Even Gangs Have a Code of Honor
Much like Alex Massie, I’ve largely given up on trying to understand the health care reform acrobatics of US politics and policy, not in the least because there is plenty going on in my own country that deserves attention and scrutiny. But this whole Joe Lieberman calling the shots all by his bad self is just beyond mind boggling to me. I mean that one person could wind up wielding so much power on something as huge and important as health care reform seems not only an irresponsible state of affairs, but also, frankly, more than a touch undemocratic and brings me back to the issue of representation in American politics and the two-party system.
In my original post talking about the potential benefits of introducing a National Tea Party into the political arena (and my hopes around what might wind up being a tectonic fracturing of the two bloated parties into more sincere and grounded constituencies), I talked a lot about the impacts such a movement might have on discourse. I remain at least somewhat convinced that a more closely parsed system of party representation would do a lot of good for American political discourse, both in terms of grounding the different factions in a space of not needing to rail against the more/less moderate factions of their teams, as well as providing for a more full-throated representation of different and, frankly, important (thought perhaps not equal) perspectives. That said, I think there is also a realpolitik component as to why there ought to be support for discursive break up, the various logistical challenges besetting such a proposal notwithstanding, that speaks directly to the Lieberman toll booth through which Democrats have just had to pass.
Namely, it strikes me that Joe Lieberman was able to pull off the coup he just did precisely because he isn’t really accountable to anyone. Now, I know the story goes that Joe Lieberman is accountable to the people of Connecticut, the folks who elected him. And in a sort ephemeral, not very pressing way that is correct. It remains true that the good people of Connecticut could choose not to re-elect Joe in 2012, when he’s up again. But as the below graph demonstrates, Lieberman’s job approval rating has been on the rebound of late and by not having to to play to a Democratic base, he has a fair amount of leeway in wooing Republicans and fiscally conservative, blue dog Democrats — that is, if he even chooses to run again, as Jane Hamsher points out over at Politico.
But 2012 is a long ways away and despite the direct impact that voters can have on a politician’s stay in office, the electorate also happens to have a notoriously short memory. A fact about politicians tend remain keenly aware. So Lieberman has all kinds of time to see how his decision to railroad health care reform falls out and how he wants to spin his involvement, though I’m sure there is a strong grouping of voters who will remain determined to punish him for it come hell or high water.
However, if political parties are good for anything — and there are times where I fail to see that they are — it is for their ability to enforce a more immediate sense of accountability and provide a means of at least dissuading — if not reigning in — the kind of political grandstanding we’ve all just witnessed. Insofar as Joe Lieberman remains a man without a party who has, in recent years, cultivated a reputation for being, in the words of everyone’s favourite author, a real maverick, he places himself outside of the affiliated restraints experienced by most of his peers. In someone of character, such freedom and flexibility could be a real strength and asset, but all too often it manifests in self-aggrandizing and short-sighted manipulation of a system that is all too open to manipulation.
And all of this just because Lieberman was willing, once elected, to step outside of a two-party system that most people acknowledge is increasingly ill-equipped to meet the needs to American voters.
Which is not to suggest that more prominent national parties would cure all that ails American politics, but it does seem that were there viable alternative parties to capture Joe Lieberman’s vote, it would be a bit more difficult to hijack major moments a la Lieberman. In a two-party system, there is a sort of stabilizing effect that tends to calcify the potential positions that might arise in any given debate. There are only two real options, and while all politics is, in a sense, local, national opinions tend to become pretty strident based on getting the upper hand on the identified opponent. With only one or two more players, the dynamics become a lot more loose and the options more numerous by sheer weight of the fact that each party has a slightly different set of circumstances facing them electorally and which, when policy is in play, can result in some surprising moves.
