…or four if you count Lawrence Lessig. Lincoln Chafee has announced the end of his presidential campaign. A lot of people did not seem to understand the raison d’etre for his candidacy, myself included.
Please share widely!
Reality-based commentary on politics.
for one, his campaign is too much of a stunt. I see no hope of him getting any realistic support.
He epitomized the long dead Thurston Howell wing of the Republican party. Down to awkwardly bragging about preferring to work with horses instead of people, putting his Brown classics major to good use by quoting liberally from Aristophanes Lysistrata in today’s speech, and putting metrification on his top 10 agenda. He truly spent his entire presidential campaign like an audition for the House of Lords.
Then someone like Chafee would not risk loosing his potential peerage for such a “tilting at windmills”.
…he even had the hereditary part down!:)
The Lysistrata reference is particularly tone deaf, given how Yazidi women are killing themselves rather than continue to be ISIS sex slaves.
Too bad, because Chaffee was the only one on the stage calling for better government functioning, protesting all the Hillary-isms with private email servers and speaking up about cronyinsm. Now Hillary has no incentive to straighten herself up in that regard, with Sanders particularly reluctant to pick up the mantle of good government.
I sometimes forget that the rest of America does not have the insight into New England regional politics and government available to those of us who pay attention.
The premise that Lincoln Chaffee or anybody else from Rhode Island can lecture Hillary Clinton about “better government functioning” or, for that matter, political corruption is hilariously ironic to those of us who know Rhode Island politics.
Cheapshots like those offered by Mr. Chaffee in the debate are not policy. His decision to turn to such tactics exemplifies why (1) he is not presidential material, (2) he is no longer a candidate, and (3) Rhode Island so seldom produces effective national leaders.
There is no need for anyone, including Mr. Sanders, to “pick up the mantle of good government” — Ms. Clinton wears it just fine. Watching all five candidates on the stage that Tuesday night demonstrated to me that Ms. Clinton is the ONLY candidate capable of wearing the mantle.
The two candidates who most clearly demonstrated their incompetence in government functioning are no longer in the race.
Cheap shots are not policy. As far as I can tell, the only reason Mr. Chaffee picked up the “mantle of good government” was to attempt to strangle Ms. Clinton with it. The effort was hideously inappropriate and inept, so much so that the high point of the evening was when the moderator asked Ms. Clinton if she would like to respond. Her devastatingly eloquent answer said all that needed to be said, and epitomizes someone who actually WEARS the mantle of good government:
“No”
> The premise that Lincoln Chaffee or anybody else from Rhode Island can lecture Hillary Clinton about “better government functioning” or, for that matter, political corruption is hilariously ironic to those of us who know Rhode Island politics.
“Anybody else’ from Rhode Island’, really?
Chaffee was an imperfect vessel, but at least he struck the right note. YES Hillary assumed the mantle of clean government in that debate, ignoring the whole pay-for-play history of some of her political supporters, and the whole Clinton foundation nexus.
But Hillary only performs well on that front when her back is against the wall. As soon as people stop paying attention, the tap is turned back on.
What I am saying here, nothing controversial, is that we need to pay attention for our own good – speak about good governance and against cronyism. Else, Hillary’s campaign motto will indeed be dogs bark, the caravan moves on.
Rhode Island has a political culture epitomized by Buddy Cianci. Lincoln Chaffee is a product of that culture. I’m not saying that he’s personally corrupt. I’m saying that his attempted attack on Ms. Clinton might have worked in Rhode Island politics — it doesn’t work against Ms. Clinton and it doesn’t work on a national stage.
Your continued attack on Ms. Clinton similarly might play well in Rhode Island. It is far less persuasive here.
I am not ready to indict the whole Rhode Island for Chaffee’s shortcomings. I remember the greatest criticism to his presidential campaign came from the local Rhode Island press, on an editorial – the day he announced, no less.
Rhide Island is doing fine, I can tell. Just as fine as we do up north.
My continued thing on Hillary is not attack, but criticism. Surely she can survive it.
