"There Are No Saints Or Geniuses In Politics"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 10:49:43 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Paul Krugman discussing Yves Smith's post on Elizabeth Warren:

My general view of politics and policy is that there are no saints and no geniuses; place too much faith in anyone, and you’re bound to be let down. But there are villains, and they need to be fought.

Words to live by. And yes, this does provide me with an excuse to again post my refrain, pols are pols and do what they do:

As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

Speaking for me only

< The Norquist Strategy Is Working | FL Governor Orders Drug Testing For All State Employees >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

"There Are No Saints Or Geniuses In Politics" | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

George McGovern isn't a saint? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by oculus on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:30:45 AM EST

Gulf of Tonkin. (none / 0) (#6)
by brodie on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:35:46 AM EST

Eagleton.

But wasn't Lincoln a genius?


: A precursor of Hillary Clinton. (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:50:48 AM EST

Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by CST on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:06:14 PM EST

you could change that title to "there are no saints". Period. People are people, no matter what they do.

As for geniuses... they might be in politics. Does Stephen Chu qualify? But you can also be a genius without being very smart.

On the one hand, thoughts of the dialectic (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by christinep on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:15:57 PM EST

keep coming up with this discussion. On the other, maybe that thought is tempered by the intent that the federal government should ultimately move toward synthesis. For example: Once Elizabeth Warren chose to accept appointment within the federal government formal structure, her outspoken personal feelings necessarily must be subordinate to a more common purpose as made explicit by the elected executive.

It isn't unusual in any administration to find one or more strong proponents from earlier days who seem to quiet down or semi-disappear as part of the total administration. How could it be otherwise without risking competing & confusing voices, messages. To me, the federal employee takes an oath to and does work for the government, and does not speak for him/herself. The individual ideology is left at the doorstep while in the federal employ. That doesn't mean that Elizabeth Warren or other high-quality appointee abandons principle to work in the more constrained bureaucracy. Rather, such an appointee learns quickly how to integrate personal & administrative management goals so as to further both aspects. From what I've seen with high-level government appointees over the years, there are times when that works well and other times when it doesn't. (IOW, it isn't a question of the civilian employee being silenced or shunted off; each has to figure out how & if the arrangement can work...and, act accordingly.)

Like the Boss said (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by ruffian on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 04:08:38 PM EST

It's so hard to be a saint in the city.

Washington DC, that is.

Yves' post is worth a read, as usual. I agree that Warren was more effective working the media from outside the administration. The administration gave her a job to keep her in a box, and with few exceptions - the occasional stint on Maher or Stewart - she has stayed there. Of course that won't last forever, and I hope she leaves that post soon.

My only quibble (none / 0) (#1)
by Dadler on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 10:56:54 AM EST

Is the false equivalence between the right demonizing her and the left lionizing her. Speaking for myself, I have admired her work, her views, but have always felt she would be, as so many others are, co-opted when in government. I believe in her abilities and views, but I haven't heard many on "what passes for the left" putting her on a pedestal anywhere near as lofty as the right's demonizing is low.

: We don't hear much from her though (none / 0) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:26:23 AM EST

at all these days. It is almost as if her new position somehow silenced her.

Welcome Ms. Warren. (none / 0) (#2)
by lilburro on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:24:03 AM EST

Dawn Johnsen has been awaiting you.

If you all you have are vague threats of future action, you are bluffing.

Yves Smith's post captures so, so many of the problems of this administration.

From Yves post on Warren actually (none / 0) (#5)
by MO Blue on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:34:52 AM EST

being appointed to head the agency.

But this seems like overkill, since any objective reading says that her odds of getting the nod are zip. The Democratic party was firmly in the hands of the bankers, even more in the wake of the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, which has upped the expected cost of the Presidential election to $1 billion. Obama does not have the nerve to try appointing her on a recess to avoid a confirmation fight; he'd still face the wrath of donors (and even under the best of circumstance, he's been shown to be sorely wanting in intestinal fortitude). Moreover, Geithner has been firmly in the driver's seat as far as bank policy is concerned and he has been a loyal defender of the industry's interests. Nothing has changed the basic equation we set forth last September:

Gee (none / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:56:50 AM EST

I'm going to run out of illusions to be shattered any day now, and reality is such an unforgiving place. ;-)

We are a Christian Nation (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by NYShooter on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 03:58:28 PM EST

and we must protect to our death our God-Given right to screw the public.

It's right there in the Constitution.


God needs our help? (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 04:12:21 PM EST

The "almighty" part was just madison avenue hype to get the customers in the door?


I don't mean to speak for God (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by jbindc on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 04:36:31 PM EST

Although many others certainly feel free to in this world :)

But I imagine that He/She is pretty offended by many of those who choose to speak in His/Her name. I picture He/She screaming, "That's not what I meant at all you tools!"


Then he/she (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:29:50 PM EST

turns around and threatens to torture them for eternity if they don't get on their knees.

God help them. Religion certainly hasn't.


That's so Old Testament (none / 0) (#38)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 12:14:19 PM EST

: Yeah (none / 0) (#39)
by Edger on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 04:24:31 PM EST

The original terrorists manual.

