However much I may have issues with Rachel Maddow and her snark, her point last night was well taken, late in the show: the idea of "anti-incumbent fever" driving this fall's elections appears to be largely a dud, and it's really only desperation that keeps driving that narrative as the "one to watch" with each new set of results.
"Tea Party Rage" may have had its moment, but as I pretty much guessed last summer, translating anger into effective election strategies has proved elusive, at best. The two most prominent Tea Party "successes" - Sharron Angle in Nevada and Rand Paul in Kentucky - have both proven to be erratic campaigners, the success of either in considerable doubt. Even Marco Rubio, poster child for how Tea Parties would allow a "fresh wave" of rising GOP stars to reshape the party, has come undone by Charlie Crist's refusal to go quietly, with Crist now looking to achieve the victory he expected all along.
The Florida race is one of those that will get some greater clarity tonight, when Democratic primary voters decide whether to back Kendrick Meek or Scott Greene, the billionaire who decided he was better suited to represent the needs of Florida's working class. That's the kind of interesting hybrid we're getting this year: plutocrats with a generous streak, and a desire to help. No Seriously: After Greene, let's discuss Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman.
The kind of anger that's been brewing since the start of the serious economic downturn - nearly three years, come this fall - doesn't translate well into action. It's anger at our circumstances, at the fact that a whole conception of the world has changed (at least its finances), and impotent rage that government, everywhere and at every level, can't seem to fix what's broken. And what's broken can really only be fixed the hard way: no more parties, less fun, less spending beyond limits, and more acknowledgment that limits exist. That's not been the American way... certainly not in at least 30 years or so, if ever.
I don't think the "MSM" was wrong to posit the "anti incumbent fever" theory; it made sense, especially heading into the end of last year, that there was just so much anger, and so much energy... that something was bound to change. But nothing, really, did, or has. Our two party system is constructed, after all, to resist change and protect the status quo. Some politicians went out and learned the language of rage. Some learned to paint the angry folk as crazy, out of step, and dangerous. And some politicians didn't have to learn anything at all; many House members, still, will benefit mostly from carefully drawn districts, large cash on hand, and opponents who can't realistically pose any threat to their reelection. That's the power of incumbency.
Sure, we've had a handful of high profile flame-outs, most notably probably Arlen Specter, desperately chasing reelection by recasting himself as the Democrat in Pennsylvania, only to have actual Democrats reject that notion out of hand. Specter, after all, is the proof that there are limits, still, to just how outrageously you can treat the electorate's option to choose someone other than you before they reject you. But perhaps most of us didn't draw the right conclusion - that you have to go as far beyond the pale as Specter did before facing consequences. Charlie Rangel, I suspect, learned that lesson all too well.
Primary after primary, including tonight's various results, have shown that incumbency is still more powerful than almost all reason, and certainly most rage. And that money, after incumbency, pretty much rules the results. Neither of those oppressive realities suggest that Republicans have much more than a slim chance at possibly a narrow return to a majority in the House, and I'm comfortable saying even that seems unrealistic. Expecting voter anger to drive Republican success, absent Republicans offering any credible alternative notions for governing now seems wishful; it has all along.
In the last couple of weeks my own Congressional district has been revealed as a hotbed of just this angry approach: John Hall's opponent, a doctor, is up with ads suggesting that Washington has "excessive spending disease" and the cure is "radical surgery" by removing Hall and replacing him with her. We'll see if it succeeds, but the idea of a voting down the "Hall-Pelosi" agenda sounds pretty shrill and ludicrous in the ad, and unlikely to happen in reality. Painting Hall as some sort of lefty extremist, out of step with upscale suburban Westchester professionals, seems a fool's errand, even if Hall's district was once of a bellweather of Reagan Democrat voting patterns. That time has passed, and the northeastern swath of liberal Republicanism that stretched from Westchester into Connecticut is pretty much dead as well. Conservative extremism did that in years ago.
But as a voter... sure, I'm annoyed, and I'd love to vote for someone, anyone, who'd represent a significant change to governing, especially at the state level. So far... living that dream seems hopeless, too: faced with choosing between lackluster Andrew Cuomo and known failure Rick Lazio for governor, Cuomo's ascendancy seems assured. That's the kind of political reality we're stuck with: anger that would lead to considerable change, married to the same lousy choices we've always had (really... were I in Arizona, facing the unappealing choice of JD Hayworth or John McCain, I'd pretty much give up). Sure, it'll piss you off... but then what?
