by publius
So Larry Craig may go down swingin’ after all. If so, it’s a fascinating story on several different levels. But in the desperate attempt to say something original about all this, it’s worth noting some of the constitutional dimensions surrounding Craig’s potential de-resignation. More precisely, Craig’s de-resignation offers some interesting insights into our constitutional structure – and the protections embedded within that structure.
Unlike certain parliamentary systems, the Constitution creates geographic-centric representation. In theory, a Senator from Idaho is ultimately accountable only to the people of Idaho. A representative from the 3rd District in Kentucky is responsible only to the people of Louisville. This structural design is an important check on centralized authority. For instance, the President or the Speaker of the House can’t determine who gets to sit in Congress. They have to take whatever rag-tag team the various districts give them. In theory, this gives individual congressmen/women the structural freedom to vote for their constituents’ interests, avoid executive pressure, etc.
But as we know, it doesn’t always work that way in practice. Over the past few years, what we’ve seen instead is intense party discipline that often ignores geography. The reason, methinks, is that the national centralized party leadership has enormous leverage over individual members. The leadership controls committee assignments, campaign resources, earmarks, campaign visits from big shots, etc. On most issues, the “costs” of alienating the leadership are very high while the constituents are largely indifferent. Thus, voting with the leadership is usually all gain, no pain. That’s why people shouldn’t throw around the term “hack” too casually – there are rational reasons for elected officials to be “hacks” when the populace isn’t well-informed. This leverage is one of the many reasons why national parties sort of “screw” with structural tensions the framers tried to embed in the constitutional system.
But that said, there are limits to the national party’s leverage. Regardless of the costs of alienating the leadership, individual members won’t risk political death to please them. That’s why Gordon Smith suddenly got religion on Iraq after 2006. He was willing to carry Bush’s water for a long time, but not to his own political grave.
So that brings us to Larry Craig. It’s clear that Craig’s de-resignation would be very bad news for the national party. The question I’m struggling with is why Craig should give a damn. Watching decades-long friends turn on you in a day has a way of clarifying things. (See also Joe Lieberman). The national leadership acted fast to strip him of power and push him out. But . . . there’s one power they can’t strip – they can’t force him out of the Senate. Only the people of Idaho can do that. And only in 2008. If he resigns now, it would basically be for the good of the GOP. But again, if they’ve written him off and turned on him and denounced him, why should he care? The GOP’s efforts to push him out have re-aligned pre-party incentives (i.e., structural incentives that predated the rise of political parties). Craig’s calculation now has nothing to do with the national party and everything to do with the people of his state (see also Joe Lieberman). And even if his state doesn’t support him, why shouldn’t he stay just for meanness? What exactly does he owe the GOP these days, anyway?
In this sense, Craig’s de-resignation is simply the old constitutional design rearing its beautiful head, showing us that there are limits to what national parties can do. Obviously, this doesn’t always lead to good results (see, e.g., Lieberman). And, there’s a great deal to be said for a parliamentary system. But it’s also nice to see the constitutional design knocking the DC RNC team off-message. That is, after all, exactly what it was designed to do.
And, there’s a great deal to be said for a parliamentary system.
I don’t understand that bit. In our system (Netherlands) you can push people out of your party, thus denying them the resources of your party, but you cannot push them out of the house/senate, they can only leave volontary.
We had quite a few people who, after severe disagreements, stayed on as individuals. An most of them weren’t even voted in as individuals, since most people vote for the Party Representative (Each party has a public list of electable people and if they have 20 seats after National Elections the top 20 people are in – unless a person lower on the list has enough individual votes to surpass them).
“In this sense, Craig’s de-resignation is simply the old constitutional design rearing its beautiful head, showing us that there are limits to what national parties can do.”
But are there really? OK, they can’t kick him out against his will, but parties can’t in most parliamentary systems either. It has happened several times here in Norway that elected representatives have jumped ship to become independents. Many have run for other parties in the subsequent election (I can’t verify that anyone has succeeded in getting reelected after a switch in the parliament, but I’m pretty sure. At local levels, which are naturally more person-oriented, it happens all the time).
If it does what it’s designed to do, I’m tempted to say it’s completely by accident.
In Germany too there were/are some representatives that their party would like to get rid off but are able to get and stay in because they get enough votes in their districts. At least one has been reelected because he drove the party leadership mad (OK, it’s the Green party and they still have a partially anarchist base).
