolve and grow. Our actions are based on the historical period and political climate in which we live, and I don’t think we should punish politicians who take in new data, and change their minds.” I also agree the we all learn from mistakes, and often the bigger the mistake the bigger the lesson.
But I disagree that “none of this ancient history is relevant”. As I understand it from Senatory Markey’s campaign, a huge (perhaps defining) characteristic of his argument to serve another 6 years in the Senate is that he, and he alone, is a true progressive. That he, and he alone, cares about the environment. That he, and he alone, can deliver on a progressive agenda. Based on the voting record and articulated vision of Joe Kennedy (and, to some extent, the views outlined by Shannon Liss-Riordan), I very strongly disagree with that assertion by Senatory Markey and his team. But if he wants to make that argument, he should address his actual record and the mistakes he’s made as a member of Congress. I would argue that we all, and particularly those in elected office, should be able to discuss our mistakes and the ways in which we have evolved since making them. Isn’t that what everyone routinely (and rightly) demands of Joe Biden? Why is this different?
SomervilleTom says
I don’t hear the exclusivity or sweeping claims from Mr. Markey that you ascribe to him (“he, and he alone …”). I instead see and hear him saying that he is preferable to Mr. Kennedy or Ms. Liss-Riordan on those topics. There is a difference.
The answer to your final question has several parts:
1. Mr. Kennedy is different from Mr. Biden’s competitors.
2. Mr. Markey is an incumbent that Mr. Kennedy seeks to unseat. Mr. Biden has been out of office since 2016.
3. Mr. Markey has a sterling record about the matters you mention. Mr. Biden’s record is much more negative.
Mr. Biden waited until after his campaign began to announce his belated opposition to the odiously sexist Hyde Amendment. Mr. Biden bragged about his close relationship to Senate racists himself, after his primary began.
I remind you that the one and only Ted Kennedy also supported the 1994 crime bill that you so harshly criticize. Are you arguing that Ted Kennedy was also not a true progressive? Would you argue that Ted Kennedy should be replaced by JKIII because of the elder Kennedy’s support for the 1994 crime bill?
In 2045, if we are still having elections in the US, there will those who harshly criticize Mr. Kennedy for stances and votes he took between 2012 and today. Those criticisms will be as empty then as those you level against Mr. Markey today.
jconway says
Correct. Shouldn’t we be judging all the candidates by 2020’s standards? Isn’t that literally the progressive way of approaching this? It’s why it made more sense in 2008 to vote for someone who was consistently against the Iraq War than vote for someone who supported it but now had second thoughts.
I’m agnostic (again) in this primary. The stakes are almost too low for me to care. Ted Kennedy remains a progressive icon for the landmark legislation he helped pass. Many of which only he could have shepherded. I also would not be voting for his re-election today due to his awful treatment of women in both his personal and professional life and because his views on many subjects now look passé with the passing of time.
I think Markey voters are rewarding him for their personal connections to him and his stellar record in the House on environmental and consumer protection issues. I think Markey has had a far more lackluster record in the Senate and has not done much with his single term. I think his quiet consensus building style of leadership is not well adapted to today’s Washington, a Republican Senate, or today’s voter.
We need a war time consigliere in the Warren or Pressley mode. Particularly if we lose Warren in the Senate (hopefully to the presidency). I strongly endorsed their team back in 2014 as a workhorse/showhorse combination. But Bernie, Warren, and AOC have all demonstrated that the showhorses have far more influence on the national dialogue than the workhorses in a polarized America. There are no longer any Chris Shays for Markey to work with on climate or campaign finance as he did in the House.
So I’m more open to a woman who has fought for labor, the most neglected constituency in the Democratic coalition, or Kennedy who has been a real champion for immigrants who rely on him more than Markey who seems to be running on the greatest hits of the 80’s and 90’s.
If Markey wants to talk about the nuclear freeze and acid rain legislation than his contemporaneous record on bad wars, bad trade deals, and formerly hostile approach to abortion and school integration is also fair game. Same standard as Biden. If you brag about the past, you own it too.
Christopher says
The only way it would make any sense to judge all candidates’ records by 2020 standards is if they had time machines and could go back and fix their votes. At 30 you’re still a bit young to have had major changes of mind and heart but I know I’ve held opinions in the past that I would defend in the context of the past, but I would not still hold.
