Me and Bobby McGee – Janis Joplin
So, after all the counting, it turns out that Alaska has (narrowly) decided to send Stevens packing. A couple thoughts on this.
To start, you’d have to imagine that there’s virtually zero chance of holding onto this seat after 2014. Because of the fundamentally conservative nature of Alaska, some folks have commented that Begich is likely to tilt pretty far toward the center – maybe even to the right. This may very well be true, but given the circumstances I’m not really sure that makes sense.
I think that means two things. First, Begich really ought to be operating on the Janis Joplin principle: freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose. My impression is that Begich is not particularly moderate. If that’s the case, I see no reason why he shouldn’t simply go after what he really cares about and damn the torpedoes of electoral consequences. Second, it’s a dead end to try and turn “centrist Dem” into an ideological match for the people in Alaska. After all, why would you vote for that when you can simply pick the Republican and get someone closer to your values? The extraordinary circumstances of this election are unlikely to be duplicated. Which means Begich needs to appeal to people in a different way. I think there’s a chance (albeit a relatively small one) that if he comes across as genuine, motivated, and committed that might be enough to get people on his side – even if they disagree on some of “the issues.” Cultivating that impression, though, is pretty difficult if you’re obviously pandering.
Threading the needle might be tough, but an approach that taps into some of the libertarian individual freedom focus while pushing hard on issues like global warming where Begich could be a leader might be a recipe for having a chance in six years.
As for Stevens, Matt Yglesias is disgusted at the send-off he’s being given by the Senate: “It’s sickening to watch. For all the cynicism that unfolds on the Hill, every once in a while members really do put political expedience aside and just do what they think is right. Unfortunately, what they think is right is to lavish praise on their good friend the senator/crook Ted Stevens.”
Me, I don’t really see the problem. The guy has served in the Senate for decades – almost as long as Alaska has been a state. It’s his entire life – and he has worked side by side with these people for just about as long as any of them have held office. Is it really surprising that you’ll start to feel some sort of human connection to people in that context? Applauding him for the enormous influence he’s held over the years is not the same thing as lending support to his illegal actions. Think about what would happen if a close friend was revealed to have stolen $100,000 from the charity where he works. Or if a family member (or, say, a US Senator) was in a car accident under mysterious circumstances that resulted in a death. Or countless other instances where people you have developed strong bonds with act in ways you find reprehensible. You’d obviously reject what they did, but I’d hope that you wouldn’t treat that as an excuse for absolutely severing all ties.
Stevens didn’t murder anyone. He didn’t sell people into slavery. He didn’t beat up puppies. He took bribes, and that should rightly be punished and absolutely disqualify him from holding public office. But it’s hardly a reason to utterly shun his entire existence. You can remain a right-thinking individual, committed to upholding moral principles, while at the same time retaining sympathy for the offender.
To expect the Senate to kick Stevens to the curb without a word is frankly ridiculous. In the same way that you don’t speak ill of the dead at the funeral, you let this moment be hagiographic, full aware that the larger arc of history will remember all the bad stuff. It’s the human response, and I would be a little bit embarrassed for them if they didn’t show at least a little bit of it.