Thursday, March 04, 2021

Cuomo, Tanden, and Other Embarrassing Allies

by Neil H. Buchanan 
 
The political wheel of fortune has again put Democrats in a position where they have had to decide whether to stand by a few of their compatriots who are difficult to defend, or instead to jettison excess baggage and move on.  After weeks of backing his nomination of Neera Tanden to be his budget director, President Biden ultimately decided that she was not worth the fight.  Meanwhile, whether New York Governor Andrew Cuomo will survive his emerging scandals is currently impossible to predict.
 
Every political scandal is different, of course, yet there is a sameness to the genre.  Even so, there continues to be an enormous difference between the way that Democrats handle their embarrassing colleagues and the way that Republicans bulldoze through their much worse situations.  Are there any lessons here?
To be sure, despite their toxic bellicosity, even Trump-era Republicans have not stood by every one of their politically problematic scandal-tainted officeholders and nominees.  Various corrupt members of Congress and others have disappeared, and Republicans were surely not sorry to see them go.  And not every one of Donald Trump's nominees survived scrutiny, including two misbegotten picks for the Federal Reserve Board (Stephen Moore and the now-deceased Herman Cain), who were doomed by quiet opposition from some Republicans.

In situations where Republicans can bail out quietly -- that is, when it does not become an "own the libs" moment or some other fierce culture war battle -- they tend to do the same thing that Democrats do and that even non-politicians do all the time: hope that an immediately embarrassing situation will simply go away.  It is exhausting to try to defend the indefensible, or even to explain that something that looks bad might not be so bad, so we all have an interest in wishing for a quiet resolution.

Republicans do, however, have a track record of going to the mattresses much more frequently than the Democrats do -- and they do so on behalf of people who are much more difficult to defend.  Betsy DeVos was confirmed as a cabinet secretary, as was Jeff Sessions (who had, years before, been denied a federal judgeship due to his racist views).  Nutcase after nutcase joined the federal bench.  Trump eventually did not even bother to go through the confirmation process on non-judicial appointees, opting instead to leave positions empty or to abuse the "acting" designation.

To step back a bit, it is hardly news that politics requires a lot of holding one's tongue (and nose).  We do not agree with anyone about everything, certainly not the people to whom we give our votes.  And if we do not agree with them all the time, then surely we will not agree with the people whom they nominate to positions in government.  The politicians themselves choose their nominees by weighing pros and cons, and we do the same.

From the position of those who serve, the same underlying nonzero level of discomfort is a part of political life.  I recall, during Bill Clinton's presidency, a conversation with an academic economist who had taken a Deputy Assistant Secretary position at Treasury (or some such place), and he told me that he often found himself swallowing hard to defend the president.
 
That is understandable, but this guys' particular example was both touching and revealing.  Was he uncomfortable with Clinton's scandals, or maybe with Clintonian triangulation?  No, this young economist had recently been struggling with the idea that one of Clinton's economic policies was not well targeted, providing incentives to people who would have acted even in the absence of incentives.  In econ-geek-speak, Clinton had committed the unpardonable sin of offering "infra-marginal benefits."  The horror.

Except that the sin was not, in fact, unpardonable.  No resignation letter was sent, and for good reason.  The currently popular version of this question is: Is that the hill you want to die on?  And in almost every situation, the answer is sensibly going to be: Of course not.

The issue, then, is not whether people in politics ever defend something that they would prefer not to defend.  It is also most certainly not whether being a partisan will cause people to make still more accommodations in troubling situations.  The question is when enough is enough.

When it comes to Tanden, her situation made it far too easy for Democrats to fall in line.  Not only were Republicans attacking her for being a partisan Democrat (which she clearly is), but these defenders of Trump were hypocritically attacking her for mean tweets.  How could Democrats, including President Biden, not be up in arms about that?  It was also galling that, unlike Cain or DeVos or so many others in the Trump years (Ben Carson, anyone?), Tanden possesses clear expertise and commitment to the substantive matters that would have been the essence of her job description.  Finally, the stench of sexism and racism that hung in the air all but required Democrats to come to her defense.

Even so, I welcomed her withdrawal, and I am happy to consider her nomination the equivalent of sacrificing a pawn (or at most a bishop) to gain an advantage.  She now stands for the proposition that Republicans "got something" from Biden, and he can now say that enough is enough -- especially because he only acted after people like Susan Collins and Mitt Romney burned political capital to sink her nomination.