BKay says
It doesn’t sound like you’ve spent very much time following the comments of Senator Markey’s campaign manager — John Walsh — who routinely holds out Senator Markey as infinitely more progressive than Congressman Kennedy. (Mr. Walsh also chooses to take personal shots at Congressman Kennedy based on physical and demographic charactertics, as well as health issues in his family, but I’ll skip over that for now.) I would be surprised if Mr. Walsh were out making public comments that Senator Markey disapproved or disallowed.
As I mentioned in the original post, “Then-Representative Schumer was right – the progressive (then-“liberal”) wing of the party voted for it, including the full MA delegation.” Of course I know that Senator Ted Kennedy voted for the crime bill. The entire MA delegation did. That’s why my criticism of Senator Markey (and Schumer) is not about the vote itself. To repeat the framing of my whole commentary — everyone changes and evolves (I would hope!), and that is based on changing times, personal changes, new data, etc. We now have data on the actual effects of the 1994 crime bill that we simply didn’t have in 1994. That is not the issue.
The issue is having the integrity and strength to stand up and say that you don’t agree with what you did at that time, and that you regret the consequences of your choices. Every time I interview someone for a job, I ask them to tell me about a professional mistake they made **and what they learned from it**. That is the question I am asking of Senator Markey (and Schumer), and I believe they should have an answer.
I have no doubt that next month and next year and ultimately in 2045, Congressman Kennedy will be asked questions about votes he took earlier in his career that had unintended negative consequences, and with which he no longer agrees. I will expect him to have an answer, and based on what I’ve seen of him, he will.
Christopher says
Do you have cites re: John Walsh? In my experience he is not into attacking fellow Dems. In fact he has made comments in my presence praising vigorous primaries.
BKay says
It’s good to hear that you’ve had the experience. Maybe Walsh is feeling particularly threatened by the Kennedy challenge, but that doesn’t seem to be his approach in this race.
The contentious negotiations about the climate forum/debate (that ultimately happened in a half empty auditorium, I’m assuming because the Kennedy campaign was right in their assertion that most voters weren’t yet engaged in this race) was covered pretty broadly in the media. From my read on that coverage, the Markey campaign (with Walsh at the helm) seemed to be trying to embarrass Joe Kennedy as much as trying to actually schedule an event. (A reminder that Kennedy and Markey have virtually identical lifetime ratings from the League of Conservation Voters, with Kennedy at 95% and Markey at 94%.)
But my favorite was when Walsh appeared to try to undermine Congressman Kennedy as a serious leader, but referring to him as a the “handsome redhead.” You can see that here:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/09/11/markey-has-just-begun-fight/4ovhZMkpAv1EcitqAMyU7H/story.html?event=event12
I guess Walsh didn’t get the memo that snarking at people about their physical characteristics isn’t the most “progressive” option out there.
There’s also a ton about how Congressman Kennedy has nothing going for him by his family name, which I find particularly laughable. Anyone who’s seen him speak for more than 30 seconds knows how ridiculous that is.
Christopher says
Then why have you not been more charitable towards Joe Biden for exactly these reasons?
jconway says
It’s a good question. In my book Markey is just as “bad” as Biden on those issues, but has definitely been consistently better on climate than Biden or frankly his primary opponents. Charley is very obviously a single issue climate voter at this point, which I genuinely respect him for and he has a point that if we mess up that issue no other issue matters. I still don’t see how a re-elected Markey in a Republican Senate moves the ball more than a freshly elected Kennedy who can draw far more media attention to the issues he cares to.
SomervilleTom says
Because:
1. Mr. Biden is running for President, not Senate
2. Mr. Markey has evolved with the times (and with me) to a far greater extent than Mr. Biden.
jconway says
And that generations African American leaders were dead wrong. There’s a Firing Line where Charlie Rangel and Bill Buckley debate drug decriminalization and it’s the conservative who’s the rational one why Rangel is such a drug warrior he’d make Nancy Reagan blush. Now that white people are experiencing an epidemic of addiction of their own we are calling it a public health crisis and treating it as such. The crack epidemic should have been treated the same way we are treating opioids today. Too many addicts ended up behind bars who should have gotten the treatment to get better.
Last time I checked the DEA hasn’t really gone after the Sacklers the way they went after Pablo and El Chapo. One wonders if the cartels were controlled by old money white families with their names on buildings if the law would have treated them with same kid gloves it treated Big Pharma.
