Avoiding the low hanging fruit of the Sebelius resignation, you will I hope bear with me if I delve into the weeds a bit in this week’s blog with a brief (or possibly not that brief) excursion to local politics. Well, not local politics exactly, which, forgive me, I generally find intolerably boring, but a local perspective on national politics… which I fear some of you might find equally tedious. For those with attention deficit issues, you may skip to the paragraph beginning “History lesson over.”
The 19th congressional district is not what it used to be. For one thing, the area covered by the district wasn’t always the 19th. Due to redistricting, the number changes on a regular basis, but it still covers an area of eastern upstate New York, which for the most part is considered conservative. The seat has generally been held by Republicans with a few notable exceptions. Democrat Ned Pattison took the seat briefly after Nixon and Watergate, until he was defeated by Gerry Solomon who retained the position for 20 years gaining some of the most lopsided election victories in Congress as he did. Solomon was a hawk and reliable conservative, and was eventually succeeded by an old classmate of mine from Lansingburgh High School, John Sweeney, another Republican. Sweeney seemed to be on the road to continuing Solomon’s legacy, but then, as is the case with so many of our representatives, John apparently fell into the lifestyle temptations of positions of stress and power. He was referenced by the admittedly left leaning watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) as one of the 20 most corrupt politicians. He was then charged with DWI, and implicated in a domestic violence case.
As the wheels came off in Sweeney’s reelection bid, Kirsten Gillibrand was able to parlay millions of dollars of support, endorsements from major Democratic leaders like Bill and Hillary Clinton, and conservative political positions to wrest the seat from the Republicans who had controlled it for all but four years since 1913. Yes, believe it or not, our beloved senator was considered a blue dog Democrat in those days, opposing gun control, being tough on immigration and amnesty, and supporting fiscal responsibility… Her true colors were yet to “evolve”.
When Gillibrand was tapped to fill Hillary Clinton’s vacated seat in the Senate, Democrat Scott Murphy beat Jim Tedisco by about 400 votes in a special election to finish out Gillibrand’s term. Despite voting against Obamacare, Murphy was ousted in the next election by Republican Chris Gibson, who currently holds the office. Continuing the district’s recent tendency to elect Republicans who act a little like Democrats or Democrats who act a little like Republicans, Gibson placed as furthest left of all House Republicans in National Journal’s 2012 ideological vote ratings. Despite a campaign and biography that seemed to point to a throwback to the days of Gerry Solomon, Gibson is proving to be a typical New York Republican.
History lesson over. (Welcome back our attention challenged readers!) Chris Gibson’s explanation for why he tends to rate so poorly with some conservatives is that he tries to get things done in Washington. He seems to fall in the school of thought that Washington politics is less about taking hard line stands than it is like “making sausage”, not a pretty sight, but you gotta do what you gotta do to keep things running. Sometimes you have to go along to get along, cooperation is more effective than confrontation to keep the gears of government turning. Actually it’s probably more that he sees the writing on the wall for the voters he represents, and thinks moderation is the key to reelection in an increasingly “squishy” district… and he may be right. Gibson’s likely opponent in the upcoming election is 27 year old investor Sean Eldridge. Eldridge and his husband, FaceBook co-founder Chris Hughes, are quite wealthy and the campaign will doubtless be well financed. The couple have already purchased two multi-million dollar homes in New York as they seek out a district where young Sean could possibly win. Clearly, this is not your grandfather’s House seat anymore!
Gibson’s seat is representative of the conundrum conservatives find themselves in. Do you run someone who will hold fast to conservative positions even when it means possible defeat, or do you run moderate candidates who govern more or less like the people they run against if victory is more likely? I realize that there remains a chasm between even liberal Republicans and most Democratic candidates, and I may not be being entirely fair to Mr. Gibson, but how often does it feel as though we are indeed just voting for the lesser of two evils? And by supporting moderate candidates only to avoid the alternative, are we damning ourselves to an endless stream of lukewarm candidates moving forward? Is it actually true that grassroots conservative candidates are always a threat to GOP victories, and if it is, how do you explain the 2010 elections?
Ultimately the answer to all these questions probably depends on the area of the country you are talking about. Here in New York, Gibson’s strategy may be the most effective, but it is unfortunate to see that supposition being generalized into a family feud against Tea Party, conservative and libertarian candidates. It is even more disappointing to see that our own Chris Gibson is a member of the Mainstreet Partnership PAC, a moderate group dedicated to crushing opposing grass roots conservative challenges to more moderate incumbents. The group is heavily funded with union money, and has even received donations from progressive investor George Soros. Other members include establishment Republicans like John McCain and less than conservative ones like Olympia Snowe. One can’t help but consider the old adage that you are the company you keep.
IMHO: Politics can be a dirty game, and it takes a special kind of person to dance with the devil without losing your soul. Here in New York we kind of take for granted that our so-called conservative candidates tend to be, maybe need to be, a little squishy. Didn’t we abstain in the vote on the Declaration of Independence? Just the same, in this grass roots movement toward liberty and smaller decentralized government, if our representatives can’t lead, they should follow; and if they can’t follow, they should at least get out of the way. The rest of the country is not New York… thank God! There may be some seats where voters are more squishy, and more squishy candidates may unfortunately be the path to victory; but generalizing that to the entire nation gives you candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney– hardly the same path to victory. There is certainly a time for compromise, and sadly, times when running the government is indeed like making sausage… but it isn’t all the time. Remember, when you dance with the Devil, the Devil almost always leads.
Awesome article!! I don’t get down in the weeds with local politics either but your brief review of the 19th was worth revisiting.
I, too, have been struggling over the division in the Republican Party — the elites versus the Tea Party. It is truly a puzzle. I’m not crazy over all the Tea Party backed candidates but most of them seem to have the good of the country at heart rather than their own political futures.
The tired old elites haven’t had a new idea in years!
I’d rather comedown on the side of the new fresh ideas than the old worn out McCains of the party who are on the same side as George Soros. George Soros? Dancing with the devil has consequences.