In the UK, famously, Ken Livingston was told by the Labour Party leadership that he couldn’t be the Labour candidate for Mayor of London (everyone assumed this was because Livingston would be bound to win, and he’d be (a) way too popular (b) too left-wing) so Livingston resigned from the party, ran as an independent, won handily, and politely agreed to be accepted back into the Labour party just before the next Mayoral election, ensuring that this time he won as the Labour candidate.
Which is precisely why the modern system of party government does not like representatives to be too popular on their own account.
The interesting thing to my mind is this: Craig is pretty much dead meat politically, unless there’s some radical development. So all he’s gaining by this is an extra year in his seat, at the cost of that seat to his party.
And we have good reason to suspect that he’s been advancing at least one cause he doesn’t really believe in. Perhaps there were others?
So, what is Senator Craig going to be like for the last year of his political life? A very different Senator, I would suspect.
Will he redouble his efforts on the fronts where he still has some credibility? Turn into Idahoans’ worst nightmare? Maybe turn on his own party by telling all about where the bodies are buried? There’s no telling, but it’s going to be interesting.
I hope he does it. I think that the arrest was unfounded and that he never should have pleaded guilty. Even having pleaded guilty it was only a misdemeanor and not grounds for removal from the Senate. This is really up to his constituents.
And as for the leadership – well, he can cause them almost as much trouble as they may cause him. (As you say, see Lieberman.)
As wise as our founding fathers may have been, I seriously doubt that they anticipated and programmed in counters to RNC on-message-ness, as such.
Other than that, I mostly agree. I applaud this with much the same enthusiasm that I applauded Lieberman’s change of party: as another spitting in the face of the entrenched party machine, and of little note otherwise.
I’m makin’ salsa, someone get chips and beer.
“A representative from the 3rd District in Kentucky is responsible only to the people of Louisville.”
That’s not entirely accurate:
I found it curious that John McCain, who voted to convict Bill Clinton, insisted Craig should resign, but didn’t mention expulsion.
As a Senator, even a partially or wholly disgraced Senator, burned by his own Party, Craig will retain a lot of perks and benefits that make it advantageous for him to stay in office. If he originally decided to resign for the good of the GOP, his later analysis of how the GOP spurned him may have made him angry enough to decide to stay on and “Screw You, GOP.”
What is most interesting is the action of Sen. Arlen Specter, urging Craig to make a fight of it. What the hell is that all about?
Here is the most far-out, yet marginally possible reason I can come up with for Specter’s actions: He is so pissed-off at Bush/Cheney (for a multitude of reasons, going back to their threats, when the Republicans controlled the Senate, to have him removed as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee if he did not get with the program) that he wants the Craig imbroglio to totally screw-up the roll-out of the Petraeus Surge Bamboozlement Initiative. Which it can easily do if it gets to be real smarmy, juicy and nasty. Anything having to do with a sex scandal will in America trump just about anything short of nuclear war news.
(One of the definitions of “imbroglio” is “a confused heap.” We know of what it is a heap….)
Brett: So, what is Senator Craig going to be like for the last year of his political life? A very different Senator, I would suspect.
I wouldn’t expect too much from him; he’s still lying to his children.
Considering the kind of behavior we’ve seen from Craig in the past, regardless of his anger at the Party I’d be surprised, contra Brett, if he changes much.
less relevant and definitely childish, I find the phase “go down swingin'” in this context to be immensely amusing.
Don’t give Cheney any ideas.
Which cause would that be? You think Craig is actually a closet supporter of gay marriage?
Oh, I think the record shows his public opposition to “gay rights” goes further than just same sex marriage.
True, Brett, but I’d still argue that his engaging in certain activities doesn’t mean that he’s secretly in favor of gay rights. I doubt Craig identifies with gays at all.
The question I’m struggling with is why Craig should give a damn.
Wingnut welfare.
“As wise as our founding fathers may have been, I seriously doubt that they anticipated and programmed in counters to RNC on-message-ness, as such.”
I think they sort of did though. The system was originally designed to be anti-any-party. For the most part both parties have done their best to strip away all of that function of the design, but there are bits of it left.
I doubt Craig identifies with gays at all.
“Why Do All These Homosexuals Keep …?”
Perhaps Senator Craig took offense at the different treatment afforded him from that afforded David Vitter by their Republican colleagues. The ostensible basis for that difference is that Craig pled guilty to a minor criminal offense, while Vitter merely admitted to “serious sin” after his number was found in the records of an escort service. (Another distinction is that one of them probably actually had sex, while the other merely intended to.)
