Mediaboss Marketing

Illustrated | Getty Images, iStock

April 7, 2020

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

There was a brief period (it may have lasted for as long as 48 hours) when Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer went from insisting that Donald Trump posed an existential threat to the United States of America to insisting that he must assume unilateral authority over the whole of the United States in order to save us from an actual existential threat: the coronavirus pandemic. Those of us looking for any little bit of good news these days should take comfort from the fact that this brief era in American politics has already run its course, and Democratic politicians are now looking ahead to the peace and plenty of opposition. Once again Trump is the bad guy, and the number-one priority of the legislative branch is to undermine his administration during this ostensible period of unprecedented crisis.

This at any rate is the only conclusion I can draw from the recent announcement that Democrats will be creating a panel to oversee the Trump's administration's handling of coronavirus relief. The idea behind the oversight group, which will be led by Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina (whose turn-out efforts on behalf of Joe Biden in his home state now seem like ancient history), is to "root out waste, fraud, and abuse."

This phrase will be familiar of course to anyone who followed the fortunes of the Tea Party during its six-year-long stranglehold on public life during the Obama administration. It is cant. When trillions of dollars are being spent during a crisis, waste is inevitable, fraud of little importance, and abuse essential. Of course government funds are going to be wasted what else do you call it when the equivalent of the entire federal budget is being spent in the hope of ameliorating the effects of a self-inflicted economic depression? The whole point of a stimulus package is to give people and businesses money as quickly as possible. Fraud is going to happen no matter what because acting swiftly here is more important than figuring out whether every single relief applicant has told the truth in every particular. As for abuse: no major piece of relief legislation in modern American history has ever passed without huge portions of it going to undeserving persons in positions of influence. This is simply how the world works. It is also irrelevant because even if 25 or 50 percent of all beneficiaries are undeserving, the ones who are not cannot wait long enough for the former to be determined.

Democrats know this all too well, which is why they resisted the attempts of the GOP to turn the 2008 financial crisis into a lesson on good government from a high-school civics textbook. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if the message you are trying to send people is that the current pandemic is more serious than whether Trump made a joke about Russian hacking on TV one time or whether not actually canceling foreign aid is an impeachable offense, you could start by not giving the opposite impression. The last thing the country needs right now is more partisan theatrics.

Is coronavirus another story about a misguided expert consensus going more or less unchallenged, like "Saddam has weapons" or "Trump is a Russian asset," or is it the real thing? The problem we face is that it would be impossible to know from the response. America's political institutions have eroded to the point that they are incapable of solving even the simplest problems. The 10 plagues of Egypt could be sweeping across the land as I write this, and Sean Hannity would be on television explaining that Pharaoh Trump's plan to build special locust-repelling pyramids like you wouldn't believe is simultaneously genius and unnecessary because the bugs are fake while the leaders of the opposition party held Zoom hearings on whether there was an impeachable 1.2 percent discrepancy between official and media totals of granary-held wheat reserves.

It's not just that we can't handle actual crises with no obvious partisan angles. It's that we don't want to.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

Powered By ZergNet

See the rest here:
The empty spectacle of a coronavirus oversight committee - The Week

Graphics by Ryan Best

With dozens of candidates trading endless jabs over policies like Medicare for All and systems like capitalism and socialism, this primary season has highlighted a growing divide within the Democratic Party about where its headed, both in this election and future ones.

But now that former Vice President Joe Biden seemingly has a lock on the nomination, he may soon be making overtures to other candidates supporters as he looks ahead to the general election. So what are the fault lines splitting Democratic voters? And is the Democratic Party as splintered as we think?

To answer this, I analyzed data from a survey fielded in the summer of 2019 by two liberal organizations, YouGov Blue and Data for Progress, that asked 2,900 likely Democratic primary voters how favorably they felt about 13 politicians and organizations on a five-point scale. (Full disclosure: I am a fellow at Data for Progress.) Respondents were asked to weigh in on labor unions, Wall Street, the Democratic National Committee, the #MeToo movement, the Black Lives Matter movement, Ivy League universities, Facebook, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, centrist Sen. Joe Manchin, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Socialists of America and former President Barack Obama.