Despite my griping about Canada’s political parties, a look at the NDP is instructive in this regard. Seemingly forever stuck grappling with a mid-to-high teens level of support nationally, this past fall, the NDP made a relatively unforeseen move, agreeing to support the Conservative government so long as it promised to provide an additional $1 billion in employment insurance benefits to needy Canadians. The NDP’s support allowed the government to remain intact, avoiding an election, for which Canadians were generally thankful, and allowed the NDP bragging rights on its $1 billion dollar win for Canadians. That kind of last minute political horse trading is fundamentally different than the hostage taking in which Lieberman has been engaged and is much better cultivated in a multi-party system than the rigid confines of a two-party system. Setting aside the Platonic idealism if discourse for the sake of discourse, from a purely self-interested point of view a system with more players than less tends to, as in the market, result in deals that skew towards the electorate’s benefit, if for no other reason than the naked ambition of politics.
But much of that benefit winds up being scuttled when the dynamics lack a certain degree of at least gangland accountability like that from which Joe Lieberman finds himself freed because the lone wolf rarely has much to lose. And when so much political power rests in just one hand, well that’s a scenario in which everyone ultimately loses.
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- I'd recommend checking ou...
- Dave,As someone who makes...
- Well, it puts me back in ...
- Mike,To me, as someone wh...
- What a freaking game.
- The Bowman essay is prett...
- *sigh* As much as it abso...
- Good lord, do you imagine...
- everything has unintended...
- Thanks for this; you have...
-
25 comments
Why is it so surprising? In any situation when a vote will be very close, the swing voters will hold more leverage. If you want to criticize someone why not Dem Senator Mary Landrieu who all but sold her vote?
David
December 16th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Scott is absolutely right – the swing votes will always have extra leverage wherever the swing votes fall. I don’t think any system is immune from that regardless of how wrong or undemocratic it appears.
EngineerScotty
December 16th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
It’s also worth noting that the Lieberman coup is only working because the opposition party is voting in a bloc on this issue (possibly minus Snowe, who is also playing hard to get, but is probably less motivated by grandstanding and revenge issues).
Think of it this way: Consider the Senate as a Westminster-style parliament, with four parties; two major parties, and two single-member parties, the Bloc Bernie and the Bloc Joe. Bloc Bernie willingly joins the majority government with the largest major party, but they are one vote short needed to form a government, hence the power wielded by Bloc Joe. Block Joe’s power is lessened by the fact that the only coalition partner he can deal with is Bloc Donkey–he can’t align with Bloc Elephant to form one–but he can keep the Donkeys from pushing their agenda.
That’s kinda whats going on here. And unlike in parliamentary democracies, where an election would be called were such a stalemate to persist (a result which would encourage both Bloc Donkey and Bloc Joe to compromise, lest the voters punish them for their obstinance), this state of affairs will exist at least until 2010. Bloc Joe need not worry until 2012.
I was a big third-party guy until I took a class in Constitutional Theory in college. It laid out the case pretty strongly that as long as we have the system that we do (electoral college, single-member districts, and no runoffs) we are stuck with two parties. The biggest chance you can see are parties replacing one another. Even if you throw everything out but the electoral college and/or a no-runoff presidential election, everything will gravitate towards two. The Tea Party would either replace the Republican Party or it would disappear.
More specific to the point of this post, though, as long as there are deciding votes, there are people casting those deciding votes. Those people will always have inordinate power. This is true whether you’re trying to get to 50+1 or 60. Get rid of the filibuster and maybe Health Care Reform passes, but then on some other issue (cap-and-trade?) you’re going to run in to some other undecided to make that 50th vote needed to pass the bill. At some point you’re trying to move the first base marker to 91 feet because you’re tired of ties at 90 feet.
The alternative is to vote people in or out entirely based on party lines, which is what parliamentary systems do. That just runs contrary to the American character and the desire for independent judgment. Though it’s unavoidable, people are more inclined to want political parties themselves to disappear than they are to want more of them.
ThatPirateGuy
December 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Excellent post, one small quibble though I think it is like moving from 91 ft to50 ft.
2/3 vote for everything is a very high threshold. Likely it is too high.
Jaybird
December 16th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
A compromise:
2/3rds to pass a law, 1/3 to repeal it.
ThatPirateGuy
December 16th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
How about 50+1 for both.
EngineerScotty
December 16th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Of course, the concept of “bill” and “law” in this context refer to CHANGES in the code, not to the code itself. And “repealing” a law–I guess, undoing some prior change to the code–could conceivably result in more stuff in the code.