But of course... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:57:13 AM EST

saints are too good, and geniuses too smart, to ever get involved in anything political. It is a refuge for those with mere illusions of sanctity and/or superior intellect.

But I do think Warren is very smart, with her hand on the pulse...and good intentioned. But apparently not smart enough to know who makes the decisions around here...it ain't no one elected, to be sure.

No saints in politics (none / 0) (#12)
by huzzlewhat on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:11:13 PM EST

I'll have to break it to my father -- he still refers to McCarthy as "Saint Eugene."

I was (none / 0) (#13)
by lentinel on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 03:56:43 PM EST

at a rally at Madison Square Garden.

The assembled throng was there to hear Senator Eugene McCarthy who had challenged Lyndon Johnson on the issue of the Vietnam War.

Electricity was in the air in anticipation of his appearance and his speech.

Then, he appeared.

He must have used the phrase, "with reference to" about 100 times as he intoned a monotone of poetic gibberish.
Everyone slowly sagged and eventually fell asleep.


Strange pol, Gene. (none / 0) (#20)
by brodie on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 06:19:08 PM EST

I recall his "announcement" speech for his presidential run was also a very dry affair -- exceedingly toned down, and, iirc, he was careful to say he was announcing only that he was intending to explore his viability for the nomination in a few primary states, blah blah blah. Peculiar guy. But back then, liberals were so desperate to be rid of Lyndon, that they flocked to McC and swooned over him for a while.

And "Saint Eugene" -- that's probably how McCarthy referred to himself.

That is, when he wasn't referring to himself as "Genius Gene" ...


It was (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Zorba on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:19:33 PM EST

a very strange time, as I so very clearly remember. Gene McCarthy was certainly not perfect and yes, he was kind of.....boring. Then Bobby Kennedy threw his hat in the ring, irritating strong Gene McCarthy supporters no end. Bobby himself was no saint, either (recall that he worked briefly for Joe McCarthy, and said he always "retained a fondness" for Joe), but he was electrifying. Until he was killed. At the last minute, George McGovern threw his hat into the ring, but by then it was too late, and Hubert Humphrey won the nomination, and lost to Tricky Dick. And we all know how that turned out. There are no saints, but then none of us are saints. Some pols would have been better than others. People are people, warts and all. I would just wish, though, for a bunch of current pols who have a strong streak of populism and concern for average Americans and their struggles, as opposed to worrying about corporate interests.


Gene wasn't boring -- (none / 0) (#24)
by brodie on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:00:18 PM EST

he just insisted on severely underplaying things like his stump speeches, apparently so as to avoid appealing to people's emotions. Pols who did that -- like RFK, McCarthy almost certainly implied -- he tended to distrust and not want to emulate. McCarthy preferred to appeal to the intellect -- and Bobby could have the rest of the "uneducated", which is the term I believe Gene used to allude to RFK's many poor working class and nonwhite backers.

Nah, on personality, Gene was a good, even very good speaker when he wanted to be -- as with his electrifying 1960 nomination speech at the convention for Adlai Stevenson.

Strange guy, as I say -- who went for Reagan in 1980 ... that pol who famously appealed to the intellect ... ;-)


Some years after the 1968 primary season... (none / 0) (#26)
by christinep on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:10:26 PM EST

I went to a poetry reading by Gene McCarthy in Denver. It was a small gathering, and there was sufficient opportunity for discussion following the event. Even tho I had cast my first vote (which I still relish) for his opponent in the Indiana primary, Robert Kennedy, up until that point I had always admired Gene McCarthy for his upstart campaign on behalf of war opposition. Yet, here is what I discovered in a several minute chat with him (my impression): He was much more self-concerned and focused than my young self would have thought...particularly, we had an interaction about why he voted for H. Long (Jr?) over Ted Kennedy for a Senate minority leadership position, etc....it all came down to his personal animus toward the Kennedy family (face to face disclosure)...and, ol' Eugene became every politico at that point. But...the times were certainly achangin' and very interesting.


Right -- Gene didn't (none / 0) (#28)
by brodie on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:23:44 PM EST

care much for the Kennedys, not JFK and especially not Bobby. Ted was the only one he could tolerate. Some have speculated this was out of jealousy -- McCarthy being Catholic, much more religious than the Kennedy brothers, and someone who thought so highly of himself. McCarthy I believe actually told someone after the 1960 election that he, Gene, should have been the first Catholic president -- for the reason of his supposed intellectual superiority and for being much more of a Catholic.

Odd fellow -- refused to attend MLK's funeral (or that was his initial stance until top aides threatened to resign if he didn't change his mind), disappeared largely as a candidate following RFK's murder until the convention, then disappeared again during the general as fellow Minnesotan (and senate colleague) Hubert Humphrey desperately tried to bring the McCarthy forces into his tent. Gene only offered the most tepid "endorsement" in the final week or so of the campaign and many of his backers stayed home, handing the election to Nixon.

