Angus King is a talented man. He has managed to so thoroughly frighten every major player in the Democratic Party, they have abdicated any serious attempt to even try to win a highly coveted seat in the U.S. Senate.
If I didn’t see it with my own eyes, I wouldn’t have believed it. For a second-straight major election, the Democrats will have basically given up and faded into third place. If you are a Democrat, that can’t be a good feeling.
Granted, the news that there will be no major Democratic challenger is also bad news for the Republicans and makes it a great deal more difficult for them to hold this seat. But at least the GOP has managed to field a respectable field of aspirants, including the sitting secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer, a high-ranking state senator and the former president of the Maine Senate.
If they lose to King, it won’t be because they gave up.
It begs a question, though. What is so threatening about Angus King that would dissuade any major Democrat from challenging him? What would drive them to abject surrender?
No, it isn’t some kind of secret deal made with King. Democrats do believe that King is a lot more likely to caucus with them in the Senate than the Republicans, but they also don’t exactly trust King either. The Democrats ran away from this race because they didn’t think they could beat him and didn’t want to endure the shame of losing.
And the key to King’s electoral strength? His amicable nature, warm personality, moderate temperament and the power of his mustache. In short, it is because he is agreeable, inoffensive and all things to all people that makes him appealing. He promises to avoid and disarm conflict, leading the U.S. Senate in a rousing rendition of “Kumbaya,” taming the wild partisan beasts he will encounter.
I certainly understand the appeal. I work in politics, and I’m just as sick and tired of the mindless bickering, bitterness and ankle biting as the rest of you. The idea of restoring some civility and respect and a spirit of cooperation is an attractive one.
Yet there is the problem: we disagree. We are always going to disagree, because questions of public policy are by their very nature complicated, abstract and dependent on perspective. It is not possible — nor should it even be desirable — for all of us to “come together” by setting aside our differences of opinion and sacrificing them on the altar of moderation.
Conflict is a healthy thing. People are different, and that fact provides us with a rich, diverse culture and a robust public debate. The arena of ideas provides us an opportunity for inspiration and the marshaling of public opinion around big, often controversial ideas.
Angus King has wrapped himself in an anti-partisan blanket, bereft of bold ideas or controversial stances. He does not desire to step out on the ledge alone, inspiring dedicated people to follow him. His entire persona is built around one idea: “I will not fight with you. I will not challenge you. I will not make you angry.”
In an age when angry tea partiers and angry occupiers are shouting past each other, not working together in any way, and proud of their lack of compromise, maybe that is what we want.
But conflict doesn’t have to descend into the vitriol and paralysis that we are currently experiencing. These are not mutually exclusive concepts: It is in fact possible to fight like hell about issues you care deeply about and then clap your comrade on the shoulder, buy him a drink and hash out a mutually agreeable compromise.
That is the best model for government we could hope for. True statesmanship. People with deep, ideologically rooted ideas, but a sense of common ground with their political adversaries and a desire to make progress. That is the type of senator I want to see Maine elect.
Voters shouldn’t mistake Angus King’s “believe in nothing and believe in everything” model for such a great and inspiring statesman, simply because he plays one on television. It is a shame the Democrats ran away, and let him get away with it.
Matthew Gagnon, a Hampden native, is a Republican political strategist. He previously worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. You can reach him at matthew.o.gagnon@gmail.com and read his blog at www.pinetreepolitics.com.
I agree with you that conflict is healthy. And while I disagree with a number of things, I’ll point to one.
Angus King is not running on “I will not challenge you.” Rather, he is running on “I will challenge people who don’t think compromise is possible and the system that opposes compromise.”
That was… a surreal way to spin for him. How will he be challenging that system? By agreeing to all things from all people? He will have to operate in a hyperpartisan environment, while supposedly not participating… I’d like to hear how he plans to mush up everything into a compromise, when his starting point is the fluffy idea of compromise, rather than any kind of concrete idea…
I like my lawmakers to have a belief system… a strong one… that doesn’t preclude dealmaking or compromise… and indeed many of the ideas I favor are direct challenges to the establishment in my own party.
But King doesn’t ground himself in ideas, simply in approach. To be as inoffensive as possible to every voter.
I’ve made my own criticisms of the idea of a senator without a caucus. But King has been part of many policy decisions and promoted and criticized many ideas in print, in governing and in speech. Those and his belief system will be part of the political campaign.