I hope to have the fortitude never to kiss up.If I ever fail, please give me a gentle nudge.
Yes, to do so would be a genetic fallacy (on top of the various ad-homs made about Chafee above). I read Chafee’s withdrawal speech, and it seemed like he was just saying ideas that popped into his head, thus confirming (at least for me) that it was a good idea for him to drop out. Having said that though, I think of the Democrats, he was the only one who mentioned the killing of civilians by the US and our ally Saudi Arabia (and drawing the parallel with our involvement in Vietnam earlier in the text):
I can understand why the rest of the candidates choose not to publicly criticize the results of American militarism – particularly that conducted under a Democratic president – but it’s more so disappointing that even us in the peanut gallery here – who aren’t politicians running for national office ignore this. There’s only so long we can blame the media and politicians when we know that crimes are being committed and we don’t call any of the former to account.
As far as the reasonable position that you were attempting to argue and wall you kept confronting, well, things have gotten a little kooky around here.
Why in the world did you just downrate my comment?
This?
Because it gave credit to Chafee?
Or, it was unacceptable as it implied that Hillary Clinton may not be perfect, or god forbid, actually even as Secretary of State partially responsible for what has happened in Libya and what she’s advocated for and is suggesting we do in Syria (set up a no-fly zone and instigate a war with Russia)?
Jeesh, talk about inverting cause and effect. I’m not indicting anybody, I’m merely stating obvious FACT. Like it or not, if you want to drink world-class wine, you don’t choose vineyards in Massachusetts or Vermont. If you want to watch big-league baseball, you don’t go to a game in Augusta, ME. If you’re looking for presidential material, you don’t (currently) turn to Rhode Island.
I invite anyone to offer a POSITIVE example of a national political leader, of either party, from Rhode Island whose been active within the past, say thirty years (since 1985). Lincoln Chafee was never presidential material, in the same way that a wine from Nashoba Valley is never going to compete with a wine from the Sonoma Valley, Napa Valley, Alexander Valley or the wine-producing regions of Italy, Germany, Austria, or France.
Perhaps someday Rhode Island will produce a great political leader. Lincoln Chafee wasn’t the one.
Obama had him on the VP shortlist and he was also on the shortlist for Defense and State, he is currently Armed Services Chair and a quiet but effective player in veterans issues, foreign policy, and health care reform. I like him a lot, but certainly he doesn’t have the stature of a Warren or even a Sanders.
Putting aside all the neat analogies about world class wines and world class politicians, Chafee was the only one I’ve seen up till know in the campaign season who attempted to bring to attention that – not only the instability we’ve created or exacerbated (depending on how you see it) – but that American operations and those of our allies have resulted in killing scores of innocent people directly. I know we were more able to confront this reality during Vietnam, and it seems at least Democrats and the media were more interested in confronting this reality during the Bush administration, but right now, it’s few and far between in the mainstream news and amongst Democratic politicians who I hear talking about this. By his absence, IMHO, we all lost a little. Of course his absence would not be as grave were one of the other candidates *in either party* to voice this concern as well. Of course, it’s something that I’m finding being ignored even here in responses as yours.
I agree with you that our killing of innocents needs to be talked about. Perhaps you’ll agree with me that those statements might have been more effective if they came from Ms. Clinton, Mr. O’Malley, or Mr. Sanders, or if he had not accompanied them by his apparent embrace of “Clintonitis” (the malady infecting nearly the entire GOP, currently resurgent in the “Hillary” variant after the US population developed widespread resistance to the original “Bill” variant).
Mr. Chafee offered a platform that every progressive Democrat can find much to agree with. Sadly, he also brought to the debate a smallness of character that I associate with Rhode Island politics (sorry, I just do — Jack Reed notwithstanding).
I agree with you that by his absence, we all lose a little. Perhaps you’ll agree with me that had he not been so strident in his attacks on Ms. Clinton, he might still be in contention — he would certainly have more influence on all of us.