There’s a reason blacks under 35 are overwhelmingly voting for Bernie or Warren. Those two have been consistent advocates against this kind of miscarriage of justice and in favor of something tangible to benefit these communities. The old gatekeepers proved themselves irrelevant in beating Donald Trump in 2016.
doubleman says
I know this is true from earlier polls and reports but have not seen an additional breakdown of the recent national polling showing some staggering numbers about younger support.
For voters under 35
Sanders is the preferred candidate of 52%
Warren is second with 17%
Biden comes in with 6%
For voters over 60, Biden dominates and Bernie does poorly, but the gaps are not nearly as stark.
What happens to younger voters if this is a Biden v. Trump general? What’s turnout like?
(And alternatively, would older voters stay home or switch if Biden is not the nominee, or is the Blue No Matter Who feeling much stronger?)
Christopher says
Young voters are as free as anyone to vote as they please in the primary, but Heaven help this country (and them!) if they act like spoiled brats if their choice does not prevail. Vote blue no matter who all the way!
doubleman says
I mean this in all playfulness, but OK Boomer.
Christopher says
Born in 78 for the record.
jconway says
It’s a playful meme, even my students say “okay boomer” when I struggle with new tech or a pop culture reference I’m too old to get, and we’re both millennials as far as I know (or are they are Gen z? the whole labeling generations thing gets muddled after Gen X…)
petr says
All things get muddled when using algebraic variables to describe discrete things: in algebra X is the unknown, which–unless we know for certain the constraints and/or other variables–could very well include boomers and millenials.
The follow-on generation to the ‘boomers’ was termed ‘Gen X’ before they came into prominence and precisely because it was not, at the time, known what they would do…
Christopher says
To paraphrase Congressman Richardson (Thom Barry) to Leo McGarry – Don’t try to tell these guys how to be leaders of black men; you look like an idiot!:)
SomervilleTom says
@And that generations African American leaders were dead wrong:
Granted. So what?
There will be important issues where our leaders of today will prove to be dead wrong, in spite of making decisions based on the best information available today.
The very best cutting edge genetics of 2001 was quite confident that RNA played no active role (beyond cell reproduction) in the cell and that large segments of DNA were “junk” that were ignored by cell machinery. We know now that both are false. Is it reasonable to attack a geneticist today because he or she agreed with those assertions in 2001? I think not.
In fact, I would argue that the consequence of this mistaken insistence on past purity will be to make the very progress that we so desperately need absolutely impossible. We need only look at the institutional Roman Catholic Church to see what happens to an institution when it declares that dogma is “infallible” and must therefore never be left behind as mistaken.
If a leader of today asserts a position that has been demonstrated to be dead wrong, even though it appeared correct 25 years ago, then that leader deserves to be passed by. That’s not what’s happening here, though.
I remind you that this discussion is about Mr. Markey, Mr. Kennedy, and Ms. Liss-Riordan. The opinion of voters about Ms. Warren, Mr. Sanders, and other presidential candidates are irrelevant.
So far as I know, none of the candidates in this Senate primary is asserting that the 1994 Crime Bill should be law today.
I also reject your final sentence, but we’ve been over that ground so many times that I’m weary to tread it again.
Ann says
I think that it’s important to take historical context into account, but I am more interested in how progressive politicians who supported the crime bill back in the day explain their thinking then and then describe their thinking now. I would welcome Markey coming out and openly explaining how he came to his vote at that time but also how he feels about his vote with hindsight. Finally, and most importantly, what does he believe must change now and how would he go about achieving change in the criminal justice “system” in the future?
BKay says
I agree, Ann. I know this discussion has gotten a little off topic, but your remark brings me back to the point of my original post. Though it’s disappointing, I am not blaming Senator Markey or Schumer for votes that occurred in a different time and set of circumstances. But why haven’t we heard much (anything?) from them on this important issue now? Whay can’t they own a choice that turned out to be a bad one? Someone else in this discussion said it well — if you tout your experience and history, you have to own all of it.