Interesting… what would you say the last *major* policy initiative or issue that he was out in front, leading on, with a somewhat controversial position?
That is my biggest criticism of King – as Governor he didn’t make any “hard” decisions… prioritizing state resources, reforming government to be more efficient, pissing off a group to make a much needed policy change, etc… he had that luxury in the humming economy of the 1990s and early 2000s, but his lack of stewardship became obvious in his last year, and he left Baldacci with an obscene mess on his way out the door.
I want somebody who is ideologically grounded in… SOMETHING… and is willing to go out on a limb and make a hard decision that may make him unpopular. Those are two things King has never demonstrated he can be.
I agree that conflict is healthy and inevitable. The question becomes, “Can we disagree without being so mean-spirited?” You seem to be complaining that King wishes to disarm conflict. A little disarmament would be a good thing. In the 60s it was not always clear which party was the more conservative, and which party was the more liberal. That allowed members of Congress to reach across aisles and get things done. They referred to one another as “My friend, the honorable Senator from the great state of (fill-in-the-blank).”
Today the worst insults Republicans use against one another are “compromise” and “compassionate.” The crowds at Republican debates boo the Golden Rule and cheer the death penalty. The Republicans all march in single file behind Grover Norquist, which means they do their best/worst to make sure nothing of substance gets done.
Likewise, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have tended to shut out the Republicans from the drafting of bills — probably expecting nothing but obstruction anyway. Pelosi is now in the minority, and is shut out by the Republicans. The Democrats are 50% as angry as the Republicans, which means both sides are darned angry.
Senator Snowe is leaving in disgust. She could have easily won re-election, but decided that being in the hell we call the U.S. Senate just wasn’t good for her mental health.
Wouldn’t it be healthy to have someone new who hasn’t yet been corrupted by partisan hatred, someone naive enough to think that the system still can be made to work?
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Let’s hope he doesn’t get corrupted by the hate.
The nature of politics in the 60s, where you couldn’t tell who was conservative or liberal, was a factor of a different era of politics. Back then, your party affiliation was about non-ideological things very often… regional geography… ethnic demographics… communities were members of political machines that had to do with control, not ideology.
That did not stop conservative vs. liberal wars, friend. Just because party ID was not the determining factor in who was doing the battle doesn’t mean there wasn’t one. Conservatives and liberals duked it out just how they did now back then.
Conservatives and liberals duked it out then, true, albeit with a great deal more civility. But there was less rancor between the Democrats and Republicans because there were liberals and conservatives in each party, and they ate lunch together and golfed together.
You say “You couldn’t tell who was conservative or liberal” in the 60s or 70s. Yes you could tell who was liberal and who was conservative — but it was by their voting record, not their party label. You voted for the candidate, not the party.
I voted for the liberal Frank Hatch (a Republican) against the conservative Ed King (a Democrat) for governor of Massachusetts in the 70s. Frank Seargant, another liberal Republican, was also governor of Massachusetts in that era. My Congressman was Silvio Conte, a liberal and a Republican who I voted for like clockwork, and my Senator, Ed Brooke, was a liberal and a Republican who I also supported.
Because there were so many liberals in the Republican Party (too many to name), and so many conservatives in the Democratic Party, it was easier to cross the aisles and build coalitions around legislation. It also cut down on the amount of rancor and hostility between the parties.
I was a registered Republican, back before the days of hate-talk radio and the take-over of the GOP by the Religious Right and Grover Norquist.
I know I must be older than you are — am I so old that remembering when civility was a good thing is just deemed old-fashioned?
You have a very romantic notion of how politics was conducted in the past, penzance… very much inaccurate. In the middle 1800s, you had members of Congress frigging caning each other, for God’s sake… go read some of the old political posters and ads that were run in the late 1800s and early 1900s… they make the stuff that was run against McCain in South Carolina in 2000 look like child’s play.
This supposed civility you are talking about never existed, and you are romanticizing the past of your own life. It might be pretty bad right now, but it has ALWAYS been pretty bad… technology just lets us see it in a broader audience now.
Incidentally, as for your sweeping generalization, which included Norquist… let me quote the recent story in the Globe on him:
“Nonetheless, Norquist has been remarkably successful in attracting people with diametrically opposed positions on one issue or another and getting them to work together by focusing on the one thing on which they can agree, namely that life would be better if taxes were lower and the government were less intrusive. So his meetings attract Republicans who are prochoice and antiabortion, gay and straight, Jew and Muslim. Extending his big-tent approach, Norquist has served on the board of the National Rifle Association and the advisory council of the gay Republican group GOProud.”
I thought the left was the party that hated stereotypes, and broad, sweeping, inaccurate characterizations?
The parties were internally united on economic issues in the 60s, but internally divided on race. Johnson knew that he had lost the South for a generation or more by signing the 64 Civil Rights Act.
The most ardent Dixiecrat of the 60s still believed in the New Deal.
Now the parties are externally divided by race and economics: this makes the partisan lines starker. Congressman Rick Crawford’s support for a millionaire’s tax suggests that the economic lines may begin to blur and that a Republican might actually support sensible taxation rather than Norquist’s nonsense. A majority of Republicans don’t oppose higher taxes on the very wealthy, but their party is still in a denial of fiscal reality that would make Reagan, who raised taxes several times, blush.
Matt, can you tell me the last time any Republican in the House or the Senate actually voted for a tax increase? It was the modest tax increases under Bush I in 1990. Not a single Republican voted for Clinton’s tax increases in 1993 that gave us a balanced budget and record growth.
That… is… not true, in any way.
The last time this country was “economically unified” in terms of policy was during the laissez-faire period, up until the 1920s. After the Great Depression, there was SIGNIFICANT fragmentation on economic issues, with a LOT of Democrats (conservatives) opposing FDR’s New Deal, and a LOT of Republicans (liberals) supporting it.
Was the liberal point of view dominant from the period of the 1930s through the 1970s? Sure… though at several points along the way, the conservative economic argument was pretty close… and indeed, there are arguments to be made that the presidency of JFK was quite fiscally conservative… (and, hilariously, Nixon quite liberal).
I guess the point is that you are mistaking the ideological diversity of the two parties for some kind of consensus around your point of view. It was never that way – never. Southern conservative Democrats have always been in opposition to that supposed liberal consensus… as were conservative Republicans (Taft, etc). As ideological entropy began to separate the parties into more ideologically consistent groups, you saw less diversity in BOTH parties – but just as much disagreement as a whole in Congress and the presidency overall.
But, the statement that is most false is the Dixiecrat line. That is… really, very seriously incorrect. There was a LOT of opposition in the Democratic south to the New Deal, and many of the Dixiecrats who did support it, didn’t really want to, but were supporting their party leadership.
What a load of nonsense.
It is rightwing ideologues who have riven the
republican party and darned near brought this country down.
Mainers like Angus and they like independents. They do not like the current tea party Governor at all.
They’ll never again elect the tea party types vying for this seat.
Even you know better than to support that wingnut vulgarity Plowman from Hampden
You’re spinning too though. Why is compromise automatically fluffy and hyperpartisanship is concrete? That’s silly. We’ve seen Republicans time and time again, as of late, reject their own ideas because it has been Obama who has presented/proposed/repackaged them. Party affiliation clearly does not automatically ground a politician in ideas.
Compromise isn’t fluffy – in this very article I called for pragmatic compromise.
The point was that he doesn’t and never has stepped out on a ledge for some unpopular idea and provided leadership that could in any way prove to be controversial. The most controversial thing he ever did was the laptop program.
That’s wonderful and everything, but it doesn’t really make for a good public servant. Constantly groping for consensus and compromise as a STARTING point is not a virtue.
The virtue I am arguing about in the thesis of this piece is that standing up and aggressively defending one’s ideas, perhaps unpopular, perhaps popular, but ideologically grounded, and “out on a ledge”. I then call for people to fight like hell over their ideas, wrestle it out, and then at the end of the day, respect the passion and intentions of your adversaries, and then working something out you can both find a “win” in.
I don’t and never have respected public servants who shirk the business of ideas, and instead simply find where the wind is blowing and let themselves flop in it to remain popular.
It is a famous example, but Reagan and Tip used to brawl over politics, and then go out for drinks and share a joke, and come up with a compromise. Neither were King-style moderates.
But your point fails because what’s going on the Senate isn’t representative of people standing up and being aggressive about their ideas. They’re aggressive about denying the President a second term. There is a huge difference.
I didn’t say I wanted a Senator who was a replica of Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell, and I never said what was going on in the Senate today was representative of what I wanted. I WORKED in the Senate, and I saw it up close, and it is far worse than even you probably think it is.
