David S. Bernstein speculates that Florida Senator George LeMieux may provide the needed 60th vote in favor of a key portion of the small business bill currently before the Senate. Regular readers of this blog will recall that I've been a bit obsessed about the possibility that LeMieux might be a wildcard in the Senate because of his presumed loyalty to Charlie Crist, who appointed him. However, so far at least that hasn't been the case, and in fact LeMieux endorsed regular GOP candidate Marco Rubio.
Of course, if LeMieux really wants to help Rubio, I'd suggest that he vote with the Democrats on the community loans bill...then announce that he'll vote for Elena Kagan
And then LeMieux should hold a press conference and denounce Charlie Crist for appointing a RINO to the United States Senate, and point out that Marco Rubio can be trusted to always stand up for the conservative beliefs and values that all real Floridians share, unlike Obama-loving liberals such as Crist and his stooge George LeMieux.
That's the kind of politics that I'd like to see, anyway.
Showing posts with label Charlie Crist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charlie Crist. Show all posts
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Defending Hack Politicians
I've been thinking about Ross Douthat's case against Charlie Crist that he presented after Crist jumped last week. Douthat basically says that rather than a case in which the rabble knocked off a good man, this was a case of a hack pol getting what he deserved.
I do think that one can overdo the meaning of all this. While Crist is a sitting governor, that certainly doesn't make him entitled to a Senate nomination, and Marco Rubio isn't chopped liver; he was briefly the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. And just because Florida Republicans chose (at least in enough polls to matter) their very conservative former Speaker over their sitting moderate governor doesn't mean that Crist was necessarily "purged." It's just an election (well, sort of) outcome.
However, that doesn't get to Douthat's case against Crist.
So, what's his case?
Well, first of all, he says that Crist is ambitious (motivated here by "self-interest," and earlier Douthat quoted at length an article about how unusually ambitious the governor supposedly is). I'm sure Crist is ambitious; they're all ambitious. Surely the difference in "ambition" between any two people running for the same office has to be slim at best. They may have different agendas within their ambition; they may have other things going for them or lacking; but ambition? They want to be United States Senators, and after that virtually all United States Senators want to be president. So I'm not buying that part of it.
Second, Douthat gives a range of issue positions. In one post: "Fiscally irresponsible on taxes and spending alike, and eager to use bailout dollars to delay the hard choices that Crist’s own profligacy created." In the other, we get links to people complaining about those same things, and a claim that this is a "a time when the country desperately needs politicians who are equipped to make tough choices." The one other specific "tough choice" that Douthat does talk about is that Crist is against cutting Social Security benefits, while Rubio supported such cuts (by slowly raising the retirement age). That's it. So the case against Crist is that he was "eager" to use stimulus dollars, as opposed to other GOP governors who railed against the stimulus package, loudly proclaimed their intention to reject the money, and then quietly accepted whatever they could get. Is that an "easy" vs. a "tough" choice? I don't know. Politically, it was obviously the wrong choice if he wanted the GOP nomination; that might make him a poor judge of politics, but it's hard for me to see it as taking the "easy" choice.
OK, what about Social Security? Here, I think it's fair to say that Crist's call is, in fact, the easy (that is, popular) one, while Rubio's is politically far more risky. The question then becomes: are easy choices bad? What does it mean for a politician to make an "easy" choice? Generally, what it means is that whoever is talking thinks that he or she is correct, but that the pol's constituents are wrong -- no one calls something unpopular an easy choice, and I've yet to see anyone seriously commend a pol for doing something the observer thinks is a stupid, but unpopular policy. Such as, for example, Crist's decision to take stimulus money.
So then the question becomes: why should Crist's character come into question because he sides with his constituents against Ross Douthat? Maybe his constituents are right! In that case, he's doing the right thing, "easy" or not. Maybe neither is "right" in any absolute sense, but as their governor and would-be Senator, Crist will choose the interests of Floridians over the interests of the rest of the nation. Is that wrong?
