I was a little surprised to read Susie Madrak writing about Joe Sestak's potential conflicts with other Senators as a negative:
It's a legitimate question since, as Howard Dean pointed out, the Senate is a gentlemen's club and your effectiveness is closely tied to your ability to build relationships.
I can certainly confirm what Susie writes about Joe Sestak expecting his staff to work very hard, and I can also confirm that he isn't going to build great relationships with the leadership. But really, why is this a bad thing? He was still ranked as the most productive freshman in the House back in 2007. Further, current Senate effectiveness does not seem particularly effective to me, largely because relationships are valued so much more than solving major problems. Supposedly, these relationships are built so that major problems can be solved, but how's that working out for us now?
Last week, Senator Claire McCaskill said the Senate was putting off the climate change bill for several months, because pushing it now was too hard and would make too many Senators mad:
Some senators are skeptical lawmakers will be ready to tackle another huge issue after finishing health care. "After you do one really, really big, really, really hard thing that makes everybody mad, I don't think anybody's excited about doing another really, really big thing that's really, really hard that makes everybody mad," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said. "Climate fits that category."
To put it one way, maintaining Senate collegiality is more important than taking steps to avoid ecological apocalypse. Don't we actually want to do away with this attitude, rather than support it?
Maintaining a friendly atmosphere seems extremely important to Senators, but it is hard to see how it has any benefit to progressives, America or the world. Take Joe Lieberman as an example:
- It is the collegial atmosphere that resulted in Joe Lieberman receiving a standing ovation from Democratic Senators, even after he had promised to run as an independent against a Democratic Senate nominee in Connecticut.
- It is the same collegiality that easily kept Joe Lieberman in the caucus--and gave him a chairmanship--after endorsing and campaigning with John McCain throughout 2008.
- It is the collegial atmosphere that resulted in the Gang of 14 working to keep the filibuster back in 2005. This is the same filibuster that is now working to block or water down virtually every plank of the Democratic platform, resulting in Senators like Joe Lieberman de facto President.
That's what Senate collegiality gets us. When we need to fix major problems in this country, a Joe Lieberman types holds veto power. When the Democratic base tried to hold the Joe Lieberman type accountable for this, Democratic Senators praise said Joe Lieberman type. When Joe Lieberman type goes even further off the reservation, Democratic leaders do whatever possible to not hold him accountable. And then, when we ask why Democrats in the Senate aren't solving major problems, we are told that maintaining this collegial atmosphere to protect Joe Lieberman types is more important. And then they ask us for more money.
This relationship-focused collegiality just doesn't seem to work, and breaking it up would probably be an improvement. Say whatever else you will about Joe Sestak, but his willingness to even engage this primary challenge--against the wishes of much of the Democratic leadership at every level--demonstrates he is willing to challenge a dysfunctional, status quo that simply is not producing results. Further, time and time again, Sestak's challenge to the status quo has demonstrated an ability to get results. Arlen Specter is suddenly voting and talking like he is Bernie Sanders only a few months after flipping against EFCA and introducing flat-tax legislation to the Senate. Has there ever been a more successful campaign to change a Senator's behavior?
Relationship-focusing politicians just isn't what we need right now. The status quo institutions are not working and, from what I have seen, you can get more positive results by challenging the gentleman's club than by working within it. |