This question let me aggregate respondents favorability ratings to understand how someone who gives high ratings to Schumer might rate, say, Ocasio-Cortez. And by running a statistical analysis known as principal component analysis, I was able to identify the types of organizations and individuals that respondents tend to have similar opinions about. For example, if someone rated Schumer positively, they were also likely to rate Pelosi positively, and positive feelings about labor unions were correlated with positive feelings about the DSA. By linking people according to their shared feelings, I saw two clear poles emerge within the Democratic Party: the establishment and the progressive left. A third group also emerged, and while its not as clearly defined as the other two, it has some overlap with the establishment and tends to be more fond Wall Street, so Im calling that neoliberals.

The establishment includes those likely Democratic primary voters who rated the DNC, Schumer, Pelosi and Obama highly, and as you can see, those who rated these establishment figures highly tended to be less enthused about the groups and individuals associated with the progressive left.

The progressive left gives high ratings to the DSA, Ocasio-Cortez, labor unions, Black Lives Matter and the #MeToo movement. As you can see in the charts below, this feeling more favorably toward these activist groups meant respondents were less likely to feel warmly about the establishment, and were even more unlikely to feel favorably toward Manchin and Wall Street. In particular, the data suggests a tight connection between Ocasio-Cortez and the DSA, which may not be surprising considering her membership in the organization, but her rise to national prominence and the fact that progressive respondents tend to feel positively about both her and the organization speaks to the DSAs increasingly high-profile role in the party.

There was a third group, though. The neoliberal group wasnt as clearly defined as the other two groups, although as I mentioned earlier, there is overlap with the establishment wing of the party. It is a bit more of a hodgepodge, though, in terms of what types of groups and individuals were rated highly (for example, the connection between rating Wall Street, the Ivy League and Manchin all highly is not necessarily clear), although its possible that the people in this group are part of a more affluent wing of the party. This group was also less likely to give favorable ratings to individuals and groups associated with the progressive left.

So who exactly is this progressive left that is polarizing to both the establishment and the neoliberal wings of the party?

Well, we know this wing of the party feels warmly toward ideologies like democratic socialism and supports political insurgents like Ocasio-Cortez, so they may find themselves at odds with party leadership.

But we can also use our survey data to look at how respondents answered a variety of socioeconomic, demographic and attitudinal questions. Given the warm feelings this group has toward democratic socialism and the rising importance of group identities in politics, I focused on analyzing characteristics of respondents who describe themselves as socialists. For starters, they were more likely to be male than female and more likely to be white than nonwhite. (Though identifying as Hispanic or Latinx also made it somewhat more likely that a person would say theyre a socialist.) In general, younger respondents were more likely to adopt the socialist label, as were those who endorsed left-leaning outlooks, like the idea that its unjust for a society to have billionaires while others are living in poverty. Many also said they had experienced sexual harassment, with 63 percent of women and 33 percent of men saying it had happened to them.

Party loyalists were also less likely to identify as socialists, which could be a problem for Democrats if Biden is indeed the nominee he will not be able to take this groups support for granted and may have to make a special effort to win their votes in the general election.

There are also a few interesting places where I didnt find much connection between groups or ideas. For example, although some of Sen. Bernie Sanderss supporters have a history of attacking women online and on the campaign trail, holding sexist attitudes didnt make an individual more likely to identify as socialist in this survey, suggesting that the group thats lashing out may be a minority of voters who hold views similar to the Vermont senators.

At the same time, despite progressive leaders like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez calling for a Green New Deal, there wasnt evidence that individuals committed to clean energy or a federal green jobs guarantee were more likely to see themselves as socialists than those who did not support these Green New Deal policies. But this lack of coherent policy preferences isnt actually that surprising; theres a large body of political science research that suggests that broad identities and labels are much more meaningful to individuals than specific policy preferences.

