Ezra Klein: Goodbye To All That

« So Sayeth My Inner Pedant | Main | Link of the Day: Valentine's Edition »

February 14, 2006

Goodbye To All That

I stand with Digby on Paul Hackett's phased withdrawal cut and run from politics. I did think Sherrod Brown the stronger candidate, but Hackett had the makings of a genuine star in a party all too devoid of luminescence. A couple months back, I reported out an article on their primary, talking to both Brown and Hackett about the race. Knowing that Brown was a wonky, eloquent labor-liberal who focused on health care, I expected to far prefer his brand. Not so. After a banal conversation with Browqn, I reached Hackett in his RV. Tossed out the usual questions, he bunted back with the usual answers. Soon enough, I had what I needed.

"What, that's it?"

"What do you mean?"

"Those questions sucked. Give me some hard ones."

So we spent another 20 minutes talking. Abortion, health care, the death of ideology, the applicability of libertarian values to liberal politics. Hackett's answers were gruff, gritty, and aggressive. He enjoyed the harder, more contentious issues, if only because he could just sneer and whip them back at you. He was having fun. And, unusually for these interviews, so was I.

Hackett, however, is the type who would never have survived the Senate, a chamber that chews up stars and spits out dwarves. He would've been buried under committee hearings and procedural rulings and pork. His future, or so it seemed to me, was in state politics, the executive branch. Lt. Governor or Secretary of State seemed smartest, either coming en route to Ohio's top job. He needed a perch where he could take controversial issues and solve them, not offer an amendment. So it's a pity to watch him pick up his toys and stalk home. Hackett wasn't going to win for Senate, but that didn't mean he couldn't have been a star. Anyone who closes their resignation press release with "Rock on, Paul Hackett" deserves a stage, a mic, and an audience.

Update: After writing my article, I didn't pay super close attention to this race. But Lindsay, who did, offers a retelling that doesn't speak too well of Hackett.

February 14, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8345a65d769e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Goodbye To All That:

» Are those netroots showing? from Daniel W. Drezner
Ian Urbina reports in the New York Times that Pail Hackett has dropped out of the Democratic primary to challenge Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio. It appears that Hackett is none too happy about the way the Democratic establishment has... [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 14, 2006 10:21:15 AM

Comments

I admire the idealism, but I don't think Hackett was tempermentally suited to politics. There's a reason why politicians - real, good ones - learn to talk "politically correwct" - and it's not that they don't have opinions or that we don't wnat them to have them. It's that there's a need to thread, delicately among a variety of sensibilities and opinions. And that takes a certain temperment, a certain way of making peace with the notion that everything can't be done now, and some things may not be done at all. Pardon me for saying so, but I think impatience is the quality that truly hamstrings lefty progressives. And I think in some ways Hackett was impatient and not happy with the need to be politic and incremental. I don't know that a state office would fix that, and I suspect his decision, which isn't all that surprising, is for the best.

Posted by: weboy | Feb 14, 2006 9:30:42 AM

"Hackett, however, is the type who would never have survived the Senate, a chamber that chews up stars and spits out dwarves. He would've been buried under committee hearings and procedural rulings and pork. His future, or so it seemed to me, was in state politics, the executive branch. Lt. Governor or Secretary of State seemed smartest, either coming en route to Ohio's top job. He needed a perch where he could take controversial issues and solve them, not offer an amendment."

That strikes me as the sort of attitude that guarantees we'll only ever have a Senate that doesn't solve problems but holds pointless committee hearings and is obsessed with procedure rather than solving problems.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Feb 14, 2006 10:10:04 AM

The Senate was designed to hold pointless committee hearings and be obsessed with procedure. It was consciously designed to be an impediment on rapid decision making and heated legislation.