Well, now I get (yeah, I know: finally! Sorry.) to the main point, which is that I don't think it is wrong, in the abstract. Or right, in the abstract. It is a legitimate representative style, no more, no less. There is no "correct" thing to do when a pol must choose between the narrow interests of her constituency and the broader interests of the nation. At least, not across all districts and all representatives. Instead, the best way to think about these things, as I've argued before, is in terms of the representative relationship that a pol has with her constituents, and not about "representation" as some sort of abstract, unchanging rulebook. Thought of this way, what matters are the promises that pols make to voters: specific promises, such as a promise to reform or to protect Social Security, but even more importantly promises about representation, such as a promise to fight for one's state or ideology. So if Crist claimed to be a strict conservative but then accepted stimulus money and hugged the president, that's a failure of representation -- but if he promised to fight for Florida regardless of the partisan consequences, then it's probably good, solid, representation. Even if it's a position that Ross Douthat doesn't hold. The same thing is true, in my view, of true partisan hacks. If a pol basically promises to be blindly, unthinkingly loyal to the party above all else, and then carries that out in office, he's done what he said he would do -- and that's probably good, solid, representation.
Now, there is one accusation Douthat levels that I do think is a serious one: that Crist is a "time-server." In fact, I think that's a reasonable charge against Arlen Specter. Beyond his comical repositioning to enable him to win reelection (which is a lot of fun to ridicule, but I think can be defended on grounds of representation), I think Specter has remarkably little to show for his century or two in the Senate (not quite thirty years? Go on, tell me another one). If Crist really has nothing to show for his time in government, then that's a good reason to feel that he's no loss to the nation should his campaign collapse. But if he's actually fought for the people of Florida, even if it was motivated purely as a means to the end of his own career...well, in my opinion, we can never have too many of that sort of politician. Now, I have no idea which of these is true about Crist, and of course whether one votes for him is a whole 'nother kettle of fish -- for example, I'm a dead partisan, so I'm not voting for independents or candidates from the other party even if I think they're terrific pols. But as far as the Republican Party being better off without Crist, I don't think that Douthat has made a convincing case so far.
I do think that one can overdo the meaning of all this. While Crist is a sitting governor, that certainly doesn't make him entitled to a Senate nomination, and Marco Rubio isn't chopped liver; he was briefly the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. And just because Florida Republicans chose (at least in enough polls to matter) their very conservative former Speaker over their sitting moderate governor doesn't mean that Crist was necessarily "purged." It's just an election (well, sort of) outcome.
However, that doesn't get to Douthat's case against Crist.
The Florida governor may be a moderate in some sense, but his real loyalties are to cynicism, self-interest (though this time, I’m pretty sure that he’s misjudged where those interests lie), and the persistent pursuit of the budgetary free lunch. At a time when the country desperately needs politicians who are equipped to make tough choices, Crist’s record suggests that he’s the last person that anyone — conservative or liberal — should want to see in a position of responsibility in Washington D.C.For Douthat, Crist and Arlen Specter, along with Dede Scozzafava, are "time-servers, trimmers and party hacks" that everyone, and not just conservative Republicans, are better off without.
So, what's his case?
Well, first of all, he says that Crist is ambitious (motivated here by "self-interest," and earlier Douthat quoted at length an article about how unusually ambitious the governor supposedly is). I'm sure Crist is ambitious; they're all ambitious. Surely the difference in "ambition" between any two people running for the same office has to be slim at best. They may have different agendas within their ambition; they may have other things going for them or lacking; but ambition? They want to be United States Senators, and after that virtually all United States Senators want to be president. So I'm not buying that part of it.
Second, Douthat gives a range of issue positions. In one post: "Fiscally irresponsible on taxes and spending alike, and eager to use bailout dollars to delay the hard choices that Crist’s own profligacy created." In the other, we get links to people complaining about those same things, and a claim that this is a "a time when the country desperately needs politicians who are equipped to make tough choices." The one other specific "tough choice" that Douthat does talk about is that Crist is against cutting Social Security benefits, while Rubio supported such cuts (by slowly raising the retirement age). That's it. So the case against Crist is that he was "eager" to use stimulus dollars, as opposed to other GOP governors who railed against the stimulus package, loudly proclaimed their intention to reject the money, and then quietly accepted whatever they could get. Is that an "easy" vs. a "tough" choice? I don't know. Politically, it was obviously the wrong choice if he wanted the GOP nomination; that might make him a poor judge of politics, but it's hard for me to see it as taking the "easy" choice.