And labels like progressive left and democratic socialist are the product of a very conscious movement thats been years in the making. Its not entirely a political movement either. The DSA, for instance, has been instrumental in shaping what it means to be a democratic socialist in the U.S., but it isnt actually a political party. So even though individuals like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are often thought of as the vanguards of progressive left politics, its important to remember that think tanks like the Peoples Policy Project and Data for Progress, media outlets such as Current Affairs and Jacobin, and the popular podcast Chapo Trap House have also played a role in shaping what it means to be part of the progressive left. Much like the Tea Party forged a transformation in the Republican Party, this new socialist wing of the Democratic Party is pushing for its own revolution.

But its not clear how strong the progressive lefts current configuration is. Movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter are well-liked within the progressive wing of the party, but leftist activists and politicians havent always prioritized issues of race, gender or sexuality. And in fact, in this survey, people who held racial biases werent really any more or less likely to identify as socialist. Its possible, then, that the progressive left risks creating a less diverse movement, particularly as its already weighted toward white, male supporters. And that could be a problem if the group wants to win races in a party whose coalition is largely built on women and nonwhite voters.

For the Democratic Party as a whole, this growing divide between the establishment and neoliberals versus the progressive left is perhaps one of the most important challenges it will have to face not only going into this upcoming presidential election, but also in elections to come. And already, weve seen that when the party establishment refuses to budge as, for example, when it continued to back Rep. Dan Lipinski in Illinois despite his opposition to major Democratic planks like abortion access and the Affordable Care Act organizations such as Justice Democrats are willing to primary their own (challenger Marie Newman beat the eight-term representative). This all suggests that if the establishment wont willingly make space for ideas like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, then a growing progressive left may attempt to make that space for itself.

CORRECTION (April 2, 2020, 11:10 a.m.): An earlier version of this article misstated the field dates of the YouGov Blue/Data for Progress survey. It was in the field in June and July of 2019, not November.

Go here to see the original:
Why The Progressive Left Fits So Uncomfortably Within The Democratic Party - FiveThirtyEight

Getting Australians to meet over a cup of tea or coffee and raise funds for cancer patients has become a virtual undertaking this year as the Cancer Council pivots to an online campaign.

Cancer Councils annual Biggest Morning Tea on 28 May sees hundreds of thousands of individuals and organisations participating in live gatherings across the country to raise money. Last year, nearly 28,000 Australians hosted a morning tea event, attended by an estimated 895,000 people, consuming more than 1 million teas and coffees.

But in a COVID-19 climate when most are now bunkered down at home, Cancer Council campaign unit manager, Adelaide Thompson, told CMO it was clear this years initiative would have to be radically rethought.

We could see the landscape was changing rapidly, she said, noting the turning point of gatherings of more than 500 being banned. We knew we had to start reassessing the Morning Tea campaign program. This is our biggest fundraising campaign of the year, and is highly important to us as a charity. Its a big contributor to helping us carry out our mission of reducing the impact of cancer.

We started thinking about how we pivot to what will be the issues in this environment and undertake this from the new perspective of our supporter needs base.

Thompson said the team needed a proposition that addressed the challenges of feeling isolated, and be positioned as a solution to what all of us are experiencing through social distancing and at-home isolation.

This environment is challenging in terms of that sense of togetherness and connecting. Our morning tea brings communities together, and is about doing something good while having a bit of fun, she continued. We felt confident the campaign can do that, its about how to execute it in a way that inspires people and brings them on the journey together.

What Cancer Council came up with was Australias Biggest Virtual Morning Tea. Thompson said from a usual nine-month planning window, the team had to create a whole new campaign within a couple of weeks. That meant evaluating all creative, adapting or creating new assets.

We homed in on the new environment and how to get people interested and onto this journey to have a morning tea in their way in this environment, she explained. Then it was about how we create inspiring ideas and how to guides of fundraising in this way. We are creating resources to host a morning tea virtually. People need that team bond, so this is a way to have important social interaction with colleagues and communities.

Among the fresh suggestions Cancer Council has come up include undertaking a virtual bake-off, where all participants cook and everyone scores their creations. Another is getting colleagues to donate what they would have spent on commuting or coffee for a week.