Given that Craig’s plea is the peg that the Vitter supporters are hanging their hats on, it makes sense for Craig to attack the validity of the plea–a claim which has at least an arguable basis.
Perhaps Craig took offense at Senator McConnell, who has himself been the subject of innuendoes* as to which team he bats for,** characterizing Craig’s stall* tactics as “unforgivable”. What a Christian position to take!
BTW, I wonder what Vitter’s fellow Roman Catholic Republicans would have said if he had admitted using a condom while whoremongering.
____________________________
* Puns intended
** See, e.g., http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/03/progressives-will-not-use-mcconnells.html
“I think that the arrest was unfounded and that he never should have pleaded guilty.”
The comment I’m about to make has nothing whatever to do with OCSteve; I’m simply quoting this sentiment as a typical example of a highly popular, and widespread, and essentially non-partisan, opinion.
And my comment is that I think this opinion is perfectly reasonable, but that any holder of it should then make an effort, henceforth, to campaign for the elimination of the laws that criminalize the specific public bathroom behavior in question, and the police practices that routinely make thousands of such busts of homosexuals across America every year, and which makes criminals of some people every day.
Either this is an unjust situation for all people arrested in such situations, or it isn’t. It isn’t a matter of a single man who happens to be unusually prominent and privileged.
Either nobody should be prosecuted for this, or everyone who engages in it should be.
But backing this man, alone, and not all the other gay men busted in such situations every day, makes no sense.
Given the number of articles, and advocates, invoking and arguing for the use of tactical nukes as part of a massive assault on Iran, down to specifying which weapons should hit which targets, it’s sadly obvious that it would hardly be a new idea at all.
Actually, Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution expressly provides that the Senate can throw Craig (or any other Senator) out:
“Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.”
Sure, but they might also have to deal with Vitter or determine some rather homophobic set of rules. fire or frying pan, I think.
My point is not that the Senate wouldn’t have to make distinctions between Vitter and Craig (and I think that it’s pretty easy to distinguish someone who, allegedly, solicited sex in a public restroom — how disgusting). It’s only that Publius errs when he suggests that “there’s one power they can’t strip – they can’t force him out of the Senate. Only the people of Idaho can do that.”
Pandagon, one of hilzoy’s favorites, is all over this. They are going to try to
out Mitch McConnell
Lindsey Graham is next.
So what if Bill Clinton did something, uh, not really appropriate in the Oval Office.
You know what, I thoght this was amusing at first, like Clarence Thomas and “Long Dong Silver”, and the “Uncle Tom” campaign against Michael Steele, who hilzoy, Steve Gilliard, and OCSteve hated so much 😉
Fine, go for it. Don’t cry to me about Swift-Boating and all that stuff. That’s they way it is, the Democrats say the gloves off!
Anything about Hsu? No Sir! Anything about the Iraq Helsinki Agreement? No Ma’am! What about Maliki suggesting reorganizing the Iraqi government? Oh heavens, No! Or Haditha dismissals of charges? NO WAY!!!! – Not ever going to talk about Haditha again!
Fine. Call me a troll, or a vile lying liar. Look in the mirror, and ask yourself, if the dreaded right-winger talk discussed Larry Craig, then why didn’t ObWi or any other liberals discuss these other things (especially Hsu)?
Anything about Hsu?
Hsu’s on first.
DaveC: Fine, go for it. Don’t cry to me about Swift-Boating and all that stuff. That’s they way it is, the Democrats say the gloves off!
Dave, I know this is a common confusion, but bear it in mind: Swift-Boating is when political opponents make up stuff in order to campaign negatively against their opposition candidate.
If there is a damaging truth to be exposed about a political candidate – as for example, that a publicly-homophobic Republican Senator has casual sex with men in public toilets, or that a publicly family-values Republican Senator regularly uses prostitutes – that isn’t Swift Boating. Swift-Boating is about telling lies, not about exposing the truth.
It’s possible, of course, to argue that it’s wrong to expose these kind of personal secrets to the public view. But if you feel that political parties should campaign only a nice, clean way, you would have got disgusted by your own party long before you started getting disgusted by the Democrats.
Throwing a fit because the other party is exposing truths about the politicians you support, that reveal your party to be a clutch of homophobic bastards without loyalty or common sense, isn’t exactly taking the moral high ground.