To put it in the local vernacular, the Chafees were the Cabots/Lodges/Saltonstalls to Cianci’s James Curley. Chafee has many, many faults, but being on the Cianci side of Rhode Island political culture is not one of them.
I’m not trying to say that Mr. Chaffee IS Mr. Cianci. I completely agree with your analogy. I’m talking about the Rhode Island political culture, not the individuals within that culture. James Curley DIED in 1958, and last held public office in 1950. Buddy Cianci, on the other hand is still alive and competed (unsuccessfully) in the 2014 Mayoral race in Providence.
The fact that you cite names like Curley, Cabot, Lodge, and Saltanstall demonstrates my point. How many decades do we have to look back to find a Cabot, Lodge, or Saltonstall in Massachusetts politics?
Mr. Chafee is a product of the political culture that produced him. That political culture has not played in the “big leagues” of national politics in a very long time.
Lessig’s race is all about advocating for campaign finance reform. But that’s an inconvenient topic for either party, D included.
So Lessig was kept of the CNN debate, even though he was arguably more popular than three others on that stage.
Our political system works for self preservation first, solving people’s problems second.
the problem of campaign finance after Citizens United.
A President Lessig is NEVER going to convince Speaker Ryan to pass a bill limiting campaign donations or spending, nor a bill for public financing of campaigns. Moreover, the people a future President Hillary Clinton will nominate for SCOTUS are going to be just as good as the people Lessig would nominate on this issue.
So, all the dollars going to Lessig would be better spent on electing Dems to the Senate.
Lessig has become the epitome of an Ivy League professor whose mind has left the real world behind. Which is sad, because the purpose of education & theory is to understand the real world, to make life better for people.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
It gave to Scott Brown to reward him for a people’s pledge in NH, backed Bob Dold in IL and other politicians who have mere lip service to keeping money out of politics and pledging to bipartisanship. His pledge to serve one term and have a committee pick his Vice President is another sign of his politic naïveté. He also advised Sanders and then quit by pouting and claiming in a boldfaced and totally groundless fashion that Bernie didn’t talk about the billionaire class controlling politics enough and was “too focused” on economic inequality. All his money is coming from Silicon Valley libertarians like Peter Thiel and the TEDtalk set. I bet he quits like Webb and joins No Labels too.
How can Lessig not quit the D race, at this point, since he’s not even allowed to enter the debates?
Yes, his PAC to end all PACs was not a very bright idea. All it did was introduce even more political dollars into a system already brimming with lots of political dollars. Many have pointed that out at the time.
Don’t know about his Scott Brown donation and his interaction with Sanders.
But here is the problem: unless we speak about the things we care about during the campaign, the visibility is not raised, and politicians will not have a reason to fix anything after the campaign.
Lessig is doing a service with his run; he’s keeping the issue he cares for alive. One would hope his campaign gets more visibility – that is not the case yet, unfortunately. But it’s only because he’s looked at as the enemy at the gate by the moneyed interests – donors and politicians alike.
One forgets that the problem with money in politics is not just of donors willing to influence politicians. It is also of politicians willing to be influenced. It takes two to tango.
A Lessig in the Dem debates would have been a Lessig with 5-10%v of the Dem primary electorate. Maybe more, once it becomes a three way race.
You bet that would have made a difference to the cause – even if Lessig did not actually win.
It’s a way to sap supporters away from Sanders and a way for everyone in the TEDtalk set to say they are “above the system”. There already is a candidate fueled by small donors and fundamentally changing our political system and his name is Bernie Sanders. I really don’t see what Lessig adds that Bernie doesn’t bring to the table, other than a lame paen to “no labels” Broderism and a complete lack of political experience or achievement. Let him into the debate if you want, we let Chafee and Webb in, but I really don’t get his candidacy.
But is Sanders really running to win? I’m not at all persuaded. He’s too deferential to Clinton. He’s too reluctant to speak up against the status quo in the Democratic party.
He’s in second place, and is still running “just to pull Clinton left”.