OK, what about Social Security? Here, I think it's fair to say that Crist's call is, in fact, the easy (that is, popular) one, while Rubio's is politically far more risky. The question then becomes: are easy choices bad? What does it mean for a politician to make an "easy" choice? Generally, what it means is that whoever is talking thinks that he or she is correct, but that the pol's constituents are wrong -- no one calls something unpopular an easy choice, and I've yet to see anyone seriously commend a pol for doing something the observer thinks is a stupid, but unpopular policy. Such as, for example, Crist's decision to take stimulus money.
So then the question becomes: why should Crist's character come into question because he sides with his constituents against Ross Douthat? Maybe his constituents are right! In that case, he's doing the right thing, "easy" or not. Maybe neither is "right" in any absolute sense, but as their governor and would-be Senator, Crist will choose the interests of Floridians over the interests of the rest of the nation. Is that wrong?
Well, now I get (yeah, I know: finally! Sorry.) to the main point, which is that I don't think it is wrong, in the abstract. Or right, in the abstract. It is a legitimate representative style, no more, no less. There is no "correct" thing to do when a pol must choose between the narrow interests of her constituency and the broader interests of the nation. At least, not across all districts and all representatives. Instead, the best way to think about these things, as I've argued before, is in terms of the representative relationship that a pol has with her constituents, and not about "representation" as some sort of abstract, unchanging rulebook. Thought of this way, what matters are the promises that pols make to voters: specific promises, such as a promise to reform or to protect Social Security, but even more importantly promises about representation, such as a promise to fight for one's state or ideology. So if Crist claimed to be a strict conservative but then accepted stimulus money and hugged the president, that's a failure of representation -- but if he promised to fight for Florida regardless of the partisan consequences, then it's probably good, solid, representation. Even if it's a position that Ross Douthat doesn't hold. The same thing is true, in my view, of true partisan hacks. If a pol basically promises to be blindly, unthinkingly loyal to the party above all else, and then carries that out in office, he's done what he said he would do -- and that's probably good, solid, representation.
Now, there is one accusation Douthat levels that I do think is a serious one: that Crist is a "time-server." In fact, I think that's a reasonable charge against Arlen Specter. Beyond his comical repositioning to enable him to win reelection (which is a lot of fun to ridicule, but I think can be defended on grounds of representation), I think Specter has remarkably little to show for his century or two in the Senate (not quite thirty years? Go on, tell me another one). If Crist really has nothing to show for his time in government, then that's a good reason to feel that he's no loss to the nation should his campaign collapse. But if he's actually fought for the people of Florida, even if it was motivated purely as a means to the end of his own career...well, in my opinion, we can never have too many of that sort of politician. Now, I have no idea which of these is true about Crist, and of course whether one votes for him is a whole 'nother kettle of fish -- for example, I'm a dead partisan, so I'm not voting for independents or candidates from the other party even if I think they're terrific pols. But as far as the Republican Party being better off without Crist, I don't think that Douthat has made a convincing case so far.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Another Cutting Strings Update
Charlie Crist, as you all know by now, jumped. This blog's particular Crist-related obsession has been the possible effect of Gov. Crist (I-FL) on Crist-appointed lame duck Senator George LeMieux (R-FL). Of course, from Crist's incredibly bland announcement today it's hard to get any specific issue content, but we'll see what happens, right?
For what it's worth, LeMieux is currently the 16th most liberal Republican Senator (between Corker and Wicker). So we'll see where he ends up by election day. I guess I'll make a minor prediction: LeMieux will vacate his current spot as a regular-to-moderate conservative, and either move to the left, approaching the two Maine Senators, or to the right, where Vitter and Thune are. If he wants to work for Republicans in the future, he'll have to let Crist go in some visible way -- but if he wants to work for Crist, he'll have to let the GOP go.
Other strings-cutters of note, as long as I'm looking at Simon Jackman's rankings...Bob Bennett is a bit to LeMieux's left, at #11, between Gregg and Hatch (could Hatch now be too liberal for the GOP? Yikes!). The one Democrat whose strings may be cut is Arlen Specter, who was the 3rd-most-liberal Republican, but who immediately changed his voting pattern and is now a mainstream Democrat, the 30th most conservative in that party. If Specter loses his primary and becomes a lame duck, perhaps he'll decide to vote his conscience for the rest of the year -- except I'd expect it to take several months for him to locate that particular long-lost organ. Not that I'm against ambitious pols; far from it. I'm not much of a fan, however, of sanctimonious pols, and to my ear Specter is only topped by one other current Senator on that score.
For what it's worth, LeMieux is currently the 16th most liberal Republican Senator (between Corker and Wicker). So we'll see where he ends up by election day. I guess I'll make a minor prediction: LeMieux will vacate his current spot as a regular-to-moderate conservative, and either move to the left, approaching the two Maine Senators, or to the right, where Vitter and Thune are. If he wants to work for Republicans in the future, he'll have to let Crist go in some visible way -- but if he wants to work for Crist, he'll have to let the GOP go.
Other strings-cutters of note, as long as I'm looking at Simon Jackman's rankings...Bob Bennett is a bit to LeMieux's left, at #11, between Gregg and Hatch (could Hatch now be too liberal for the GOP? Yikes!). The one Democrat whose strings may be cut is Arlen Specter, who was the 3rd-most-liberal Republican, but who immediately changed his voting pattern and is now a mainstream Democrat, the 30th most conservative in that party. If Specter loses his primary and becomes a lame duck, perhaps he'll decide to vote his conscience for the rest of the year -- except I'd expect it to take several months for him to locate that particular long-lost organ. Not that I'm against ambitious pols; far from it. I'm not much of a fan, however, of sanctimonious pols, and to my ear Specter is only topped by one other current Senator on that score.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Some Florida Juice?
A little just-for-fun oddball speculation...
If you're Charlie Crist, and you're (about to be?) running for Senate as a third-party independent, where do you want to be on Wall Street regulation? Seems to me that you want two things; you want a centrist position that includes lots of bank-bashing, and you want to show that you can be effective as non-partisan Senator. It sure would enhance those credentials if you could swoop in and pick up three to five GOP votes (LeMieux, Corker, Collins, Snowe, Voinovich) for some compromise. Two questions: would Corker, Collins, Snowe and Voinovich be willing to be associated with indy candidate Crist? Note that if Crist can threaten to deliver LeMieux to the Dems, it gives the others an incentive to buy in. And, would the Dems be willing take the deal -- help Crist and get the bill, vs. don't help Crist and get the issue?
If I was advising indy candidate Crist, I'd look into whether both sides would go for it...maybe see if the Governator (another indy-like GOP governor of a state devastated by the real estate collapse) would go in on it with him. It'd be a hell of a roll-out for his third-party campaign.
If you're Charlie Crist, and you're (about to be?) running for Senate as a third-party independent, where do you want to be on Wall Street regulation? Seems to me that you want two things; you want a centrist position that includes lots of bank-bashing, and you want to show that you can be effective as non-partisan Senator. It sure would enhance those credentials if you could swoop in and pick up three to five GOP votes (LeMieux, Corker, Collins, Snowe, Voinovich) for some compromise. Two questions: would Corker, Collins, Snowe and Voinovich be willing to be associated with indy candidate Crist? Note that if Crist can threaten to deliver LeMieux to the Dems, it gives the others an incentive to buy in. And, would the Dems be willing take the deal -- help Crist and get the bill, vs. don't help Crist and get the issue?
If I was advising indy candidate Crist, I'd look into whether both sides would go for it...maybe see if the Governator (another indy-like GOP governor of a state devastated by the real estate collapse) would go in on it with him. It'd be a hell of a roll-out for his third-party campaign.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Getting Inside Their Heads
One of the cool things to me about studying politics is the interaction of group behavior and individual action. On the one hand, those who study elections can make very good estimates in advance without actually talking to a single person, because in the aggregate, it's possible to make very good guesses about what people will do. If you knew who I voted for in 2000, 2004, and 2008 you could predict how I would vote in 2012. I can predict today that Obama will carry Rhode Island in 2012 but lose Utah.
