It is to Evan Bayh's enormous credit that he never settled comfortably into the Washington political scene. His decision to pack it in, after 12 years, is a loss to his party, and even more to his country. Most of all, it's a withering rebuke to Congress, which seems to have lost the knack for governing.
If anyone could have been expected to make a seamless transition to the national political stage, it was Bayh, the handsome, dutiful son of former U.S. Senator Birch Bayh. But from his arrival here in 1998, Bayh seemed frustrated with the ideological and partisan hothouse that is contemporary Washington.
Maybe that's because Bayh was a popular, two-term governor of Indiana who built a solid record of progressive reform in a fairly conservative state. He isn't the first ex-governor to bring an executive temperament to Congress, only to feel stymied in an institution where partisan power struggles and the evasion of hard choices often trump public problem-solving.
Bayh nonetheless has distinguished himself as a leader of his party's pragmatic wing, as a former chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council and key organizer of an influential group of centrist Senate Democrats. In the Senate, he has championed the economic prospects of working Americans, like the many who have lost jobs in Indiana's troubled manufacturing sector. He has been a stalwart for fiscal discipline, echoing the Jeffersonian view (best articulated by John Randolph of Virginia) that elected officials should spend every public dollar as if it were their own. And Bayh has filled a critical vacuum in the Democratic Party for credible, tough-minded voices on national security and foreign policy.
Bayh's earnest centrism and refusal to put partisanship over considerations of national interest have not endeared him to the Democratic left. Some self-appointed commissars of ideological correctness are even saying "good riddance" to the Indiana Democrat. This is monumentally dumb.
If Democrats want to become the nation's majority party again, it can only be as a broad coalition of pragmatic centrists and liberals, including a large dollop of the independent voters who have been drifting away from the party since the 2008 election. However overrepresented they may be in the chattering class, liberal purists constitute less than a quarter of the national electorate.
In fact, Democrats should worry plenty about Bayh's decision. With the midterm election looming, the last thing they want to do is give the impression of a party hostile to pragmatic centrists and independents who have similar views. And the departure of a serious, public-spirited leader of Bayh's caliber can only deepen the public's jaundiced view of Congress.
"There is too much partisanship and... too much narrow ideology in Washington," Bayh said in explaining his decision not to seek reelection. "Even at a time of enormous national challenge, the people's business is not getting done."
That's right, and it's a big problem for the governing party.
This item is cross-posted at Progressive Fix.
“If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.â€
That's right, and it's a big problem for the governing party.
WHERE IN GOD'S NAME WAS THIS SORT OF "CONCERN" FOR TOO MUCH NARROW IDEOLOGY IN WASHINGTON WHEN THE REPUBLICANS AND BUSH AND CHENEY WERE FORCING ALL THIER CRAP DOWN EVERYONE'S THROAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?
Why would a "principled" man refuse to do so?
In his 12 years in the senate can you name five pieces of major legislation where Senator Bayh provided a leadership role?
Most of the article is the usual spin like "In the Senate, he has championed the economic prospects of working Americans, like the many who have lost jobs in Indiana's troubled manufacturing sector." This is also called "pork".
And his "pragmatic" and "centrist" stance only hurt HCR which in effect is a huge hindrance, not help, to the American people.
Good riddance to Bayh, the quintessential pragmatist.
He's leaving because of partisanship, yet her refuses to point to those who created it. Those who impeached a sitting President for trivial and personal sins; those who suspended weekly bi-partisan meetings among House leaders within a week of assuming power, those who held the other party's appointments hostage for 8 years then used recess appointments to appoint right wing hacks when they were in power, those who used legerdemain and intimidation to "win" a presidential election when it was lost -- those who consistently put Party before Country; those who now cripple our ability to govern for cheap partisan purpose when the country is desperately in need of governance.
I speak of Republicans -- and yes it does matter who ignited this cauldron of partisanship, for only when its genesis is understood, can it be defeated.
This man Bayh is so devoid of conviction that even in retiring he refuses to do what must be done to right the ship of state.
While there is great truth that pragmatism and broad perspectives should be encouraged within the party, current process and history seems to indicate even that offers no path forward however limited that path might be. In short what good can Bayh point to as a result of his service.
unfortunately the abuse of democracy that occurs through senate rules denies him any such accomplishments. I can't say I don't agree one can be more powerful at accomplishing change from outside the Senate as it's rules are clearly designed to obstruct it from within not move history forward.
Really, we don't mind. Like the rest of his DLC collegues, Evan Bayh never actually represented the voters who put him in office and particularly not the voters who made under the median income. The whole country will be better off once we rid ourselves of the 'Third Way'.