But nice try, anyway. :)
Trumwill
December 16th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Where did you get that idea from? My post-college roommate used to say that all the time.
Jaybird
December 16th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Um. I made it up because it sounded stereotypically minarchian?
Trumwill
December 16th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Hehe, great minds thinking alike I guess. Or fools never differing. I was wondering if there was some famous proposal or something by someone.
Jaybird
December 17th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I devoted a few hours to my memory banks last night and stumbled across this: there was a system in “Friday” (or some other Heinlein book… I admit to not having read it) where there were two houses and the first house needs 67% to pass a law and then it goes to the second house where 33% can strike it down before it becomes law and if it doesn’t get through both, it doesn’t become a law.
Or *SOMETHING* like that. He may have read the book and I may have dredged that up from someone talking about the book.
There. I knew I wasn’t that clever.
Americanadian
December 21st, 2009 at 6:50 pm
That would be Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.” You’ve described one of the systems Professor de la Paz proposes to the body set up to form a new Lunar government in the aftermath of a successful revolution and declaration of independence from Earth.
Trumwill
December 16th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I go back and forth on whether it is too high or not. It usually depends on whether I want whatever is being discussed to pass or not. It can be really hard to separate the value of a parliamentary rule from the short-term advantage that might do away with it.
I find that the best approach is to say “If you had the choice of requiring 50 instead 60 votes to pass a law, but whatever you decide won’t take effect for eight years (by which time the issues and possibly the party in power will have changed), would you still want to do it?”
My answer, ultimately, is “no” for the most part, YMMV. It would be “Yes” for political appointments (including judges) and for any law that has an automatic sunset provision, but not for something involving overhauling health care or privatizing social security. But I understand why others think/feel differently.
We used to call what Lieberman is doing a profile in courage.
EngineerScotty
December 16th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Courage (in politics) consists of be doing something (or refusing to do something) out of respect an abstract principle which is manifestly detrimental to your political career. Huckabee’s pardons might be considered courageous, for instance, as they were done (I assume) as a result of his personal convictions on matters of justice, not for political expediency. The politically expedient thing to do in this case is to keep the perp locked up.
Hard to figure out where Joe is being courageous–it’s not likely to reduce his electoral standing in Connecticut should he run again (the Dems hate him enough as it is), and it may help with conservative voters.
Ironically, the push among some Dems to pass the HC bill as is (minus the public option, with the individual mandate) might be seen as courageous, as the conventional wisdom is that doing so will result in the Dems being punished in 2010.
I think the economy will be a bigger factor in 2010, personally, and the Dems are better of with a healthcare bill than without.
North
December 17th, 2009 at 5:40 am
It’d probably be considered courageous -maybe- if Joe could formulate a reason for his opposition that doesn’t contradict his own positions mere months ago. The manner in which he’s flip-flopped about on it and the confusing contradictory manner in which he’s expressed why he does what he does makes his behavior seem to be grounded in a petulant desire to punish the party rather than any governing principle.
I’m still wondering why we are criticizing Joe when Dem Senator Mary Landrieu all but sold her vote?
Grunthos
December 17th, 2009 at 8:39 am
We’d be happy to pile on Landrieu, but her situation doesn’t impact on the point at hand. Selling your vote to the highest bidder happens in all representative institutions, whether you have one party, two parties, or 59 parties.
Scott
December 17th, 2009 at 8:46 am
So what is the difference between selling your vote early on in the process versus waiting until the the end of the process and demanding that your “price” in terms of conditions be met? Is one more moral than the other and if so why?
Jaybird
December 17th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Landrieu sold her vote for a perfect and good moral system where children would no longer die without health care.
Joe sold his vote for thirty pieces of silver for an imperfect and evil moral system where the corpses of children would be stacked on the side of the road for weekly pickup.
If you can’t tell the difference between those two things, I have to wonder at the state of your soul, if you even have one.
Scott
December 17th, 2009 at 8:59 am
As an attorney that works for my state’s revenue collection authority, I think that I can safely say that I don’t have a soul.
All in all, with trillions at stake, it’s going pretty smoothly — I’m surprised there haven’t been 4 or 5 killings and several hostages taken at gunpoint.