Knowing when to pick a fight

by: Mike Lux

Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 12:00


One of the toughest decisions to make in politics is figuring out the right time to compromise and the right time to pick a fight and see the fight through. As that great verse from Ecclesiastes says so well, there is a time for every season under heaven. Being willing to make modest compromises has resulted in some of the greatest legislation in American history, but it has also been a fiasco at times. Knowing the right time to pick a fight (think Bill Clinton during the 1995 government shutdown fight with Gingrich) can be absolutely transformative for a politician.

The whole legacy thing sometimes clouds the judgment of even the best politicians on when to compromise and when to stand tall. My all-time favorite Senator, the best and most effective in history in my opinion, was Teddy Kennedy, but toward the end of his career he got snookered by the Republicans twice, in part because I think he was thinking a little too much about his legacy: on No Child Left Behind, where Bush promised him a lot for money for education and then broke his promise after the bill was passed; and on the Medicare drug bill a couple of years later, where the decent compromise he forged in the Senate got rolled in the Republican controlled conference committee, and they passed a bill that was a pure giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.

Unfortunately, another fine Senator, Chris Dodd, is letting the legacy thing cloud his judgment. Dodd is complaining about President Obama's strong new push for a more progressive financial reform policy. Yesterday, in a committee hearing, Dodd said that the new proposals are "adding to the problems of trying to get a bill done...I don't want to be in a position where we end up doing nothing because we tried to do too much at a critical time." Dodd has been working closely with Republicans on the Finance Committee in the hopes of getting a compromise that can get 60 votes, and all of a sudden the White House is upsetting the applecart by pushing for more. Dodd knows that he needs Republican support to pass a bill in the Senate, and that to get Republican support he has to have a bill acceptable to the big banks. With him retiring, he wants one final legislative feather in his cap, so if he needs to cut a deal with the big banks, he'll do it.

Now I admire Chris Dodd a great deal. He has spent a career on the frontlines fighting for poor kids and families, and against stupid wars. But on this issue he is dead wrong. His legacy is just fine without adding a watered down and ultimately ineffectual financial reform bill to his list of legislative accomplishments. What is needed now, both for Democratic political prospects in general and to make the policy effective in reining in the power and excesses of Wall Street, is to pick the fight with the Republicans and bank lobbyists. As President Bush might have said, bring it on.

There are two dimensions to this, one on the policy side and one on the political. It is a simple fact that the longer this issue stews, and the more high-profile pressure is placed on the big bank lobbyists, the better the policy we are going to get in terms of doing things that really matter in terms of financial reform. If you tell the Republicans on the committee that we are only going to do this in a bipartisan way and we want to make you comfortable with signing off on the legislation, it puts them in the catbird seat, and the legislative language we get becomes gruel real fast. If on the other hand we raise the stakes, say (like the President in the State of the Union) that we're only going to do financial reform if we can do it right, and really start banging the Republicans for doing Wall Street's bidding, I think that after a few weeks on the grill will make at least a couple of them far more likely to agree to something real. Once it gets to the floor: if the Republicans threaten filibuster, tell them to go ahead and make our day. Bring the bill up, debate really popular amendments, and let them keep blocking a vote on the issue. I suspect that it wouldn't take very long for the Republicans to decide that we ought to let this bill pass rather than face week after week of getting public heat for being the big bankers' best buddies.

On the politics of this, Democrats have nothing but upside in picking a fight and letting it cook for a while. Every day that Democrats are seen as trying to pass the strongest possible bill to hold the banks accountable, and every day that Republicans are seen as helping Wall Street block it, is a good day for the Democrats in terms of the 2010 elections. Democrats have the political high ground here, and they damn well ought to use it to get a better bill.

Senator Dodd, I love ya like a brother. You already have a great legacy. Don't tarnish that legacy by having the final act of your long and distinguished Senatorial career being giving the big banks and their Republican allies everything they want in order to get easy passage of a watered down bank bill, hurting both the economy and your party in the process. It's time to pick a fight.