With so many parents looking after kids at home and striving to find things for them to do, Thompson suggested kids having a tea party with dolls and teddies. Online auctions are another activity on Cancer Councils list.

With workplaces the biggest audience, much focus has been placed on ideas for that audience, Thompson said. She referred to her own team as a case study.

In managing my team, Ive been thinking about how to keep sense of team culture, motivation and ways to do that in these new times, she commented.

Thompson said Cancer Councils role inspiring hosts to hold a morning tea in their own way will also see it showcasing and encouraging more case study sharing.

Channel and asset rethink

Behind the scenes, Cancer Council has pivoted and adapted existing resources to support the new campaign focus. We had to look at every bit of creative, and redo that. Some could be adapted, some we had to start from scratch, Thompson said.

We had to evaluate all our channels as well. We are a charity, so our job is to raise as much money as we can from our marketing spend. So we scrutinised our channels to see what are the most applicable.

The emphasis now is largely social and digital. For example, we were due to send out direct mail to key workplaces, but clearly theres no one there in those offices, so we stopped that, Thompson said.

We had to make quick decisions on channels, and some we have stopped, while others are being monitored and were optimising as we see them performing.

With hosts registered before the COVID-19 crisis, Cancer Council enacted a communications plan to inform them of the new proposition. These are what the not-for-profit calls its VIP morning tea supporters, whove been doing it for 10+ years and put on substantial events.

Thompson cited positive feedback but noted several of the more established events are postponing. They have very set ways of doing it. But we have had a good response to our virtual offering. See how it goes for the next month, she said.

Thompson saluted her team at Cancer Council, who have worked long hours to pull this together.

We knew we had to get it out to market as soon as possible. Our team has put in the hours to get it out, but also had amazing responses from across our organisation. The whole organisation knows how important this campaign is to the charity, and theyre supporting where they can with resourcing, she said.

We are an innovative bunch, and you have to be creative as we dont have big budgets. So that culture was already there. We knew there could be a lot of opportunity and that helped focus us to think differently. Options are clear when you are just forced to do it.

The hardest thing for Cancer Council is just having to execute, and Thompson said shes watching out for burn out and ensuring teams focus on their health and wellbeing in this challenging environment.

In terms of ROI and outcomes, clearly its hard to predict but Thompson said Cancer Council has reforecast down in 2020.

We know several VIP supporters that will postpone. With this economy, this wont be for everyone, so less people will do it, she said. The group is also looking at further ways to fundraise in the new crisis environment.

Cancer patients need us more than ever, and we need to raise money to continue to run critical services, Thompson said.

But we are a community organisation, and we want to support the community as much as they support people with cancer. We need to be sensitive to that people give if they are able to and its right for them to do so.

Follow CMO on Twitter:@CMOAustralia, take part in the CMO conversation on LinkedIn:CMO ANZ,follow our regular updatesvia CMO Australia's Linkedin company page, or join us on Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/CMOAustralia.

See original here:
Cancer Council on the call to host the Biggest Virtual Morning Tea - CMO

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is a fiery conservative who is no stranger to controversy.

Patrick, who has been lieutenant governor since 2015, has a history of polarizing rhetoric. A provocative conservative radio talk show host before he ran for office, Patrick has backed policies ranging from requiring people to use restrooms that match their assigned genders to the building of a wall along the US-Mexico border.

He was Tea Party before the Tea Party even really existed, said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston.

Patricks latest stirring came Monday, when he made comments that people should head back to work, even as officials nationwide shut down businesses in an attempt to slow the spread of coronavirus.

My message is that lets get back to work, lets get back to living. Lets be smart about it, and those of us who are 70-plus, well take care of ourselves, but dont sacrifice the country, he told Fox News Tucker Carlson.

In comments that echoed a growing desire among some Republicans, including President Donald Trump, to ease emergency guidelines, he suggested that he was willing to take a chance to get the economy rolling.

What Im living in fear of is whats happening to this country, Patrick, who is about to turn 70, said. And you know, Tucker, no one reached out to me and said as a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren? And if thats the exchange, Im all in.