But that's not the only thing going on. There's also action: deliberate political choices. From my individual perspective, my vote choice in 2012 can be an active, deliberate choice, not "mere" behavior. From a remote view, one could describe Republican House retirements in the 2006 and 2008 cycles as "caused by" the incentives created by Bush's poor approval ratings and (in 2008) the meaninglessness of minority party life in the House. But from an individual view, Members of Congress choices were not simply the result of a bunch of factors; they were choices, made by human beings (this is, by the way, a way (vastly over-?) simplified version of what Hannah Arendt talks about in The Human Condition). So when we think about what will happen in politics, we're trying to use the tools of studying behavior to places where it does apply...but only sort of.
OK, from the lofty to the mundane: what's up with Charlie Crist? Well, what's up is that it sure looks as if Jonathan Chait called it: Crist is probably not going to contest the Republican nomination for Senate from Florida. He's either going to make a third-party run, or drop out. Chait correctly analyzed the incentives (the "behavior") part months ago. But you can never tell what's in the head of a politician (the "action" part). Maybe Crist would ignore the obvious signs that he couldn't win; maybe he was just plain attached to the GOP come-what-may; maybe he wanted the crusade to vindicate his place in the party, even more than he wanted to be a Senator. Or something else. You just can't get into the head of a pol.
Until, that is, they start letting you know what they're going to do. And with two weeks to the deadline, it sure looks as if Crist is out of the Republican primary. The veto of a bill popular with conservatives is a pretty good indication, but an even better one (via Goddard) is his comment to reporters he'll "that look at [running as an independent] later on." I don't see how a pol who intended to run in the Republican primary, who is taking shots for not being a loyal Republican, ever says anything other than pledging his complete and total devotion to the party. In other words, it's either a mistake (which can happen!) or, more likely, he's out.
Which also means, as I've been saying , that George LeMieux's vote on the Court nominee, banking legislation, and everything else is about to be subject to a completely different calculus than it's been since he took his seat in the Senate last year. If I were advising the Dems, I'd make it clear (as soon as Crist jumps) to Crist and LeMieux that they will consider Crist liable for any votes that LeMieux casts, beginning with the banking bill. Does Crist really think that the GOP position on that one will play well in a three-way Senate race? We may soon see.
But that's not the only thing going on. There's also action: deliberate political choices. From my individual perspective, my vote choice in 2012 can be an active, deliberate choice, not "mere" behavior. From a remote view, one could describe Republican House retirements in the 2006 and 2008 cycles as "caused by" the incentives created by Bush's poor approval ratings and (in 2008) the meaninglessness of minority party life in the House. But from an individual view, Members of Congress choices were not simply the result of a bunch of factors; they were choices, made by human beings (this is, by the way, a way (vastly over-?) simplified version of what Hannah Arendt talks about in The Human Condition). So when we think about what will happen in politics, we're trying to use the tools of studying behavior to places where it does apply...but only sort of.
OK, from the lofty to the mundane: what's up with Charlie Crist? Well, what's up is that it sure looks as if Jonathan Chait called it: Crist is probably not going to contest the Republican nomination for Senate from Florida. He's either going to make a third-party run, or drop out. Chait correctly analyzed the incentives (the "behavior") part months ago. But you can never tell what's in the head of a politician (the "action" part). Maybe Crist would ignore the obvious signs that he couldn't win; maybe he was just plain attached to the GOP come-what-may; maybe he wanted the crusade to vindicate his place in the party, even more than he wanted to be a Senator. Or something else. You just can't get into the head of a pol.
Until, that is, they start letting you know what they're going to do. And with two weeks to the deadline, it sure looks as if Crist is out of the Republican primary. The veto of a bill popular with conservatives is a pretty good indication, but an even better one (via Goddard) is his comment to reporters he'll "that look at [running as an independent] later on." I don't see how a pol who intended to run in the Republican primary, who is taking shots for not being a loyal Republican, ever says anything other than pledging his complete and total devotion to the party. In other words, it's either a mistake (which can happen!) or, more likely, he's out.
Which also means, as I've been saying , that George LeMieux's vote on the Court nominee, banking legislation, and everything else is about to be subject to a completely different calculus than it's been since he took his seat in the Senate last year. If I were advising the Dems, I'd make it clear (as soon as Crist jumps) to Crist and LeMieux that they will consider Crist liable for any votes that LeMieux casts, beginning with the banking bill. Does Crist really think that the GOP position on that one will play well in a three-way Senate race? We may soon see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