Moreover, this is a situation in which the intra-party fights in which Tanden specialized truly mattered.  Although Senator Bernie Sanders agreed to support her nomination, Tanden has a long history of being absolutely awful to the progressive wing of the party.  And it is not just mean tweets.  A New York Times piece about Tanden two years ago, for example, described a confrontation in 2008, when Tanden (then an aide to Hillary Clinton's failing presidential campaign) became infuriated by a question from a progressive journalist, Faiz Shakir.

The Times story described the incident: "Ms. Tanden responded by circling back to Mr. Shakir after the interview and, according to a person in the room, punching him in the chest."  Not bad enough?  The article then added: "'I didn’t slug him, I pushed him,' a still angry Ms. Tanden corrected in a recent interview."  (Note that "recent" there refers to early 2019, while the incident happened in 2008.)
 
I forwarded that article a few months ago to a progressive friend, adding the comment: "I knew these types would populate a Biden administration, but yeesh. She’s just awful."  The friend responded sarcastically: "Oh good. She physically assaults people."

For present purposes, the subject line of my email captures the dynamic: "This is whom we’re supposed to defend?"  I should add that the article in The Times also described substantive issues on which Tanden was terrible (including sucking up to Benjamin Netanyahu, apparently in an effort to win a big donation from some billionaire for Tanden's think tank).

There are times, then, when it is not difficult to watch someone go down, even if they are nominally on my side.  Without question, that is the way I feel about Cuomo.  It is not only that he comes from the Rudy Giuliani/Chris Christie school of bullying, although that ought to be disqualifying on its own.  Cuomo has a terrible record on corruption, tax progressivity, and especially attacking school teachers.

Is it complicated?  Sure.  Cuomo's high points include support for an important post-Sandy Hook gun control law in New York State, as well as taking an early lead on marriage equality.  Even so, when we learned that Cuomo had faked COVID-related death statistics, quickly followed by a separate scandal in which three women have credibly accused him of sexual harassment (or worse), my response has been: "He's expendable."

And that requires some clarification.  Some Democrats have responded to the new Cuomo allegations by saying that it is important not to react too quickly, lest we end up doing to Cuomo what we did to Al Franken.  But that gets it exactly backward, because of course what Cuomo has done (across all of his scandals, separately or together) is obviously worse.  As I wrote when Franken was under fire, Democrats needed to prove that they held themselves to higher standards, which applies much more forcefully to Cuomo.
 
Importantly, however, I conceded that this was a relatively easy call, because we knew that Franken would be replaced by a Democrat.  This is what I mean by "expendable."  New York is not going to replace Cuomo, immediately or in the next election, with a Greg Abbott (R-Covidland) or Lindsay Graham (R-Cravenville).  In this sense, bailing on people like Cuomo and Franken is almost too easy.  There are a lot of things that I do not like about, for example, Beto O'Rourke, but obviously he is infinitely better than Ted Cruz, and I wish O'Rourke had won their Senate race in 2018.

Still, too many Democrats -- hell, even many women who self-identified as feminists -- defended Bill Clinton in the late 1990's.  Again, he would have been replaced by someone arguably better (certainly no worse), but what he did was indefensible.  On policy, Tanden is merely a clone of Clinton, and I have long criticized him for selling out his party, which again means that I had no reservoir of affection for the guy by the time he was under fire.

The instinct to circle the wagons, however, has been even more common among Republicans, not just recently but even going back as far as the Clarence Thomas nomination to the Supreme Court.  Why did George H.W. Bush not simply pull his nominee -- who received the ABA's lowest rating, even before the Anita Hill story emerged?  Why did Trump not pull Brett Kavanaugh's nomination?  In both cases, the president would have simply slotted in an ideological clone.  (Amy Coney Barrett was already on the short list from which Kavanaugh was chosen.)

In the end, it is understandable that people do not run screaming for the exits every time some bad news emerges about their political allies.  Even so, the asymmetry of the two parties is notable.  I cannot imagine Democrats defending a liberal version of a Thomas, Kavanaugh, DeVos, or any of the others.  I can easily picture Republicans defending to the death conservative versions of Tanden, Cuomo, or Clinton -- or people who are guilty of much, much worse.  Indeed, we have two recent Senate impeachment acquittals to prove it.

4 comments:

CEP said...

