Last night Senator Markey and Congressman Kennedy faced off in their first televised debate. Three highlights that made this morning’s papers were Kennedy’s criticisms of Markey’s Iraq War vote, his “present” committee vote as a new member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2013 on a resolution to authorize the Obama Administration to use force in Syria, and his refusal to agree to the same “people’s pledge” on campaign spending he supported in his last election. On all three, Kennedy’s criticisms are weak both rhetorically and substantively.
The critique of Markey’s Iraq War vote must be a subtle signal to Berniacs that he feels them, but otherwise it is very old and very inconsequential news. Markey (and many others) have been defending that vote for too long for Kennedy to have seriously thought the attack broadly useful. Kennedy’s criticism of Markey’s infamous “present” vote not only fails on the merits, it also contradicts his criticism of Markey’s Iraq War vote. Here, apparently, Kennedy wanted to depict the senator the way the media mob did at the time, as a craven partisan. The idea that he was genuinely uncertain about another use of force resolution was easily dismissed my media critics at the time and apparently that’s good enough for Congressman Kennedy despite the fact that the committee vote ultimately had no negative consequences and in fact looks a lot better with the benefit of hindsight. Here’s some of what I had to say about that here at MassPoliticsProfs two days after the story broke:
The media analysis of Ed Markey’s “present” vote on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s consideration of a resolution to authorize the use of force in Syria is nothing if not predictable. Not surprisingly, the only perspective that isn’t being seriously considered, it seems, is the one Markey is expressing… [A]ll the self-righteous posturing in the press is based on the notion that it is unseemly for a Senator to treat an administration of his own party more favorably than he would one controlled by the other party, especially (we are told) on such a momentous decision. But this is a dubious notion in general and an absurd one when applied to Markey’s non-committal vote in committee, which in and of itself neither helped nor hurt the Administration’s cause… Why hasn’t anyone suggested that Markey’s “present” vote was the most ethically appropriate stance for him to take in committee? Markey’s relationship to Kerry could easily be seen as giving his position on the matter undue significance in the minds of the American people (particularly Kerry’s former constituents) and/or the full Senate. By remaining uncommitted in this preliminary vote isn’t it possible that Markey was trying to encourage those yet undecided to weigh the substantive arguments and evidence without the potential distraction of knowing his calculus and conclusion?
If you have any doubts that Kennedy was throwing this “present’ vote at the wall simply hoping it would somehow stick the Congressman’s defense of his criticism should put those doubts to rest: “On a matter of war and peace, the senator voted present, and I think that record speaks for itself,” In other words, “I have no substantive criticism here, I just needed something else to throw at Senator Markey on foreign policy.”
Kennedy also went after Markey on campaign finance hypocrisy, attacking him for not being willing to agree to the same “People’s Pledge” he signed last time. This too was both insincere and substantively weak. Kennedy is no under-funded underdog in this race. He has no reason to fear being drowned out by the incumbent’s campaign spending. He has more than enough name recognition and fundraising capacity to make the issue mute, but here again he needed to come up with something to distinguish himself from Markey that might help justify his primary challenge.
Markey’s substantive argument on the campaign finance criticism is a good one. He is proposing a new “People’s Pledge” that accounts for the damage being done by well-financed dark money groups pushing out disinformation. Essentially, he wants to allow progressive third-party groups to weigh in on the race with positive progressive messaging. Obviously, this would allow a pro-Markey super-PAC to help Markey overcome Kennedy’s name-recognition and fundraising prowess, but it also makes good sense in the present media environment. The effort of Congressman Kennedy to make hey out of this process issue is another reminder that he doesn’t have much at all in the way of policy differences with Senator Markey. Indeed, Markey’s progressive policy bonefides are incredibly solid. This an way for Kennedy to separate himself from Markey and to distract voters from both Markey’s progressive policy record and the question that Kennedy really needs to deal with most: Why is he trying to unseat a very progressive U.S. Senator at a time when Democrats should be in an “all hands on deck” mode to defeat Donald Trump and re-take the U.S. Senate?
The actual answer to this question is clear. Joe Kennedy is a professional politician who sees this as an opportunity to advance his aspiration to serve in the U.S. Senate. He’s not part of an AOC-style insurgency. He can’t even make Ayanna Pressley’s case for generational replacement of old white guys with leaders who better reflect increasingly diverse communities. Of course, Kennedy will signal as best he can that he represents a new generation of leaders who has a more accurate understanding of the challenges faced by Americans, who can empathize with constituents more than can an old school pol.
Will it Work? Will Massachusetts voters decide to promote Joe Kennedy a bit early? Maybe.
In Massachusetts, politics isn’t reviled by average voters and professional politicians are not forced to pretend they aren’t professional pols. The list of defeated challengers to Bay State incumbent politicians is littered with folks whose campaigns were attacks on professional politics, on insider-dealing and special interest coddling. The anti-politics politics of the far left and right do not resonate with average Massachusetts voters who expect their elected officials to be professionals who leverage political power on Beacon Hill or Capitol Hill for the benefit -the material benefit- of their constituents. If Joe Kennedy wins, it will be accomplished the old-fashioned way, by convincing Democratic Party power players that they should be with him. He’s not running to defeat Senator Markey as much as he is running to retire him.