In view of that, there is no danger in Lessig siphoning voters away from Sanders. On the other hand, if Sanders got really serious about his own race, this would be an entirely different argument.
Let me put it another way: Sanders has already exceeded his percentage if all he wants is to pull the D party left. To grow, he really has to start giving reasons why he’s better than Hillary.
He needs to start being critical of her.
For that, he has to de-program and reassemble himself. As a Socialist in the Senate, one has the feeling he functioned by criticizing Republicans from the far left, while being always reluctant to criticize Democrats from the left.
Else, presumably, he was not going to be appointed to any Senate committees – and would have been challenged in Vermont general elections.
Old habits die hard, but he’s in a different position now, and the voters’ expectations for him have changed.
A) Is he running to win?
I’m not so sure as of the last debate, he wasn’t really prepared for the gun question or foreign policy and clearly isn’t prepared to be President tomorrow, unlike Hilkary.
B) does he need to win?
There is a wealth of literature from political science confirming that promises are largely kept by elected officials and it actually influences their priorities and plan of governance. Hillary having to go after small donors, pledging to overturn Citizens United, pledging to reform police, backing paid leave and opposing TPP are all examples of her moving to where the electorate is. We can quibble over sincerity, if she is a centrist technocrat the center has shifted decisively left thanks to Sanders and she has to embrace it. And it indicates that this is how she will govern, which was unclear for me until the debate. So to the extent we got a far more liberal Hillary that’s a major win. I don’t remember paid leave, fair trade, or gun control on her agenda until she had to position against Bernie.
C) Lessig isn’t in it to win and no one should embrace his ideas
Do you want a new constitutional convention? A one term politically castracized presidency? A Vice President by committee? Online referendums? These are ideas that are cool for freshmen debate sessions and awful as public policy. He is bringing an arrogant style to empty substance, Bernie is bringing substance and style the eventual nominee is co-opting or contrasting with in ways that are making her more progressive in the here and now. I don’t see Lessig advancing any ideas Bernie isn’t already advancing in a better way, other than the ideas that are uniquely his and truly awful.
Good analysis, J. Lessig would certainly help himself if his practical ideas would be more feasible.
Sanders has changed during this campaign. At least on campaign finance reform, a year ago he was where Lessig is now – proposing things like a constitutional amendament barring anything except physical persons from making campaign contributuins. A nice idea with little chance of passing – but stoking the discussion nevertheless, not lettingvit die.
In the meanwhile, he has developed respectable policy position papers on many if not all issues – putting a lot of meat on the bones, and showing the path from A to B. I can’t tell if that preceded his rise in the polls, or came at the same time – but it certainly helped.
That’s what Lessig does not have – also, it is name recognition he is lacking. But he’s pulling enough support to get to the Dem debates – if the gilded gates open for him. Onxe he’s in, it’s the big leagues. He’ll be forced to evolve, and start thinking of policy, not just politics.
Long story short, it comes to this: does he deserve to be in the debates or not? What is keeping him out?
Like I said above, if we let Chafee and Webb in who had less money and were also polling around 1% (if we’re being charitable), I don’t see why Lessig shouldn’t be there. I’m just arguing he doesn’t have a constituency in the party. He combines many of the good positions of Sanders, the silliness of Chafee, and the Broderist moral superiority of a Webb into a rather unappealing package in my humble opinion.
And I agree that Sanders is starting to go the distance. I haven’t defected all the way to Hillary like my friend Tom, but in the words of my father who has never been much of a fan of hers (opposing her from the left) “Christ, the Republicans just made her President!”. If she won over Big Jim, it’s probably game over for the primary, but I hope Bernie does better in the next debates. It’ll only elevate his cause and make our eventual nominee better.
I’m not as optimistic about his chances. In any case, even though he won’t be at the debates, he will have a chance to appear at the upcoming Black Lives Matter forum (whose details are being worked out). Last I checked, he got an invitation but hadn’t responded yet.
“Lawrence Lessig Ends His Long-Shot Presidential Bid“