(btw christine, the Sen Long you meant was Russell, who did beat Ted for that senate whip position in 1971)


Appreciate the info, brodie (none / 0) (#30)
by christinep on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:44:42 PM EST

'Couldn't remember that it was Russell. Well...from now on, I'll turn to you for Dem political history. Thanks.


: Well I know a fair amount, (none / 0) (#31)
by brodie on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:49:47 PM EST

have forgotten a lot, and the rest tends to get muddled. As with the Ted K. situation with Russell Long -- I conflated a couple of races. He actually earlier defeated Long for the whip position in 1969 but a couple of years later was ousted by one Bobby Byrd. Long-Byrd: very similar pols in my mind.
But it doesn't surprise me that Gene McC would have voted for Long in the first race. He not only didn't care for Kennedys, but I think it was RFK who once said that despite a fairly liberal voting record, McCarthy was actually a lot more conservative than most people realized (boy, would he be proved right in later years wrt Gene turning to the Right).

I know (none / 0) (#14)
by lentinel on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 03:57:50 PM EST

that no one gives a hang,

but there was a saint and a genius in American politics.

Malcolm X.

Malcolm X (none / 0) (#23)
by Zorba on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:30:19 PM EST

did not start out as a saint, and would never have called himself one. But he certainly grew into his role and became a spokesman for human rights, civil rights, black pride, and freedom, justice, and equality for the oppressed. Of course, he was then killed- we seem to always kill the ones who speak truth to power, and if we don't kill them, we try to marginalize them. I admired Malcolm tremendously.


Malcolm (none / 0) (#25)
by lentinel on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:09:20 PM EST

may not have called or considered himself a saint, but I do.

About his genius, I don't think there is any question.

I wish more people would listen to his speeches and watch films of him in action. His brilliance, passion, integrity and personal honesty is always apparent.

I think people would demand more of their politicians were they to be made aware that this standard can exist in a public figure.


Never much impressed by (none / 0) (#27)
by brodie on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:12:52 PM EST

non-saint Malcolm X, but then I don't know a great deal about him compared to other public figures of the time. I think he had a turnaround in attitude in his final year or so, which softened his perspective about people like MLK and his nonviolent methods. That X I could possibly get interested in, not the earlier hardline anti-white firebrand.

But I'd like to hear lentinel sometime maybe expand a bit on why X is so important and is someone to be admired, since I recall his/her mentioning X very favorably before.


Have you read (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Zorba on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:39:03 PM EST

The Autobiography of Malcolm X? I highly recommend it- it clearly explains his evolution. He rejected his earlier beliefs. He was not the "hardline anti-white firebrand" that he was earlier. Yes, he still encouraged black pride (as well he should have), but also he became a "firebrand" for human rights and the brotherhood of mankind.


Haven't, but I have to (none / 0) (#32)
by brodie on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:58:53 PM EST

tell you, I'm more inclined to want to first see the Spike Lee film, which is apparently based in large part on the book, and take it from there if necessary. And I understand Alex Haley cut out a lot from the book.


: The book is great (none / 0) (#34)
by shoephone on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 01:53:37 AM EST

I've read it twice. The movie... eh. Not that great, IMO.

Never (none / 0) (#18)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 04:31:31 PM EST

thought there were any saints. All I ask of politicians is for them to fight for the issues. I'm also a half a loaf is better than a whole one but right now there are only a few crumbs.

You remember the song, (none / 0) (#33)
by NYShooter on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 12:53:14 AM EST

"You Always Hurt the One You Love?"

I know all politicians renege on their campaign promises to one extent or another, but I can't recall any who have trashed theirs to the totality that Obama has.

As I said yesterday the more I researched Obama's history, looking for some redeeming quality, some sign that he has a core belief system, the more I became convinced that the adjective that describes him best is.....slimy. And I don't mean that in a purely reactive, pejorative sense, but in a sense that the word simply describes him best.

From the way he "won" his State Senate seat by having his four opponents petitions disqualified, to the way he trashed his mentor, and Chicago icon, Alice Palmer. From his not even being a candidate for the Harvard Law review but just popped up offering himself up as a compromise candidate when the front runners were deadlocked (and promising the Leadership that he was really a Conservative, giving those "smartypants" a "twofer," a black & a Conservative) to becoming the only President of the Harvard Law Review in their 165 year history to have never written a paper. From his "see no evil, hear no evil" relationship with Rev. Wright, to his trashing and promoting the Clintons as racists.

I could go on but you know how it goes, those who love him will only embrace him harder, and those who don't care for him already know this.

Seriously? (none / 0) (#35)
by jtaylorr on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 02:41:31 AM EST

Is this the comments section on WSJ? Really pathetic.


: "Pathetic" is o.k. (none / 0) (#37)
by NYShooter on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 12:09:33 PM EST

but "slimey" is more descriptive, and more accurate.
But thank you for your input.

But the real travesty to me (none / 0) (#36)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 09:04:36 AM EST

is that the Clintons were some of the first to embrace "the one they loved". Go to work for a guy who tries to destroy your husband's presidential legacy by labeling you and he racists? and as someone who wishes Obama dead in that RFK kind of way because you'll do anything to be president?

Wasn't there foundation work to do or something?