Another reason that Cuomo the Younger should go:

Whattayouse guys think you are, Chicago? Ya gotta have more control of The Machine to ensure that Junior is unassailable.

I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that part of the rationale for an elected head of state was to avoid inheriting high office. The early leaders had the educational example of the Pitts playing against the Georges to watch...

hardreaders said...

I liked Cuomo better when his first name was Mario (yes I'm dating myself a little there). On substance, even though some people seem to adore him, I would say he's about replacement level, for the reasons given in the OP—i.e., he's had a mixture of highs and lows. So I definitely wouldn't lose any sleep over him taking early retirement. And he should—even if he ends up not doing so—because his conduct was inappropriate. What is it with NY D governors though? First Spitzer, then Paterson, now Cuomo fils. Although for Spitzer I had a little sympathy because (1) it was essentially private conduct that didn't involve any wrongdoing and (2) he was pretty good on substance.

Tanden though is a different story. Her situation IMHO was a complete non-scandal. Especially the tweets. Is anyone shocked that she made snarky tweets—even those criticizing the Ds farthest on what passes for the "left" these days—when that was basically part of her job description at the time? In particular I laugh at Manchin and any other Ds being aghast at criticism of McConnell. Wouldn't that be completely expected from someone in her position? It's not like McConnell would vote to confirm her in a million years anyway.

It's the same for the so-called "assault" of a journalist. That is total penny ante stuff. Most importantly, that happened *13* years ago, and it was fully aired out at the time. I'm not condoning the conduct at all, but I think if someone had a single incident over a decade ago where she lost her temper, and nothing since, then it's really time to move on. Bringing it up now is just disingenuous. Especially if that's the *only* point of contention raised (aside from the tweets), it seems quite desperate. AFAIK, the journalist didn't even press charges either, so that's some evidence of the incident being minor. It also distinguishes her situation from that of someone like Greg Gianforte, who committed a vicious attack and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor (although he should have gotten more). Moreover, Gianforte was seeking election for a position of power and responsibility, while at the time, Tanden was just an ordinary political operative. And of course, it's the Rs who are engaged in an ongoing campaign (no pun!) of assault—figurative and literal—against journalists and journalism, not Ds and people like Tanden.

Manchin in particular has a personal axe to grind with Tanden—although he won't acknowledge it—because she once criticized—rightly—his daughter, who at the time was CEO of a price-gouging Big Pharma co. The irony is that Tanden's criticism was both (1) extremely mild and (2) so general it could have applied to most any CEO.

Finally, as Prof. B. notes, there was no doubt some racism and sexism involved. That would be disturbing in any case, but especially here when nobody seems to dispute that Tanden is eminently qualified for the job. I also wonder if she was being offered up as a sacrificial lamb deliberately. This isn't a Zoe Baird-type case of inadequate vetting; these "issues"—such as they were—involving Tanden were fully known ahead of time. If so, that's really unfortunate.

I defend Tanden at length above and I don't even necessarily agree with all her political stances. But I do recognize that she would be great at this particular job, and that none of the issues raised should be remotely disqualifying, so it was sad to see her hung out to dry like that.

(To the extent anyone's still following this, much obliged and I'll spare you from a diatribe on Clinton!)

Shweta said...

Dwarka call girls having so much loving and aggressive in bed Choose Dwarka escorts for your quality time  spending girls and women so much bold and hot,

Eunice Garry said...

This testimony is worth sharing to the world. I am here to tell the world of the good works of  Dr BALBOSA. My name is Olivia Bolton am from the UK.. My man left me and my kids for another older woman. It was not so easy for me.. I love my husband so much and I did not lose hope and I kept praying and God finally answered my prayers...i searched online for a spell caster to help me unite me and my lover back forever and i saw so many testimonies of  how DR BALBOSA has helped so many people online and i decided to give him a trial … I contacted him and explained to him. He told me not to worry that he will bring back my man within 24 hours. He consulted his powers and assured me not to worry . He did his work and cast the spell and to my greatest surprise, my husband came back the same day begging and crying  just as  Dr BALBOSA said. He begged me for forgiveness and he promised never to leave me for any reason. We are happy and we live together as one. Contact Dr BALBOSA now and be happy forever. dont lose hope and good luck..

EMAIL on:: balbosasolutionhome@gmail.com

WHATSAPP AND CALL: +1(206) 485-3691

WEBSITE: https://balbosasolutionhome.com