In politics the perfect is often the enemy of the good. The quick, easy path of immediate gratification trumps the more arduous process of making compromises in order to achieve greater overall progress.
This plays out in various aspects of the political process all the time. Recall the stream of GOP Senate candidates over the last few years who seemed ideologically perfect to the Republican base but were patently poor choices in states that were something less than an unshakeable scarlet in their political character – Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Ken Buck in Colorado and Richard Mourdock in Indiana. Or, think of any number of pieces of legislation that never see the light of day because partisans would rather have nothing over an incomplete something. This week brings a couple of more examples of the perfect-versus-good conflict playing out in politics.
You can start outside the beltway in the Commonwealth of Virginia, where Republicans gathered last weekend to nominate their slate of candidates for this year's statewide elections. Nominating conventions, being composed of the party's most fervent activists, tend to produce candidates farther from the ideological center than do primaries, and last weekend the base indulged itself. No one will confuse Virginia's incumbent Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the party's gubernatorial standard bearer ,with a purple state moderate, but it is his running mate, the nominee for lieutenant governor, who seems destined to carve out a place of his own in the pantheon of nutty candidates.
His name is E.W. Jackson, which seems to be Virginian for "Sharron Angle." He is a controversial minister whose greatest hits include defending the Constitution's three-fifths clause, which counted each slave in a state as three-fifths of a person, saying that it was an "anti-slavery amendment." He has said that homosexuality "poisons culture, it destroys families, it destroys societies," has a "totalitarian spirit" and that gays and lesbians are "very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally." He has said that Planned Parenthood has been "far more lethal to black lives than the [Ku Klux Klan] ever was." He has said that President Obama has both "Muslim roots and experience in [Louis] Farrakhan's Chicago" and "Muslim sensibilities"; and in the late 1980s he fought against desegregation in Boston.
Jackson, in short, may have been a viable candidate for Virginia, as it existed in the 1980s. But 30 years later, the commonwealth has gone Democratic in the last two presidential elections and the last two senatorial elections. This is no longer a bastion of conservatism, prompting reported "panic" among more mainstream Republicans who fear that a loose cannon on their starboard (that's right for those not nautically inclined) could sink the whole ship.
On the other end of the good-versus-perfect spectrum, the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee this week, officially clearing its first major hurdle toward becoming law. The critical question facing it in committee was whether the bipartisan group of senators who negotiated it could hold the bill together in committee. Could they succeed in fending off amendments which, while thrilling to one party's base, would be so poisonous to the other as to strip away the bill's bipartisan support, sinking the whole thing?
The quintessential debate wasn't decided until the very end. Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee chairman, had openly pondered whether to offer an amendment that would grant the spouses of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender immigrants the same standing under the law – for their partners to petition for them to get visas for example – as those of straight immigrants. Leahy's amendment is indisputably the right thing to do and in keeping with the core principles of the party, but with the GOP lined up against it the question became whether that principle could be subsumed to political reality. Reality won: Leahy withdrew his amendment hours after introducing it.
Cynics (or, depending on your point of view, realists) argued that the whole thing was a "kabuki" exercise – that Leahy never planned to push the issue. But that's beside the point: It is a core issue for Democrats; so, whether the decision to pull the amendment was made this week or earlier, the key thing is the decision was made to move forward rather than getting stuck.
News of the immigration bill advancing was overshadowed by the Oklahoma tornado disaster and the ongoing three-ring scandal circus unfolding on the Hill. Indeed the congressional focus on Benghazi, the IRS scandal and the Justice Department's prying into reporters' phone records and emails itself presents a meta-version of the perfect-versus-good dilemma. Even as congressional leaders, mindful of trying to avoid the investigations appearing to be partisan truffle hunts, counsel caution, some GOP lawmakers and conservative commentators utter things the party's base longs to hear, like "impeachment."
There was some irony, then, when some conservative media outlets started warning this week that the right's directing all available attention to scandals, could give what they see as an odious immigration bill cover to sail through the Senate unnoticed (which seems a fairly stunning indictment of the public for being unable to walk and chew gum at the same time).
Were that the case, I suppose, the right's perfect (Obama scandal monomania) would actually work in concert with the nation's good (immigration reform).
- Read Susan Milligan: President Obama's Code Pink Heckler Medea Benjamin Was Plain Rude
- Read Pat Garofalo: Obama Commerce Nominee Penny Pritzker’s Tax Problem
- Check out U.S. News Weekly, now available on iPad