Update: Check out this article from WSJ that talks about how Republicans are running to Wall Street donors, telling them it's the Republicans who will save them from any financial reform legislation that would actually do anything to them. All the more reason to raise the stakes on this fight and go for it. Wall Street is going into high whine mode about mean old Democrats attacking them. Good. Now let's go the mat, and win the fight both on policy and politically.

Mike Lux :: Knowing when to pick a fight

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Mike, are you sure he's not just (4.00 / 7)
setting himself up for a cushy retirement with a lucrative "job" on the banksters' payroll for himself or family members?

miasmo.com

One final legislative feather in his cap? (4.00 / 6)
Looks a lot more like fluffing up the old ex-senator golden parachute retirement plan on his way out. The voters have no hold on him anymore. Versailles and a cushy, fat payday retirement, however, are hanging in the balance. The "right" moves here could be worth millions...

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
Good call (4.00 / 2)
Why do so many savvy lefties fail to look for the politics in politics?

I'm not clear what's up with Dodd.

But it's a pretty basic play for a Dem MCto cause a bill to bog down by stuffing it with 'radical' provisions he knows will cause it to fail.

That way, he gets a twofer: he gooses the Interests (and they realize it, because they're wised up and paying attention), and low-info lefties think he's given them proof of his ideological sanctity!

On the other hand, if, as with the Senate health care bill, the legislation looks tough but is in fact a giveaway, our legislative Hero can lead the charge, with a similar effect.


[ Parent ]
Hmm (3.64 / 11)
His legacy is just fine without adding a watered down and ultimately ineffectual financial reform bill to his list of legislative accomplishments.

That would fit pretty well with at least some of his legislative "accomplishments."

Dodd also played a crucial role in the 1999 passage of the deregulatory Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which dismantled key provisions of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, breaking down barriers among commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies. In fact, according to Ed Yingling, head of the American Bankers Association, Dodd was the bill's unsung hero. "It was about to die," says Yingling, "because [former Republican senator] Phil Gramm, on a side issue, was just hardballing it. There were seven or eight of us who were chief lobbyists for the industries. What we were saying was, 'We're running out of time. If we can get Chris Dodd in the room, we can work it out.'" They got Dodd, and Dodd got it done, but Dodd doesn't like to talk about it anymore.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/2...

Right, and don't forget ... (4.00 / 5)
Dodd pushed through the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which made it almost impossible to successfully sue corporations for securities fraud, and Dodd also pushed for accounting "reforms," which led to accounting disasters like Enron.

Chris Dodd has always been the banksters' best friend, and I imagine that he and his wife (a board member of several health care companies and at least one financial institution) will continue to be.

My guess is that if any reforms happen, they'll happen because of the FDIC or SEC gain some teeth, not because of anything Dodd does.    


[ Parent ]
Why is this comment troll-rated? (4.00 / 3)


[ Parent ]
What legacy? (4.00 / 4)
Everyone here has already beaten me to it, but what legacy is Dodd leaving behind?

The only thing good I can remember is that he endorsed Ned Lamont over Lieberman, but that's not a legacy, that's just basic party loyalty; a base minimum requirement, I believe. It stood out only because there are so many truly vile senators in the Democratic caucus that Dodd looked better by comparison. Is occasionally "meaning well" all that's required any more to be credited with a great legacy?


He's just assuring the cushy retirement job he has (4.00 / 1)
waiting for him on Wall Street.  He and Obama are two peas in a pod.  Give it all to the private sector.  If they screw it up and/or cost us twice as much, too bad.  

[ Parent ]
He looked good on FISA for 5 minutes. (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Singlest best purely political move the dems could (4.00 / 3)
do would be to propose a robust reform bill and see it lose with 55 democratic votes and all Repubs voting against it.  I'm convinced that if dems want to win the voters back, they have to be willing to lose and actual vote or two on bills that matter to people.  Sure, it would be better if they won with strong bills, but that's not in the cards, especially if everyone knows they're not going to bring such a bill to the floor with a chance of losing.

Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.

They would prefer the cash to the voters. (4.00 / 1)
Afterall, where else can voters go when both sides are fully own subsidiaries of Wall Street.  

[ Parent ]
Mike, this seems a bit of a puff piece ... (0.00 / 0)
about Chris Dodd. He hasn't been all that great.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox