Dennis Kucinich lost his Congressional seat in Ohio’s primary this week, an redistricting-induced election that was designed for him to lose by throwing him into a new district comprised mostly of the old district of his incumbent opponent, establishment Democrat Marcy Kartur.
The fact that his state’s Democratic leadership was fine with sacrificing Kucinich tells you a lot, but not all, about his career in Congress and his assorted presidential campaigns. I’m of two minds about Kucinich. I have agreed with many of his viewpoints, and he has frequently been proven right – on Iraq, on Wall Street and corporate power, on civil liberties, on free trade, on the War on Drugs – when establishment politicians of both parties were wrong. On the other hand, he has always struck me as “right message, wrong messenger.” It wasn’t just his policy positions that set him up as a consistent object of Village ridicule.
Both views of Kucinich, lunatic and saint, have been well-represented this week in the Intertubez. Mainstream media, from the Washington Post and New Yorker to the New Republic and Andrew Sullivan, couldn’t resist one final sneer. On the flip side, progressives like John Nichols have been busy issuing hagiographic eulogies, and even Glenn Greenwald has now come out with a full-throated defense of Kucinich’s legacy.
Where I think Greenwald errs (and, like Booman, I take issue with Greenwald only very cautiously – he’s a formidable debater) is in the idea that, in the political arena, being right on the issues is enough:
…enacting legislation is not the only way to have an important impact on our political culture. Shining light on otherwise-ignored issues, advocating rarely-heard political positions, using one’s platform to highlight the corruption of those in power and to challenge their warped belief systems are all vitally important functions. Advocacy of that sort may not produce immediate, tangible successes, but it is a prerequisite for changing prevailing political mores and persuading citizens to think differently. “Talking a lot” is a synonym for persuasion, advocacy and debate. It’s far from “doing very little.” Those are all critical steps in changing a political system….Those types of changes often take years, even decades, of advocacy, and urgently need those with public platforms to amplify the underlying views to change how citizens think.
That’s all true – but I see no evidence that Kucinich had such an effect on the broader public discourse. If anything, his impact has been negative.
Just before the 2004 Iowa caucuses, I interviewed Kucinich one-on-one. I found him personally arrogant (which, to be fair, has not been the experience of others I’ve known who’ve met him – maybe it was a bad day – nor is it a unique quality among presidential candidates) and delusional about his appeal to both constituents and colleagues. In a sense, this isn’t surprising; for someone in a position of power to routinely go up against the received truths of both parties, including his own, requires a certitude of self and a conviction of one’s own correctness and impact that’s probably pathological. Progressives railed against those characteristics when Dubya evinced them. In moderation, it’s called leadership. As a constant practice, it gets you branded crazy and nuts.
The same certitude, in the case of Kucinich, also meant he either didn’t realize or didn’t care that talking about seeing UFOs, or his vegan diet, or his creepily much younger (and much taller) trophy wife, or his signature pipe dream, the Department of Peace (a lovely concept that will be taken seriously by Washington the day Hell melts), discredited his other more relatable points in the eyes of many people. Of course, Washington has had eccentric but effective politicians before, and a lot of highly respected and decorated politicians have vomited up their share of lunatic ideas over the years. (People revere FDR, who interred US citizens due to their ancestry and tried to pack the Supreme Court.) But eccentric plus ideas outside the mainstream is not a good combination. Kucinich, with no successful legislation to speak of to his credit and laughably poor results in his presidential runs, has accomplished little more in his congressional career than ratifying the views of people who already agree with him.
That’s not enough. In modern politics, where personal image, “likeability,” and “values” count for far more in the public’s mind than ideas, trumpeting personal beliefs and practices far outside the mainstream is a kiss of death for being taken seriously, even if the other, political points you’re making make sense. If those points are also outside the mainstream, it doesn’t simply, as Greenwald would have it, “amplify views.” It also discredits them.
Folks that I’ve encountered over the years in what I’ll call the Church of Dennis – people who fawned over Kucinich because he spoke their truth to power – are a subset of a larger and frustratingly common belief among too many progressives that, in politics, it’s enough to be right, that facts alone will win the day. As Republicans learned long ago, that just ain’t so. You have to build coalitions, find your sources of power, and wield them effectively.
Having facts on your side can help, but if they don’t help the position you’ve already staked out, you can just invent your own “facts” now. It’s an appalling aspect of American politics, and of an establishment media whose tolerance of, if not enthusiasm for, lies and emotional demagoguery enables such behavior. But being appalling makes it no less real, and that’s why, for all his long national profile, Kucinich’s absence from Congress won’t mean much at all. He told truth to power, sure; but power didn’t care, and not enough other people were convinced of his views that power needed to care. And Kucinich, forever the gadfly, was so wedded to the notion that facts carry the day that he never developed power of his own.
The story is not quite over. Last year Kucinich spent a lot of time out here in Western Washington, before the redistricting plans were announced in Ohio and in our state, in anticipation of possibly being redistricted out of his Ohio district and with the creation of a new district (WA-10) here. In the end, he decided his chances were better against Kaptur, not least because the thought of his possible carpetbagging into a Congressional seat 2400 miles from his career-long political base was not met enthusiastically by party leaders here.
Now, with Kucinich having lost his primary, and the filing deadline in Washington state not until June, he’s talking again about coming to WA-10 (which is centered around Olympia, not suburban Seattle as was widely expected). The new WA-10 is a swing district, rated “leans Democratic,” and not at all a good fit for Kucinich’s brand of progressive populism. The current frontrunner, Denny Heck, is a centrist Dem who lost Brian Baird’s open WA-03 seat to a Tea Partier in 2010. Dick Muri, who lost to Rep. Adam Smith in WA-09 in 2010, is the leading Republican candidate.
Kucinich would bring out a fervent base of supporters from Olympia (home not just of the state capitol but the defiantly hippie-centric Evergreen State College); in Washington’s odd primary system, where the top two finishers regardless of party advance to the general election, he would most likely split the Democratic vote in a swing district. That would ensure the Republican front-runner finishes first and either weakens Heck for the general or knocks him out and sets up Kucinich to suffer a November bloodbath in a district where he has no history and the electorate largely does not share his politics. Dennis would have a lot of national grass roots support and money, but very little in-district support beyond the liberal oasis in Olympia – which hasn’t elected a progressive Congressperson since Jolene Unsoeld 20 years ago.
Heck’s no prize, but in a year where the fight for control of the House might be very close, he’s far better than the Republican alternative. Kucinich, true to form, doesn’t seem to care: a final oblivious gift to a party he’s never had much use for anyway.
.
Thanks for writing up article about Kucinich.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
That’s why I’ve never supported Kucinich for president: the right message championed by an ineffective leader, or a leader without a caucus, ultimately marginalizes the message. However, it’s one thing to be a lame duck President, and something else again to be an oft-ignored voice of reason in a legislative body. I’ll miss having his voice in the House, but I’d 100 times rather accept that loss than risk losing yet another seat in WA. It’s unfortunate, even a little depressing, but having a Dem-controlled House and an Obama White house in 2013 is worth making some difficult choices to contest every available seat.
And I can’t help noticing, that’s twice this week you’ve had a go at FDR for attempting to pack the SCOTUS in 1937 (unless I’ve got you mixed up with another front pager). I take it you’re of the school that says the threat to pack the court was entirely coincidental to the Roberts defection that permitted the New Deal to go forward? I’ve been in the habit of considering it a successful political tactic. Would be interested in reading your take.
Nope, the other FDR reference wasn’t me. Might’ve been Boo.
.
Could only find Booman’s reference in We’re Not Living in 1937.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Comes from Booman’s post from Thursday, Grading Obama, in a quote from the Paul Glastris piece in Washington Monthly. Interestingly, Glastris cites the very same two FDR decisions–to intern Japanese Americans, and to (attempt to) pack the court–as examples of presidential overreach that had disastrous consequences, in the observation that BHO’s presidency so far has been free of any such scandals. It’s interesting he would choose the court tactic as an example of a “self-inflicted disaster.”
I was all ready to say, look on the bright side – the same Ohio primary took out “Mean” Jean Schmidt down in Cincinnatti. That is, until I saw that the guy who defeated her came from her right! Just how in the world does one come from Mean Jean’s right? <sigh!!!>
Brilliant and thoughtful piece. Kucinich’s trashing of Marcy Kaptur’s campaign, post-defeat, was graceless. And his “defeat has never had power over me” comment is just ridiculous, evoking the Black Knight from Monty Python’s The Holy Grail. (“It’s only a flesh wound!”)
He will be sorely missed. Being right on the issues is in fact the “problem.” They don’t want someone who is right and not afraid to say it. Party leaders want a go along to get a long kind of guy.
He was the one guy you could count on to stand up to the warmongers, banksters and thieves of our civil liberties.
The two strongest anti-war voices will be gone after this congress. Both Denis K and Ron Paul leaving at the same time. After that, the jingoists wont even have to worry about token resistance.
Stand up and accomplish nothing. And Ron Paul is not on my fucking side.
So then why does this guy merit the write-up? I’m not counting words but this seems like one of the longer posts you’ve graced this blog with. It’s just weird on the face of it–as you say, he had all the right views on the main issues and spoke truth to power, yet in the end he has to be marked out for a special brand of failure. And people like you, Booman and Kos have denounced him in such similar terms that I suspect some sort of “psychological” analysis would be pertinent. I much prefer John Cole’s view that we simply need many more people like Kucinich in congress.
There are such odd things you’ve typed here that I’d sincerely recommend you take a look at this piece again after some time has elapsed and use it as a starting point for reflection. Are you seriously proposing that it’s OK to make up one’s own facts “these days” in order to compete in the political marketplace, because republicans figured out long ago that lying gets better results? Are you seriously admonishing whomever that the “Congressman Forehead” image, and whatever the female equivalent would be, is an absolutely necessary counterpoint to one’s very politely held progressive positions? And then Kucinich, on top of all his marketing fails, has the audacity to have a YOUNG, TALL, SEXY wife?!? Why, she’s an effing redhead!! This is disturbing indeed.
There’s just some sort of mind-reeling absurdity in the whole riff. It reminds me of Booman writing that he’s not really interesting in taking an anti-establishment stance; no, he wants to BE the establishment, he wants to HAVE the power and presumably implement sane progressive policies from that (imaginary) position. Ain’t gonna happen, of course. Why? For starters, because Booman doesn’t OWN anything–I mean anything “of consequence” besides a cabin and a car and whatever. He doesn’t OWN any industries or MEANS OF PRODUCTION or distribution or anything (unless he’ll surprise us in a big way one of these days). Do you? Then where is the power going to come from? What’s Booman or you going to pay for it? Where else does power come from? You have a few vague words about building coalitions, finding your source of power and wielding it effectively. And this is exemplified by which politician or person in public life? Come on. Power also comes, as Mao said (remember him?), from the barrel of a gun. Or as Machiavelli put it, himself no slouch when it comes to cleaving-to-the-bone analysis, there is simply no comparison between an armed and an unarmed man.
Kucinich or not Kucinich? Who the fuck cares, really? Powerlessness is hard. It’s a constant reminder of motarlity. What are we going to do about it?
You seem to think that I personally want and expect to become president. What I want is for progressives to take power seriously as THE goal, not the thing to be against.
What?? OK, not you personally, it doesn’t make any difference, but which progressives are going to have the guns or money, or otherwise HOW are they going to do it? Supposedly even Howard Dean was told to STFU about empire and defense cuts, so that not insignificant part of the state is going sit quietly while SOME PROGRESSIVES are sworn in and take up the reins of power?
.
Link to his article and Glenn Greenwald’s Dennis Kucinich and “wackiness” .
Ever since … for a long time US leadership fails in a message of peace to the world community. Reality of power politics corrupts any chance of making diplomacy work. A full realignment of borders according to tribes/loyalties is sorely needed. The randow drawn lines in the desert following European colonialism in North Africa and the Middle-East just doesn’t seem to work out very well. The “whacky” voices of peace will be missed.
Some suggestions:
Let the Kurds have their independence across the states of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
Divide Iraq in three federal states with autonomy. The Shia majority will align with US/Israel/Saudi enemy Iran. There’s plenty of oil to compensate Iran to abstain in its quest for nuclear power. Too bad for the Bahrain Kingdom, it too has a Shia majority.
Of course, Libya is already falling apart in historic districts.
The old French mandate over Lebanon and Syria requires some adjustments to reflect today’s reality.
I trust the members in the UN Security Council can start some creative negotiations instead of acting like peacocks courting.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Pretty much nails it, Geov.
The failure of progressives to take long-term political (as opposed to quadrennial electoral) action is why we are in the state we are in. The Church of Dennis is just the progressive counterpart of the libertarian Church of Ron Paul.
There was a NYT piece reported yesterday about how the Tea Party intends to stay alive by taking as many local offices as they can, building a team that can take states and then Congress and the Presidency. Too many progressives disdain such an effective tactic and use the ossification of Democratic leadership or the way state laws protect the two-party system as an excuse for inaction.
Being right on the issues is not enough. You have to do the math and the outreach to win. Most progressives outside progressive strongholds are too hunkered down to reach out, and most within those strongholds take them for granted. Wake up. The Tea Party can take San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and other “progressive” places just by surprising the apathetic. The loss of Kucinich’s seat is not a failure of his alone; it is the failure of Ohio progressives to build and maintain a strong farm team of candidates that shaped the discourse in Ohio. There are counties in Ohio, like most states, in which conservative talking points are unopposed. And yet there is no precinct in Ohio that did not have some votes for progressives.
Politics is primarily a form of self-expression. It’s certainly not about policies.
That’s not very interesting.
We now have 5 running in the Dem primary for the IN-9th Congressional seat, all first-time out candidates, but our state district senate and house Repubs have no opposition whatsoever. It doesn’t make any sense to me at all and certainly doesn’t say much for the Indiana Democratic Party to leave state level seats uncontested.
Greenwald is a patently unamerican fabulist and a huckster. It needed saying.
“Unamerican” because, why, exactly? Because he moved to Brazil so he could marry his male partner? Because he takes the constitution seriously?
When I disagree with Greenwald, it’s because of arguments he omits, not because he has his facts wrong. So I’m not sure where “fabulist” comes from, either.
Or is it just that he criticizes Obama, because the special area of his interest – civil liberties – also happens to be the most repellent part of Obama’s record?
Greenwald’s single-mindedness is not always productive. But I’m not sure where this comes from, other than that he’s an effective critic of your guy. If he is a fabulist, enlighten me.
An asshole then. And who should be my guy? Imaginary FDR/LBJ magically transported to 2012?
He’s a lawyer from New York. Of course he’s an asshole. Doesn’t make him wrong. (Or right.)
I don’t “have” a guy, in the sense of someone I back right or wrong and constantly seek to make the best possible case for. (Which, as Boo has pointed out, is how Greenwald approaches his topics, too, from the standpoint of his chosen issues.) Most pols are a mixture of policies I support and those I don’t, and while I root for Obama to do well in his job, and am glad when he does, my first loyalty is to his constituents and the people of our planet, not to him.
On the whole, I think Obama has done remarkably well on many things – especially given the steaming heap of crap he inherited on multiple fronts – but there’s about a dozen topics where IMO his policies have been disastrous, mostly around the national security state and civil liberties (i.e., Greenwald’s wheelhouse). But I don’t think Obama’s successes exempt him from criticism – just like I get tired of progressives whose fixations on his failures (some justified, some not) blind them to the positives.
Given Kaptur’s positions on free trade and abortion, is it valid to describe her as an “establishment Democrat”?
The displacement of Kucinich by the bland and pliable Kaptur says all that’s needed about the gap between progressive ideas and the Democratic Party.
his creepily much younger (and much taller) trophy wife
I agree with you about Kucinich as a politician and Democrat, but I’m not sure what his wife age’s–much less her height–has to do with anything, and while she is younger and attractive, unless you have some understanding of their relationship, it’s kind of ugly to call her a “trophy wife.”
Perhaps I’m sensitive because I have a much taller wife, but I doubt that if his wife was closer to his height or shorter–the way it’s supposed to be, I guess–he would have been a more effective legislator.
I was listing reasons why Kucinich’s public image was offputting to many people, not passing judgment on them. And when a homely 60-something pol marries a beautiful 30-something woman whom he appears with in public constantly, people are going to draw that conclusion, fairly or not.