Dean 2016

Richard Lugar, Republican Senator from Indiana, has been defeated in his primary by a right-wing Tea Party type. Lugar released this remarkable statement in response to his defeat. The whole thing is worth reading but this passage is particularly important:

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today – from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.

I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that.

The ironic thing here is that Lugar IS a partisan, not a moderate – but the ideological rigidity of the Tea Party goes way beyond mere partisanship. I am not surprised to see self-styled Broderian moderates do not perceive any difference between Lugar’s defeat and the example of Joe Lieberman. The difference, of course, is that Lieberman was not punished for ideological blasphemy, but because of his support for the Iraq War, which was not a partisan decision. And unlike Lugar, Lieberman enjoyed widespread support from establishment democrats both during the primary and afterwards during his independent bid for Senate, whereas Lugar was basically hanged out to dry. In fact, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s own super-PAC spent heavily against Lugar. And of course, Lieberman won re-election as an independent, a feat that no one (not even Broderian moderates) seriously suggest that Lugar can duplicate.

The Broderians will falsely interpret Lugar’s loss as supportive of their basic thesis (ideology?) that the problem in modern politics extends to both sides of the aisle. While no party has ever had a spotless history in this regard, at this point in time and history* it is solely the Republicans who have created this atmosphere of obstruction and persecution of an agenda over policy. The specifics of Lugar’s defeat is proof.

Bipartisanship is indeed not the opposite of principle. And partisanship itself is necessary for bipartisanship to exist. This is something that the Broderians simply cannot understand – and betrays a true lack of principle in itself. Sometimes, the truth simply is that one side is at fault, and when this truth is denied despite all evidence to the contrary, it does more to perpetuate the harm inflicted on our body politic than to salve it.

UPDATE: Lugar himself did engage in some Broderism in the excerpt above, claiming Democrats are inflexible about entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Even a minimal amount of research will demonstrate that Senate Democrats and President Obama have in fact compromised heavily on all of these issues and more. For example, in budget negotiations with the Republicans, Democrats offered $200 billion in cuts to Medicare, but Republicans aren’t really interested in actual policy. When it comes to medical malpractice and tort reform, it’s the Democrats who are trying to solve the problem of medical errors at the source rather than blindly imposing caps (which the Republicans favor as means of political punishment against trial lawyers). And the President has consistently pushed free trade agreements, with the latest example being the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements.

* the historic election of a Black President of course is central to this dynamic.

{ 1 comment }