At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me return to this Chafee question one more time, from a slightly different angle. Yes, it will bore you.
There are four possible outcomes of the 2006 Senate elections, Chafee-wise:
- The Democrats regain the majority; Chafee loses.
- The Democrats regain the majority; Chafee wins.
- The Republicans retain the majority; Chafee wins.
- The Republicans retain the majority; Chafee loses.
From the perspective of the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters -- or rather, from the perspective of a strong, proactive environmental agenda -- these are listed from most desirable to least desirable. A few things to say about this.
Clearly the worst possible outcome is No. 4. Whatever his transgressions on judges, Chafee has served as a firebreak to some of Bush's crazier environmental gambits, thanks to his seat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. If Chafee lost, that seat would be lost as well. So 4 must be avoided.
Of the remaining three options, two involve Chafee winning. The one that doesn't, best case scenario No. 1, relies on the Dems retaking the majority. The current Republican crackup is severe, but there are substantial structural factors favoring incumbents. Most of what I've read, and my own assessment of the situation, points to Democratic gains, but not a Democratic majority.
Now, some folks might say, "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead, don't accept anything but total victory." And that strikes me as an appropriate stance for groups whose purpose it is to elect Dems. But that is not the purpose of SC and LCV; their purpose is to protect a green agenda in a political environment that is unfriendly at best. From their strategic perspective, they need to predict -- not hope, not wish -- which is likely to be the majority party in the Senate in 2006, and act accordingly. If they judge that Republicans are likely to retain the majority, then No. 3 is the best outcome.
Furthermore, the difference between No. 1 and No. 2 is not substantial, from a green perspective.
In short, the low-risk option for SC and LCV is to endorse Chafee. Their nightmare is a Republican majority without Chafee. If there's a Dem majority, well hell, it's fine with or without Chafee.
(Now, the scenario I've skipped over, obviously, the the one wherein the endorsement causes Chafee to win, and Chafee winning tips the balance and causes the R's to retain the majority. Frankly, that just doesn't strike me as likely. But if someone more immersed in wonk than I wanted to argue that Chafee's seat really is the pivotal seat that will decide the majority, I could be persuaded.)
Comments
View as Flat
gordonrands Posted 1:39 pm
27 Apr 2006
That the environment has come close to being a partisan issue has been very harmful to environmental legislation, and to the environmental movement. It is critical that there be Republican environmentalists in Congress. I actually think that of the four scenarios you mention, #2 (Dem majority, Chafee wins) is by far the best one.
I recognize the potential that you mention that a Chafee win will be the action that keeps the Senate 50-50, and thus in GOP hands. But if that happens, I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see Chafee pull a Jim Jeffords-like switch to Independent. I hope that it doesn't come to that -- I desparately hope that the Democrats win either the Senate or the House. But I'm afraid that isn't going to happen, even if Chafee loses.
Not just on environment, but on other issues, the country is not well served by two ideologically pure parties. We need liberal Republicans in office to prevent further polarization of this nation.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 1:49 pm
27 Apr 2006
David, your arguments all make sense. But one problem is that the endorsement really supports Option 3 as the favored option, because that is what the SC and LCV are endorsing. A Chafee win and by extension continued Republican control of the Senate.
Let's say option 4 occurred, then what? The Republicans will certainly be weakened by the election. They will also be weakened in the House. This means that the remaining moderate Republicans will have more power.
A Chafee loss will send a signal to moderate Republicans that they have to move further to the left to hold on to their seats. A group of five or six of them will hold the balance of power in the Senate. They can be shown that unless they vote to block bills that are bad for the environment, they will lose too. They will understand that they need to be better than Chafee.
(The message being that Chafee was not good enough).
The Republican leadership is nasty, but not totally stupid. If they don't have the votes in the senate, they won't pass stupid bills. Unless they do it for posturing purposes.
Worrying too much about committees is a waste of time. Replacing Chafee with someone who is a better vote on the environment is a good idea. The same should be done to Democrats who are bad on the environment.
As long as we endorse people who are only so so on our issues, we will never make progress, only defend in a so so manner. It is a weak losing position.
Endorsing Chafee is a sign of weakness. If it's the best we can do, we are in trouble.
Patrick
Permalink
Revere Posted 3:53 am
28 Apr 2006
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:38 am
28 Apr 2006
Chafee has a seat on the environment committee, and thus is in a unique position to stop crappy legislation. If a Democrat wins, you can bet that the Democrat will not have a seat on the committee, and will thus be -- like all members of the minority these days -- completely powerless. A "narrowed" majority is worthless.
www.grist.org
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:07 am
28 Apr 2006
David, I must disagree with you concering Chafee's committee seat. Certainly blocking bad legislation is a nice thing. But let's look at how things really work under the Republican leadership.
Anything really bad they want, they slip in to bills during conference (that mysterious place of corruption where differences between House and Senate versions of bills are resolved, with lots of little extras thrown in).
Secondly, the Senate is NOT the House. Senators have tremendous power to block bad legislation by putting holds on it and by threatening fillibusters.
The fact is, if any of them care about the environment, they have the ability to block legislation on the floor. The truth is that too few of them do care.
Again, a narrowed majority would further empower the "moderate" Republicans who would have more negotiating power.
Supporting Chafee is supporting the status quo (which in the case of global warming is heading downhill towards the cliff!).
Patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:41 am
29 Apr 2006
Wow. I had been assuming that a shift in the House would be much harder to achieve than in the Senate. Not so, says Brooks. And on something like this he is worth taking seriously. Probably more so than the Democratic fund-raisers telling us that victory in the Senate is in sight. They told us that in 2002 and 2004, didn't they.
Permalink
Revere Posted 10:46 am
29 Apr 2006
The LCV and Sierra Club don't seem to care about any issues but their own, to the detriment of their own issues in the last analysis (IMO). Moreover they are alienating many natural allies in the progressive movement by their attitude.
I take a back seat to no one on environmental issues, having spent more than 40 years fighting for a safe environment on the public health side. It is dismaying to see important segments of the conservation movement support Senators who toss them a crumb but then take away the whole meal through the judiciary.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:37 pm
29 Apr 2006
I want to explain in more detail what really happens in committees. It is true that legislation has to leave a committee to advance to main body (House or Senate). But any leglislation that the leadership really WANTS will advance.
If Chafee (or anyone else, Democrat or Republican) was blocking legislation that their leadership thought was really vital, and really cared about, they would be stripped of their membership and replaced immediately.
What actually happens is that what appears to be a block is usually a recognition on the part of the leadership that they don't have the votes to pass that particular piece of legislation anyway. A nice committee vote killing it allows people on both sides to tell their constituents "we did our best". The blockers claim victory (true, but really just a reflection of the lack of sufficient support in the overall legislative body for that particular bill, than any real committee heroics).
There is also legislation that would upset too many of a parties own supporters, so it really shouldn't pass, but by killing it in committee, the leadership (which could pass it, but really doesn't want to) can say "see, we tried."
To some extent that is the role of moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats, to play blockers for their party leadership when needed.
In the modern Congress, committees serve as mostly window dressing. The real work is done by staff members (and too often lobbyists) behind closed doors.
Patrick
Permalink