Democratic politicians may be less at risk from this blogger simply because, while there are doubtless equivalent numbers of closeted gays among them, it is official Republican party policy that gays are second-class citizens who ought not to be permitted to marry, serve in the military, be protected from anti-gay violence, etc. While there are Democratic politicians who also support forcing GLBT people into second-class citizen status, it isn’t party policy: it makes it far less likely that one of the closeted gay Senators or Congressman on the Democratic side of the house has ended up voting for or campaigning for such measures, and thus putting himself into a position where he would be vulnerable to this kind of outing campaign.
As for “The Democrats say the gloves are off!” it’s clear to all (except you, evidently) that the Democrats don’t need to say “the gloves are off!”: it was, as you surely remember, a Republican campaign from which the term “Swift Boating” originated.
Jes, you draw a distinction between political mudslinging that tells the truth versus political mudslinging that spreads lies.
But republicans don’t draw that distinction. It’s mudslinging either way, and if the enemy does any of it that justifies republicans to do all of it.
“Truth” is kind of an elusive concept for the GOP anyway.
Actually, I’m calling you terminally confused. I’m not sure what you’re trying to do here except twist and contort yourself into making this some sort of partisan issue.
You should go easy on that; you’ll hurt yourself.
(And anyway….why on earth should Democrats be outraged by attention paid to Hsu? Slime occurs everywhere. If Hsu’s dirty, get rid of him and his money–and we wouldn’t know to do it without finding out about it, eh?)
DaveC: Michael Steele, who hilzoy, Steve Gilliard, and OCSteve hated so much
Huh? I thought he was a great candidate. I just decided that I wasn’t going to enable Republicans this time around.
Jes: Swift-Boating is when political opponents make up stuff in order to campaign negatively against their opposition candidate.
I know this is a common confusion – rather the MSM can’t write “Swift Boat Veterans” without having “discredited” in the same sentence – but they never actually were discredited. There were some discrepancies with one of their claims; otherwise their claims stand up well.
Tell me – why did Kerry let the statute of limitations for defamation expire in August with no action? John O’Neill practically begged Kerry to sue him for libel. If he could prove them wrong he certainly had a case for damages – I mean costing him the election and all… He obviously could afford a lawyer – so why not? A little thing called “discovery” I think. And he still hasn’t released all of his service records to the public (what he released in 2005 was to a friendly reporter, not the public).
I know this is a common confusion – rather the MSM can’t write “Swift Boat Veterans” without having “discredited” in the same sentence – but they never actually were discredited.
And, in its turn, this is standard right-wing dogma, but is so wrong as to beggar belief. See here and here.
That you and other conservatives can continue to believe that the Swift Boaters were never discredited is a testament to just how “liberal” Our Liberal Media really is.
Tell me – why did Kerry let the statute of limitations for defamation expire in August with no action? John O’Neill practically begged Kerry to sue him for libel.
And let another bunch of thuggish fnckhead conservatives run around with something like “Sore/Loserman” signs* for another year, puffing themselves up on yet another pack of lies? Why on earth would Kerry do that?
He obviously could afford a lawyer – so why not? A little thing called “discovery” I think.
OK, Karnak.
And he still hasn’t released all of his service records to the public
Unlike draft-dodging GWB. Oh, wait, he didn’t either, and he has a lot more to be ashamed of, unlike a man who actually served his country in combat during a war with distinction. Support the troops, Steve!
*PS Conservatives sure embraced “Loserman” awfully tightly in the long run, didn’t they?
OCSteve: I know this is a common confusion – rather the MSM can’t write “Swift Boat Veterans” without having “discredited” in the same sentence – but they never actually were discredited.
What Phil said.
And he still hasn’t released all of his service records to the public (what he released in 2005 was to a friendly reporter, not the public).
I will be totally unsurprised if someday we find that his medical records include an STD case or two. That wasn’t the least bit uncommon among servicemen in vietnam, was it? And yet it would look as bad to the media as some giant service-related scandal.
I will totally unsurprised if Republicans continue to regard the unreleased service records of John Kerry as a much bigger issue than George W. Bush getting a cushy berth in a war he claimed to support, going AWOL from that berth after drug testing became mandatory, and then lying about it in his official biography.
After all, Kerry’s question is still as embarrassing to those who support the Iraq war as it was then to those who supported the Vietnam war: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Kerry’s support for Vietnam veterans who didn’t conform to the hero stereotype – the ones who came back shattered and talking of the awful things they done and seen Americans do – is just as unpopular today as it was thirty-odd years ago. Ask Joe Darby…