No seriously... then what?
"Tea Party Rage" may have had its moment, but as I pretty much guessed last summer, translating anger into effective election strategies has proved elusive, at best. The two most prominent Tea Party "successes" - Sharron Angle in Nevada and Rand Paul in Kentucky - have both proven to be erratic campaigners, the success of either in considerable doubt. Even Marco Rubio, poster child for how Tea Parties would allow a "fresh wave" of rising GOP stars to reshape the party, has come undone by Charlie Crist's refusal to go quietly, with Crist now looking to achieve the victory he expected all along.
The Florida race is one of those that will get some greater clarity tonight, when Democratic primary voters decide whether to back Kendrick Meek or Scott Greene, the billionaire who decided he was better suited to represent the needs of Florida's working class. That's the kind of interesting hybrid we're getting this year: plutocrats with a generous streak, and a desire to help. No Seriously: After Greene, let's discuss Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman.
The kind of anger that's been brewing since the start of the serious economic downturn - nearly three years, come this fall - doesn't translate well into action. It's anger at our circumstances, at the fact that a whole conception of the world has changed (at least its finances), and impotent rage that government, everywhere and at every level, can't seem to fix what's broken. And what's broken can really only be fixed the hard way: no more parties, less fun, less spending beyond limits, and more acknowledgment that limits exist. That's not been the American way... certainly not in at least 30 years or so, if ever.
I don't think the "MSM" was wrong to posit the "anti incumbent fever" theory; it made sense, especially heading into the end of last year, that there was just so much anger, and so much energy... that something was bound to change. But nothing, really, did, or has. Our two party system is constructed, after all, to resist change and protect the status quo. Some politicians went out and learned the language of rage. Some learned to paint the angry folk as crazy, out of step, and dangerous. And some politicians didn't have to learn anything at all; many House members, still, will benefit mostly from carefully drawn districts, large cash on hand, and opponents who can't realistically pose any threat to their reelection. That's the power of incumbency.
Sure, we've had a handful of high profile flame-outs, most notably probably Arlen Specter, desperately chasing reelection by recasting himself as the Democrat in Pennsylvania, only to have actual Democrats reject that notion out of hand. Specter, after all, is the proof that there are limits, still, to just how outrageously you can treat the electorate's option to choose someone other than you before they reject you. But perhaps most of us didn't draw the right conclusion - that you have to go as far beyond the pale as Specter did before facing consequences. Charlie Rangel, I suspect, learned that lesson all too well.
Primary after primary, including tonight's various results, have shown that incumbency is still more powerful than almost all reason, and certainly most rage. And that money, after incumbency, pretty much rules the results. Neither of those oppressive realities suggest that Republicans have much more than a slim chance at possibly a narrow return to a majority in the House, and I'm comfortable saying even that seems unrealistic. Expecting voter anger to drive Republican success, absent Republicans offering any credible alternative notions for governing now seems wishful; it has all along.
In the last couple of weeks my own Congressional district has been revealed as a hotbed of just this angry approach: John Hall's opponent, a doctor, is up with ads suggesting that Washington has "excessive spending disease" and the cure is "radical surgery" by removing Hall and replacing him with her. We'll see if it succeeds, but the idea of a voting down the "Hall-Pelosi" agenda sounds pretty shrill and ludicrous in the ad, and unlikely to happen in reality. Painting Hall as some sort of lefty extremist, out of step with upscale suburban Westchester professionals, seems a fool's errand, even if Hall's district was once of a bellweather of Reagan Democrat voting patterns. That time has passed, and the northeastern swath of liberal Republicanism that stretched from Westchester into Connecticut is pretty much dead as well. Conservative extremism did that in years ago.
But as a voter... sure, I'm annoyed, and I'd love to vote for someone, anyone, who'd represent a significant change to governing, especially at the state level. So far... living that dream seems hopeless, too: faced with choosing between lackluster Andrew Cuomo and known failure Rick Lazio for governor, Cuomo's ascendancy seems assured. That's the kind of political reality we're stuck with: anger that would lead to considerable change, married to the same lousy choices we've always had (really... were I in Arizona, facing the unappealing choice of JD Hayworth or John McCain, I'd pretty much give up). Sure, it'll piss you off... but then what?
No seriously... then what?
Comments