Christopher says
The 1994 Crime Bill was a good vote to take, certainly for the time. As I recall the Right maligned its community outreach “midnight basketball” efforts. This is another example of if all the supposed liberals voted for it then maybe you are the one who needs to take a breath. Of course the Democratic leadership and DSCC are going to support their incumbent colleagues.
jconway says
I mean even Bernie voted for it. I think there’s a difference between voting for it and being the lead author. I also think Bernie can point to a stronger record on other criminal justice questions. It’s also why candidates with long voting records have not won election to the presidency in the modern era. Even HW Bush or Nixon had small paper trails in their congressional years compared to the long tenured Senators running today.
Christopher says
Politics – the only profession where experience is considered a negative:(
jconway says
Bernie has almost nearly as much experience as Biden as in public office and he voted the right way on the same questions more often than Biden. Warren was a professor when she challenged his ill conceived bankruptcy reform. Chuck Grassley also has more experience, but we wouldn’t vote for him since he’s a conservative and we’re not. Biden has been a lifelong centrist, it’s dishonest to say he’s a progressive.
Now I’ll happily vote for a centrist like Joe Biden against Trump. That’s where I break ranks with the progressive litmus test crowd, but primaries are precisely where we should have progressive litmus tests. In a primary I have no reason to vote for him. Every other major Democrat running save Buttigieg or Klobuchar is to his left
SomervilleTom says
@I’ll happily vote for a centrist like Joe Biden against Trump:
I rejoice that for nearly five decades I’ve lived in a state where I can duck that choice.
The only presidential vote that counts in Massachusetts is a vote in the Massachusetts Democratic primary. No Massachusetts Republican is ever going to be nominated by the GOP. No Democratic nominee is ever going to lose the electoral college votes of MA.
I understand that a fundamental change in how we vote will change that calculus. To quote the song: “We’ll burn that bridge when we get there.“
Christopher says
If we’re talking years alone, maybe, but Biden’s resume includes chairing two key Senate committees and VP.
jconway says
Bernie was a two term mayor of a major city which means he has more executive experience and has run staffs larger than those run by Joe Biden. Buttigieg, Booker, and Bloomberg* could all make similar arguments about their tenure as mayor.
He’s also the only candidate to serve in local office and both houses of Congress. I think people, especially in the DC press corps, dismiss his political pragmatism and record of leadership since it was not all in Washington and was largely swimming against the tides of the swamp rather than with it.
*this primary was brought to you by the letter B
doubleman says
*small* city. 🙂
Still one more regionally significant than South Bend, however. And he also did a good job!
SomervilleTom says
My favorite quote about Burlington, allegedly offered by a member of the Burlington political establishment in response to a suggestion that portions of Vermont secede:
Christopher says
Not that there’s anything wrong with that!:)
Christopher says
Cute final line. I still think Biden’s is more relevant, but YMMV.
jconway says
Hey you’re looking at a guy who favors a parliamentary democracy where the hess of government would always be somewhat of an insider, but alas, in America anyone can be president.
SomervilleTom says
ALL of the available information at the time suggested that it was a good bill. There is no shame in being the lead author.
When the data begins coming in that the resulting legislation has unintended negative consequences, then leadership has an obligation to revise the bill.
Is ANY current candidate defending the provisions of the 1994 Crime Bill as good law today? I think not.
doubleman says
Joe Biden does (beyond VAWA) and claims that that the bill did not lead to mass incarceration. He says the three strikes aspect was the only bad part of the bill.
doubleman says
oop – you’re referring to the Senate candidates I see. Correct – none of them are saying it is good.
SomervilleTom says
I certainly part company with Joe Biden on this and a host of other issues.
I like Ed Markey in the Senate primary and Elizabeth Warren in the presidential primary.
jconway says
I won’t lose any sleep at night no matter who wins. They are all progressive Democrats who feel the same way about the issues. I think what is unfortunate is the attitude on the Markey campaign that he’s the Mother Theresa of climate change and that this is the only issue we should be deciding our vote on. That everyone else is a shill for the fossil fuel industry.
Mike Bloomberg is arguably better on climate than Markey having shut down far more coal plants with his Beyond Coal initiative as his ads point out. He’s also a billionaire who does not want to pay more in taxes, does not support Medicare for All, and does not support Dodd Frank. He will not get my vote in the primary, even though he’s arguably the best of the remaining candidates who’s done something about climate or gun control.
Kennedy in my view is better on labor, living wages, and immigration. Riordon is just as good on those issues and she seemed to prioritize climate more than Kennedy, she’s also the clear underdog without fame or incumbency behind her. Maybe she gets my vote. Maybe Kennedy does if it’s close.