In my column I expressed rather clearly that I have the same level of distaste for what goes on in Washington as everyone else. I’m actually flabberghasted you have managed to gloss over so much of my column like this.
I was arguing for a principled pragmatist as a senator… and my problem with King is that he is an unprincipled squish who doesn’t lead… he follows.
I haven’t glossed over anything. You’re arguing for an alternative that doesn’t exist. Who is principled pragmatist? Because King wasn’t controversial, he isn’t principled?
You stoke partisan flames (“If you’re a Democrat, that can’t be a good feeling”) and then try and denounce hyperpartisanship while in the same breath you paint compromise as a dirty word. What do you want then? You denounce and advocate all these things at once and they’re all at conflict with another.
You can claim King doesn’t lead, but then when someone you disagree does lead, maybe Obama’s healthcare reform, what is that? Shoving it down our throats? When Obama is principled in pushing healthcare reform and pragmatic in including numerous Republican proposals — he’s what?
Obviously he’s a Socialist from Kenya. :-)
It’s pretty tiring trying to keep track of what modern day conservatives want. Between deciphering what are sincere and insincere desires and also when the sincere desires have altered with more goal-post moving — it’s just impossible.
they don’t know what they want until the right wing radio tells them what they want
Modern day conservatives (a true oxymoron) want one thing: power.
Yes, I understood you when you said that you, too, are fed up with the rancor. But the voters of Maine will have to choose between the candidates that will be on the ballot. We can’t vote for an idealized “somebody else” who isn’t running. You say you want a principled pragmatist. Who, exactly, is that?
If Mr. or Ms. Principled Pragmatist isn’t on the ballot, and right now I don’t see him or her out there, I’ll probably vote for the next best thing, the nice guy who wants to disarm conflict and is willing to work across the aisles. I’m fed up with the Rush Limbaughs of this world. I’d rather have a few more Angus Kings.
The reason I am a conservative is because we win more debates on the merits of ideas and philosophy. Liberalism is literally bankrupt.
Keep up the good work, Matthew.
Angus, a switch hitter??? I don’t think so.
Are Gagnon’s columns going to be dedicated to a King take-down up until the elections?
King hasn’t really even started campaigning, so I find the premise of this piece completely lacking. There is so little basis to make claims like King has built a persona and that he despises disagreement.
20 years on television commenting on politics, eight years governing the state, and listening to basically every public pronouncement of his since… isn’t enough for you?
Why are you pretending he is some kind of mysterious figure? I’m not picking on some obscure person here… King is well known.
But this is a seat for the Senate and King hasn’t been a candidate for years, you really don’t have basis for your claims.
…based on what? You think he has had some kind of radical conversion after such a well defined and LONG career in the public light?
Based on what is my exact question. You provide very few, if any, examples to support your claims about King. King has wrapped himself in a blanket you say — what exactly is that blanket made of? You seem to just be presuming or were lazy and decided not to cite facts.
I have 600-700 words to make a point. I don’t spend time rehashing well established information… King is proud of his positioning, I didn’t feel it necessary to even bother “proving” it.
But if you must, the fact that the most controversial policy he enacted as governor was a laptop program, and the fact that he made no difficult budget decisions in the good times, leaving his successor John Baldacci with an absolute disaster to deal with are certainly starts…
Oh okay, we’ll all just have to take your word for it then, I guess. You MUST be right, you have a column after all.
Google is a good place to start your research. You don’t have to take anyone’s word for it, just look things up. The 1990s were an economic boom time, it’s not hard to govern when the ship is steering itself.
Thanks – that is basically the point. I don’t waste time explaining well established facts that very few people would even care to dispute.
Not having lived in Maine during King’s reign, I can’t speak much about his record. But as I was out gathering signatures for a US Senate candidate I heard two things: King was great for Maine and he will get things done in Washington and King left the state of Maine is huge debt and he was the worst for Maine. A Democrat who was visiting the Republican whose signature I was obtaining said she wouldn’t vote for King for a million bucks. Another Republican said he would vote for King–and thus he refused to sign the nomination papers. Another Republican said King was a Democrat and he wouldn’t vote for him for anything.
I think once King is flushed out a bit by the campaign we will see his support drop steeply.