The comments on coronavirus and the economy, Jones said, were a little over the top, even for Dan Patrick.

Patricks career began in sports broadcast in the 1970s. He then became a restaurateur in the 1980s and went bankrupt, eventually leading to his time as a provocative conservative radio talk show host.

Patricks radio show was an early outlet for Rush Limbaugh before Limbaugh became one of the most prominent political radio hosts in the nation, Jones said.

I loved this little old station, and a guy named Rush Limbaugh called one day. I can detect a good, conservative voice when I hear it, so I put Rush on the radio in 88, Patrick told State Legislatures magazine in 2016.

Once, in August 1991, Patrick underwent a vasectomy live on his radio show, broadcasting from his urologists office to encourage other men to consider the procedure, according to United Press International. Patricks wife watched the procedure.

When he first ran for office in 2006, the Texas Observer called Patrick Houstons king of right-wing talk radio and reported that he was one to beat in a four-person Republican primary for a Texas Senate seat.

Patrick went on to handily win the primary and the seat itself in the general. He then served in the state Senate for eight years.

While in the state Senate, Patrick proposed a bill that would have restricted Transportation Security Administration pat-downs and made it illegal for anyone conducting searches to touch private parts under or through clothing, according to local television station KHOU. The bill failed in 2011 after federal officials warned they would have to cancel flights in and out of Texas airports due to security concerns, KHOU reported.

Patrick was asked about the bill by CNNs Don Lemon at the time.

Thomas Jefferson was very clear. He said resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions he wishes that it always be kept alive, he told Lemon. Well, its being kept alive on this occasion because this is important that we speak up and say to the federal government, You just cant pass any rule that you want and expect the American public to take it.'

Patrick spent much of time in the state Senate talking about ways to lower taxes. Before running for office, he was a founder of a group called Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes that organized thousands of people in an effort to lower property taxes.

In 2002, Patrick published the book, The Second Most Important Book You Will Ever Read: a Personal Challenge to Read the Bible. He later authored a bill that got the words, In God We Trust displayed in the Senate chamber.

Later, when Patrick ran for lieutenant governor 2014, he framed his campaign around slowing immigration and controlling the border. Patrick has likened immigration into Texas to an invasion, and accused immigrants of bringing diseases.

Dan Patrick was Donald Trump before Donald Trump was, said Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston.

Patrick defeated the three-time incumbent in the GOP primary and won an easy general election victory.

As lieutenant governor, he has backed a series of controversial policies. He was a leading proponent of the 2017 Texas bathroom bill. The bill did not become law, but would have required people to use school restrooms and facilities that match the gender on their birth certificates. It was opposed by transgender advocates and major Texas companies.

Patrick has also backed Trumps wall on the US-Mexico border.

Rottinghaus said Patrick is by nature a political bomb thrower.

He compared Patrick to Trump: The stylistic similarities are pretty strong, and the political similarities in some ways are identical.

That parallel has been on display as Patrick campaigns for Trumps re-election.

We did not have an election in 2016. We had a revolt! Patrick said when introducing Trump at a rally last year in Dallas, according to Texas Monthly. And this is what the media doesnt understand, or the progressive left. The revolution is only getting louder and larger!

Read the original:
'He was Tea Party before the Tea Party even really existed': Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has a history of stirring controversy - KRDO

This article is inThe Spectators April 2020 US edition.Subscribe here to get yours.

Every now and again, some poor sap gets it into his head that hes going to write the great Washington society novel. The results are rarely good arguably the last success was Henry Adamss Democracy (1880) in part because the stories always draw upon the same ideas. Theres the clique of scheming senators and congressmen, gliding around spouting epigrams at each other while ruthlessly trying to consolidate their power. Theres the lone Brit, usually an ambassador, whos a less clever observer of American life than he thinks. Theres the mistaken assumption on the part of the author that bureaucracy and cocktail parties are in any way interesting, which usually proves fatal for the work as a whole.