Ed’s holier than thou arrogance which has infected the attitudes of his supporters has been a big turnoff from the second he got a challenger. Kennedy and his supporters have said nothing but nice things about Markey. For them this race is about elevating Joe, not demoting Ed. I’ll also be fine with Ed for another term. Our very future as a country is at stake the coming fall in the presidential campaign, that is far more important to me and my family.
BKay says
This captures a lot of my feelings on the Senate race really well, thanks. I voted for Senator Markey, think he’s decent man and a good democrat. Still, my choice in this race is Congressman Kennedy because of all the strengths I see that he could bring to the office (being out front on the issues, leading with energy and passion, in the mold of Elizabeth Warren). I’ve been dismayed by how negative supporters of Senator Markey have been, and how disrespectful and sometimes antagonistic of Congressman Kennedy. (Even here, with that clock on the climate forum/debate, even after the event was over!) I feel a need to point out some of the inconsistencies and disappointments about Senator Markey because I barely recognize the “Mother Theresa” character that is being put forward. I hope I’m succeeding in my efforts to do that with respect and credit for the good work he has done.
Charley on the MTA says
Sorry, the “disrespect” was from Joe himself. He could have showed up. He didn’t. We all got the message loud and clear – I don’t need you.
As BKay has been pointing out, I’m glad that Joe has learned some of the language and tropes of the climate movement — he’s learning. There’s another guy who’s earned our trust, with action. Calling him the “Mother Theresa” of climate is surely a small and disrespectful way to talk about a guy who has been doing the work for 40 years.
Markey doesn’t have a perfect record, nor will anyone with a track record as long as his. But this race, as in every race, requires discernment. I reject straw man arguments that he’s a “progressive angel”. And yes, some things are really important. Markey’s got good judgment — not 100%, no. But he has put his back into “the fights that matter”, as the campaign says.
BKay says
Hi Charley!
I was quoting JConway on the “Mother Theresa” descriptor, and I certainly apologize if that came off as small or disrespectful. I respect the work Senator Markey has done, and the fact that he was championing the issue of climate long before many others were.
But my point remains that many who support Senator Markey seem to be portraying him as the only real progressive in this race, and the only choice who “really” cares about climate change. Even your own comment above suggests it: “I’m glad that Joe has learned some of the language and tropes of the climate movement — he’s learning.” This is a member of Congress who has a 95% lifetime approval rating by the League of Conservation Voters, and was an original co-sponser of the GND, and many are acting like he only discovered yesterday that climate change is an issue, and that he is just starting to care about it. The records for both Senator Markey and Congressman Kennedy simply don’t support that.
jconway says
The reality is climate change has gotten worse in the last 40 years and not better. From my perspective, wages have gotten worse. Housing costs have gone up. Our transit system is broken and hasn’t gotten any better. Our education system is in desperate need of new funding and support for teachers and fewer unfunded mandates. We can blame the Republicans all we want, but the reality is this legislature could override the Governors veto and still does nothing.
The reality is there was a Democratic President and a Democratic majority and climate change was not the priority it needed to be. I’m tired of the boomers wars, debt, and pollution being dumped on the backs of my generation. I want people my age with my values in office. If AOC or AP were running against Markey, I doubt he’d have the progressive support he is enjoying.
Maybe I blank my ballot. Let’s see what Riordon says and does. I’m underwhelmed by Markey’s record and Kennedy’s campaign. I see little hope that he’ll pass any of the legislation he says he will pass or that he’ll do much to benefit me with six more years. He’ll be in his 80’s at the end of the term. The senate has been full of old white guys for too long, time to change it up. I’m entitled to my opinion and my vote without being accused of not caring about the climate. I’ve never felt Markey cared about me. I think a majority of Massachusetts voters feel the same way.
petr says
I find this specie of elision to be particularly galling.
‘Then-votes‘ for ‘now-infamous‘ bills suggest a desire to have elected prophets in 1994. That’s a mighty strange sentiment in a post entitled No One is a Progressive Angel, So Let’s Stop Pretending
Who exactly is it, here, who is doing the pretending?
Which vote has now-representative Kennedy taken that, in 2044, will be infamous? Without claim to anything in the way of prophet ecstasy I’ll venture a guess and say, simply: potentially, any or all of them. That’s the way the future works.