Bart Stupak Revisited
There is a brief piece by Jonathan Last on Bart Stupak that can be found on the former's website. It deserves attention -- for, alas, it is apt. Here is a teaser:
Our political order is based around what voters believe to be a kind of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs for our elected officials. At the top of the pyramid are high-minded hopes about wisdom and judgment. But at the base of the pyramid–the foundation for our relationship with our officials–is that we trust them to be self-interested. That is to say, we trust them not to deliberately do something so abhorrent to us that they know for a certainty it will cost them their jobs.
I would argue that the passage of Obamacare damaged the political order because it broke this basic compact. And I don’t particularly blame President Obama or Nancy Pelosi. Sure, they drove the process. But that’s what their constituencies wanted from them. The engine governor for such radical change has always been guys like Stupak, who wouldn’t go along with it because they knew they couldn’t get away with it.
But Stupak didn’t keep up his end of the bargain. He violated basically every tier of the politician’s Maslow hierarchy: He didn’t believe in Obamacare, he didn’t like Obamacare, and he knew that voting for it would cost him his job because his constituents hated it. But he did it anyway because pure partisanship overrode every other concern. That’s not supposed to happen.
I’m sure Bart Stupak is a kind and gentle soul. But he failed as an elected official, with terrible consequences for the body politic. He abandoned even the old pro-life Democratic line, which may have hardened the fight over abortion into political amber. And his failures are not merely personal. They are a national tragedy.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Bart Stupak Revisited
Jonathan Last on Bart Stupak
I’m sure Bart Stupak is a kind and gentle soul. But he failed as an elected official, with terrible consequences for the body politic. He abandoned even the old pro-life Democratic line, which may have hardened the fight over abortion into political amber. And his failures are not merely personal. They are a national tragedy.
· 2 minutes ago
I'm not willing to extend Stupak that benefit of the doubt. I think he and his band of 6 or so "pro-life" holdouts were never sincere, simply saying what they had to say to get elected. And they sold out. Stupak took a subsidy for an airport. I'm sure all the rest of them got their share of the payoff.
I know I'm cynical, that's what happens when you live in Illinois and observe this daily.
Nov '11
Re: Bart Stupak Revisited
Does Stupak get points added, or taken away, for announcing yesterday that he is "perplexed and disappointed" that Obama reneged:
I don't think it was "pure partisanship" that trumped his judgment, at least not Stupak's own partisanship. I think Stupak simply didn't have the guts and backbone to stand his ground against the overwhelming majority of his party. Is that excessive partisanship, or inadequate courage?
Mar '12
Re: Bart Stupak Revisited
I believe that you gave Stupak too much credit. He is a Democrat who claimed to be Catholic and pro-life. When push came to shove, he was a Democrat, but not so much Catholic or pro-life.
The saying is "man up." Stupak laid down.
The phrase at that time was "the Stupak sell-out."
Laid down and sellout are accurate descriptions of Stupak's demeanor. Democrat is accurate. Hypocrite is accurate.
Jun '10
Re: Bart Stupak Revisited
Astonishing:
I think Stupak simply didn't have the guts and backbone to stand his ground against the overwhelming majority of his party. Is that excessive partisanship, or inadequate courage?
· 8 minutes ago
I agree. Stupak had a very public defining moment, and he blew it. Now he has to live with it--unfortunately, so do we.
Sadly, we can say the same thing about John Roberts.
Stupak got rolled by other politicians--Roberts' situation is, I believe, even worse than Stupak. He created a bogus theory in order to secure his "legacy." Some legacy.
Edited on September 6, 2012 at 1:37amAug '10
Re: Bart Stupak Revisited
Unless the media made some major leagues mistakes in reporting what happened ( my first suspicion) , this guy is hoist on his own petard
Edited on September 6, 2012 at 1:41amMay '10
Re: Bart Stupak Revisited
tabula rasa
Astonishing:
I think Stupak simply didn't have the guts and backbone to stand his ground against the overwhelming majority of his party. Is that excessive partisanship, or inadequate courage?
· 8 minutes ago
I agree. Stupak had a very public defining moment, and he blew it. Now he has to live with it--unfortunately, so do we.
Sadly, we can say the same thing about John Roberts.
Stupak got rolled by other politicians--Roberts' situation is, I believe, even worse than Stupak. He created a bogus theory in order to secure his "legacy." Some legacy. · 1 hour ago
Edited 1 hour ago
Ditto. Well said.
Aug '10
Re: Bart Stupak Revisited
Tab, respectfully I suggest that we withhold further comment on Roberts until things play out. That way we can hope it's a long term gambit .
May '12
Re: Bart Stupak Revisited
Tabula Rasa, as I read the post I couldn't help but think, "Yet, Roberts is the greater villain." Your comment sums it up perfectly. Roberts and Stupak go together, and in that order. I wish we could vote out the Chief Justice through an easier process than we have. I wonder if people like Roberts can feel shame? At least Peter went out and wept bitterly. But these guys?
May '12
Re: Bart Stupak Revisited
Flownover, I can't/don't share your view about Roberts. We can't afford gambits when liberty, integrity, the Constitution, and oaths to do one's job are on the line. Roberts hurt the country, deeply. I would love to see all of Romney's promises come true regarding Obamacare. But when the roll of heros is called at such a moment, Roberts will not be named among them. His place is to hide his face among the weak, cowardly, and diminished souls like Stupak.
Jun '12
Re: Bart Stupak Revisited
Stupak was my Rep. What good does it do to write your congressman encouraging him to stay strong? I thought that the loss of his son to suicide would have bucked up his appreciation of life. An example of Hayek's bad rising to the top. Stupak's medical plan is not the one he voted to give the rest of us.
May '10
Re: Bart Stupak Revisited
Maslow's hierarchy is a guide, not a concrete rule. I have seen dozens of executives accept numbers from above that were impossible to meet because of pressure to do so - in varieties of forms. My own daughter is about to change jobs because her boss accepted something structurally impossible and my daughter is being set up for the first stage "fall person."
Stupak simply did what tons of people do, sacrifice principle in the face of pressure, especially when given a fig leaf of cover to make the action seem sort of acceptable (Obama EO). The guy is no more and no less than a human being that fell short as lots of others have done before, and many will do after.
The lesson that will not be (but should be) learned is that the concept of "blue dog Democrats" is an absurdity in today's Democrat party.