Posted by: Ezra | Feb 14, 2006 10:14:47 AM

It could always hold meaningful committee hearings. The only reason, for example, that the Judiciary and Intelligence Committee hearings on the NSA scandal are pointless is that they're chaired by hacks, one an unabashed hack and the other a faux moderate hack. Similarly the Supreme Court hearings would have a chance of fulfilling their constitutional and democratic purpose if the senators involved didn't think they were perfect opportunities for people to admire the sound of their voice.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Feb 14, 2006 10:43:28 AM

"It was consciously designed to be an impediment on rapid decision making and heated legislation."

Too bad it doesn't work properly when we most need it to. (Patriot Act and so on...)

Posted by: Tito | Feb 14, 2006 10:47:17 AM

"It was consciously designed to be an impediment on rapid decision making and heated legislation."

Partly by the Founding Fathers (small state over-representation and long terms), but I think mostly by the divided and divisive pre-and-post civil war history. Committee seniority, blue slips, the filibuster, the amendment process are not in the Constitution.

Perhaps the general blandness of Senators results more from having to win votes in an entire state, few of which are as homogenous as they were fifty years ago.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Feb 14, 2006 11:42:32 AM

Do you know there is a link to this article on realclearpolitics.com? You are moving up in the world.

"He enjoyed the harder, more contentious issues, if only because he could just sneer and whip them back at you. He was having fun. And, unusually for these interviews, so was I.

Hackett, however, is the type who would never have survived the Senate, a chamber that chews up stars and spits out dwarves."

So are you saying he would have been bored or overwelmed?

Evidently, he feels betrayed:

"Hackett told The New York Times for Tuesday's editions that the same Democratic leaders who urged him to run for the Senate after his sensational political debut in last year's House race had turned on him."
....
"Democrats considered Schmidt vulnerable in a rematch against Hackett after Schmidt gained notoriety for attacking a fellow House member -- and a decorated Vietnam War veteran -- for calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, But Hackett steadfastly said he would not drop out of the Senate race.

Hackett said he told three Democratic candidates for Schmidt’s seat that he wouldn’t enter that race, the Times reported.

“The party keeps saying for me not to worry about those promises because in politics they are broken all the time. I don’t work that way. My word is my bond,” he said."

Just like most of America, it appears even Hackett's moral values don't mesh with the Democrats.

Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 14, 2006 1:22:48 PM

Hackett should (knock on wood) be back. He does, however, appear to have a whiny streak. Contrast the gracious behavior Obama exhibited when McCain, the nutbag right-wing version of Hackett, pitched his own, public hissy fit the other week.

Toke, your moral values don't mesh with your party's, either, or have you forgotten that legalizing weed is a lefty issue?

The joke, of course, is that when you poll the public in general terms on (D)-vs-(R) values questions, substantial majorities exist for most of the (D) positions. You don't really think two-thirds of America wakes up every morning yearning to cut $200,000-a-year earners taces, do you?

Posted by: wcw | Feb 14, 2006 3:03:24 PM

"Toke, your moral values don't mesh with your party's, either, or have you forgotten that legalizing weed is a lefty issue?"

What prominant Dem has proposed legalizing weed?

I could say the same thing to any Jew who is a Democrat. Republicans have a lot more support from Israel than Democrats do. Republicans are more pro-Israel than Democrats.

"The joke, of course, is that when you poll the public in general terms on (D)-vs-(R) values questions, substantial majorities exist for most of the (D) positions."

Where is that poll?

I doubt Americans support Democratic moral values. Remember the 2004 election?

-Gay marriage - Americans against, Democrats for

-Gun owner rights - Americans for, Democrats against

-Abortion - Democrats want more, Americans want less

-Terrorist rights - Democrats want to give terrorists constitutional protections, Americans don't

Quit reading the propaganda wcw, it just makes the truth hurt that much more.

Correcting liberals with one hand wrapped around a big, fat giant doobie, just to make it fair

Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 14, 2006 3:20:08 PM

Click.

Posted by: wcw | Feb 14, 2006 4:33:16 PM

I see marijuana legalization as something that people from all political stripes can get behind. No need to make this a partisan issue.