Yet more than anything, what these novels have in common is a focus on friendship family, too, but friendship especially. That can mean fake friendship for political gain; it can also mean genuine friendship tested by disagreement. Whatever the case, Washington emerges looking more like an aggregate of its relationships than the bastion of some principle or PAC or party line. The reason being that this is how it used to be. Most of these aspiring Swampfires of the Vanities were written well before the age of modern media (back when people used to do things like write novels). It was a different Washington then, one in which friendships played a greater role than they do today.

This is what makes Joe Biden, supposedly the Democrats vanilla option, so interesting. More than any presidential nominee since John McCain, he hearkens back to that more decorous era. Biden entered the Senate in 1973. For historians of congressional clubbiness, that was after Sen. Everett Dirksen was keeping a clock in his office on which every number was a five, but before Sens. Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd were cruising around town like two rakes in a buddy comedy. This was the age of New England Irish eminences like Dodd and Kennedy, of Southern good ol boy segregationists like James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia. And those were just the Democrats.

That whips had to keep in line such different personalities shows how tricky legislating could be. The political parties werent yet organized into coastal elites and deplorables, but they also werent still divided along Reconstruction lines of North and South. Within each coexisted a hodgepodge of opinions and regional interests, with amiability often the only common denominator. Also, whiskey. I suspect, Sen. Talmadge once wrote, alcoholism is as much of an occupational disease among politicians as black lung is among coal miners. He was speaking from personal experience: in 1979, he admitted publicly to having a drinking problem. Dirksen, meanwhile, was known for plying obstinate holdouts with booze.

This more genial Washington helped ratify some of the most consequential legislation of the 20th century. Its largely gone now and for largely understandable reasons. Yet its also essential if you want to understand Joe Biden, a man from the ancien rgime struggling to adapt to the new order.

When Biden first arrived in the Senate, there was still that handful of Democratic segregationists representing the old South. Determined to pass legislation and advance his fortunes within the party, he ended up working with Eastland and Talmadge, both choleric racists. Elected under Jim Crow, the pair loudly opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by their fellow Southerner, President Lyndon Johnson. Talmadge was so incensed that he boycotted the Democratic National Convention that year. When the Mississippi Freedom Democratic party, an integrated caucus that included blacks, demanded representation at the convention, Eastland counseled Johnson to ignore them.

Alas, Biden wanted a seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee and atop its perch sat the powerful Eastland. Their first encounter hadnt gone well. During a caucus meeting, Biden had spoken up in favor of public funding of political campaigns, drawing a rebuke from Eastland, who had threatened to make him the youngest one-term senator in the history of America. Yet Biden was eventually able to curry favor, and he got his committee slot. Eastland even agreed to come to Delaware to campaign for the young Bidens reelection, pledging to stump for ya or against ya, whichever would help more.

Biden also cultivated friendships among Republicans. The snuggest was with Sen. John McCain. Biden met McCain when he was still a captain in the Navy and charged with taking congressional delegations overseas. One evening on just such a junket, McCain ended up dancing on a table with Bidens wife, Jill, which Biden inevitably found amusing. He later encouraged McCain to run for office. McCain did and won. The two then struck up a senatorial friendship that weathered decades of partisan hailstorms, including the 2008 presidential race, which saw McCain at the top of the GOP ticket and Biden as Barack Obamas veep.

So strong was their camaraderie that during their last meeting before his death, McCain requested that Biden give a eulogy at his funeral. The resulting address, which Biden was unable to deliver without tearing up, saw him once again waxing nostalgic about the Senate of yore. They look at him as if John came from another age, Biden said, because he lived by a different code, an ancient, antiquated code where honor, courage, character, integrity, duty mattered. For McCain, Biden declared, party politics werent of paramount importance, only the underlying values that animated everything John did. Its worth pointing out that Biden also struck up a friendship with McCains strongest legislative ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Was Biden schmoozing or surviving in a Senate where relationships were key if you wanted to climb the ladder? Probably a little of both. Still, there is an authentic affability about him that makes those all-important friendships seem like second nature. I used to think Biden was being cheeky when he referred to his Democratic primary opponents as my friend; now I wonder if its more tic than affectation.