I think one thing is certain. Major Democrats dropped out of this Senate race because they know King will caucus with them. I am not suggesting there was any back room deal, but I am certain there is an understanding. The Democrats are thinking they will now hold on to both House seats in addition to winning a Senate seat that is theirs in all but party name only.
The Democrats hopes are founded on two very weak assumptions, though. The first is that King will maintain his popularity. I suspect he won’t. The other is that the Republican field is weak. It isn’t. The Republicans will have a lively primary campaign with an energized convention. Okay–maybe there is a third assumption: that the Democrats running for this seat are just going to roll over and play dead. They might just decide that they really want to win this Senate seat.
And don’t forget there is another independent in the race who has the backing of the Libertarian Party. Dodge may just coast enough on the Ron Paul hot air to take those few percentage points worth of votes away from a candidate…
Vive le conflict!
A month ago in this column I commented that GOP religious bigotry endemic in southern states would cause difficulties for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Mr. Gagnon responded, in part, by calling me “politically ignorant”.
This week, as polls showed that majorities of primary voters placed priority on religious beliefs when choosing a candidate, Mr. Romney finished an embarrassing third in Mississippi and Alabama.
I’ll not be relying on Mr. Gagnon’s prognostications any time soon.
John McCain got his clocked cleaned in the south in 2008 GOP primary, Jason… and had no trouble in the general election… there is a very big difference between the primary and the general…
And polling has consistently showed that “religious bigotry” has not been affecting Romney’s campaign, even in the south… he lost in the south Tuesday for other reasons… among them suspicions about his conservative bona fides, and his hesitance to talk about social conservatism. Being a Mormon is so far down the list it is worthless to even talk about.
But by all means, continue to believe that, Jason…
Although my prediction proved out true and yours false, I should now accept your reasoning and not mine on why I was right?
Good one!
Regardless of true/false, Mr. Gagnon already explained below, “I don’t waste time explaining well established facts that very few people would even care to dispute.”
What prediction… I never claimed Romney would win southern states in the GOP primary… I said it wouldn’t hurt him in the general election… and that his Mormonism isn’t what would prevent him from winning in the south…
Pay attention – this seems to be a very difficult concept for you to grasp for some reason… but saying “Mormonism isn’t going to hurt Romney in the south” is not an argument for Romney WINNING the south…
But if you are still confused, let me break it down for you one last time:
1. Mormonism isn’t Romney’s problem in the south. He isn’t trusted down there because they view him as an inauthentic Yankee moderate from Massachusetts.
2. If and when Romney loses primary battles in southern states, it is THAT, not his Mormonism, that is responsible. Ergo, the stupid “bigotry” argument is bunk.
3. No matter how much he struggles in the south in the primary, he will have absolutely no trouble winning the south in the general election.
If you remain confused, I’d be happy to clarify further.
Your hand was played well. I tend to listen to you.
Why is a sitting Sec. of State a respectable candidate, but a former one is not? What has Sec. Summers done to receive the nod as respectable that Sec. Dunlap didn’t do?
Excellent points boldly stated, Mr. Gagnon, as usual.
Dear Reader: Gov. King nearly doubled the state budget during his 8 year tenure. Is that who you really want representing you in DC when we are already $15 trillion, (that is 15 million million dollars, folks) in debt?
I think not!
Reps. Fitts, Hinck and Du Houx Should Recuse
Themselves from EUT Wind Decisions, and liar/exploiter Angus King traitor to Maine needs a new plastic scepter. His last one has tomato stains.
Matt, it is a LePage like disaster that Democrats fear, not Angus King. Had we instant run-off voting we would see a vigorous Democratic challenge. As long as there is a possibility of a LePage type candidate winning what would otherwise be a victory for a Democrat or an independent, the party will proceed cautiously.
As we cannot establish an instant runoff voting system until we retake the Legislature (which we will this fall, thanks to the average Mainer’s reaction to LePage), don’t expect the party to make it easier for your party to elect another fool.
Once we have instant runoff voting, your party might, in its primary, elect a sensible Republican. Until that time I expect you’ll be stuck with Plowman or D’Amboise.
You may want leaders who will “step out on a ledge alone,” but Democrats are not so suicidal. I will sit back and watch your party’s lemming-like plunge off the cliff this November. Go LePage, go Santorum, go Romney! The more Maine and America see of any of them, the better Democrats will do.
I thought I had posted this before, but why is a sitting Sec. of State a respectable candidate but a former Sec. of State isn’t?