What happened? Where did this more genteel Congress go? The simple answer is that the political consensus it undergirded became intolerable. The war in Iraq was a quagmire, two major education overhauls failed, the national debt spiked and health costs spiraled. After the economy crashed in 2008, the public began to question what exactly all this comity was buying them. And when the government bailed out the big banks, all the mugging and backslapping seemed the privilege of an elite determined to protect its own. One by one, the boys left town: Biden ascended to the vice presidency, Ted Kennedy died, Chris Dodd retired amid allegations that hed gotten a sweetheart mortgage deal. Eastland had passed away back in 1986; Talmadge in 2002.

In their place rose a new generation, less concerned with esprit de corps than with rumbling the failed status quo. This was the Tea Party class of 2010 and, led by Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz (elected two years later), they quickly set about bucking the upper chambers norms. Talking filibusters were staged and the budgeting process was jammed. Earmarking, the practice of bribing lawmakers into voting for legislation by attaching unrelated expenditures on special projects in their districts, was banned (at least officially). The machinery of comity filled with wrenches. McCain and Graham, once revered for their bipartisanship, were now the enemy, effigies of a system that had failed.

All the while, the incentives for senators were changing. Once, advancement had meant appealing to the Senates powerful gatekeepers. Now, there was a new player in town: the mass media, a vast galaxy of cable news outlets, podcasts and YouTube channels, along with, of course, Twitter and Facebook. No longer confined to C-SPAN and stuffy newspaper articles, lawmakers could now achieve mainstream visibility, which often proved more tempting than even a plum committee assignment. A new breed of legislator was born, one chemically addicted to the sound of his own voice. Picture Rep. Adam Schiff all but managing the Russia investigation from MSNBC, and you understand the starkness of the shift.

The Senate and House floors became a kind of media platform unto themselves. You could go there and give a blazing speech that broke with all decorum, then watch video of it go viral, which would get you invited on Fox News, which would increase your Twitter followers. Who needs friends when you can have a million retweets?

Expanding your media profile also helped you amass that other emerging currency of postmodern politics: money, which after the Citizens United case was pouring into Washington. And while this hardly transformed every legislator into a self-promoting and antisocial mouth-breather stories still abound of members palling around and slumming together in Capitol Hill row houses it has made the kind of cross-partisan friendships that Biden once enjoyed more difficult and less important.

As Biden himself put it, Today you look at the other side and youre the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We dont talk to each other anymore. Sally Quinn, widow of former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee and once the queen bee of the citys party circuit, lamented this change in an essay back in 2012. In the past, she wrote, we might have attended five-course dinners a couple nights a week, with a different wine for each course, served in a power-filled room of politicians, diplomats, White House officials and well-known journalists. No longer, she said, as hostilities had risen and wealth had displaced rank. Quinn was mocked for sounding like a modern-day Marie Antoinette in that piece, and she did. But she also had a point, and it matters.

Joe Biden is a product of that older code of manners, a tradition conservatives used to support. Yet amid all the nostalgia, its also important to remember that the Tea Party had a point. Comity had come to trump policy and disaster ensued. Consensus became more important than success. Democrats backslapped Republicans, sending tremors throughout the country.

Among the many bipartisan debacles that Biden supported were the calamitous war in Iraq, the failed No Child Left Behind education reform and the debauching of the student loan system back in the 1970s and 80s. He later presided as vice president over the Obama administrations senseless wars in Libya and Yemen, the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression and a throttling of the federal budget that added trillions to the national debt. He probably thinks its wonderful that he and Lindsey Graham once enjoyed lunches together; our maimed veterans and debt-saddled graduates may be less enthused.

Yet its also true that the new social arrangement in DC has made it impossible to change course. With everyone playing to their political bases and bipartisanship radioactive, Congress has gone limp, wallowing in pointless and preordained melodramas rather than solving actual problems. Biden needs to go, no question, and a new generation needs to step up. But that generation might also consider his example. There are worse things than conversing with the enemy over a little whiskey.

This article is inThe Spectators April 2020 US edition.Subscribe here to get yours.

The rest is here:
Joe Biden and the vanished political age - The Spectator USA