Brown-Warren “Civility” and the Law of Unintended Consequences

In February, Lindsay Mark Lewis, a former Democratic National Committee finance director, wrote a heavy-hearted piece for the New York Times. Lewis wrote that he has always supported campaign finance reform, but something funny had recently happened. The Law of Unintended Consequences, that bane of liberal social engineers and red tape wielding bureaucrats, had hit Lewis–and hard. One of the effects of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation was that it didn’t take money out of politics after all; it merely redirected money to less accountable groups like 527s and super PACs. Wrote a defeated Lewis:

Nevertheless, I’ve decided that the best way forward may be to go in the opposite direction: repeal what’s left of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as McCain-Feingold, which severely limits the amount of money the parties can collect for their candidates.

Well what do you know–the cure was worse than the disease. So much worse, in fact, that the country’s biggest boosters of that cure were turning against it, ruing the day they went after the First Amendment with malice aforethought. Something similar, but slightly less ironic, is now taking place in Massachusetts between Senator Scott Brown and his liberal challenger, Elizabeth Warren. To great fanfare—OK, modest fanfare—Brown and Warren signed a pledge that would effectively ban third-party groups from the race. When Brown announced the deal to Fox News in January, the station’s website reported it this way:

The Senate race in Massachusetts is going for the civility vote as Republican Sen. Scott Brown and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren have agreed — under threat of financial penalty to themselves — to ban third party ads from their race.

Ah, civility at last. There was just simply no way this could end up having the opposite effect, right? Yet today, Rosie Gray reports from Lowell, Massachusetts:

The poison that runs through this state’s Senate race seemed to spill over into the traffic Tuesday night: Everyone was paralyzed, furious, and headed to the same place, the University of Massachusetts-Lowell’s Tsongas Center.

Everyone sounds really angry and on-edge. What happened? Gray explains:

The Massachusetts Senate Campaign, between a moderate Republican and a liberal hero, began with a pledge that was meant to keep things clean. The campaigns promised not to let outside groups run radio and television advertisements on their behalves. That agreement appears to have accomplished roughly the opposite of its goal: Now, instead of letting outsiders do the dirty work for them, Warren and Brown have had to do it themselves. And a race that was always going to be tough has reached an unusual depth of personal nastiness[.]

So it didn’t take the negativity out of the election, it simply caused the candidates to stoop to the levels of incivility previously only occupied by third parties—“an unusual depth of personal nastiness,” in Gray’s telling. As Gray describes it, the fact that the candidates themselves are behaving this way has set the tone for everyone involved, so even the debate audience seemed on the edge of a brawl.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

Brown-Warren “Civility” and the Law of Unintended Consequences

Must-Reads from Magazine

So Many Ways to Say ‘Debacle’

Commentary Podcast: The GOP's health care mess.

audio: https://soundcloud.com/commentarymagazine/commentary-podcast-so-many-ways-to-say-debacle

On a special week-ending podcast, the COMMENTARY crew considers the collapse of the American Health Care Act and the fallout therefrom. Our conclusion: A lot of fallout. A lot of it on Donald Trump’s head. And some on Paul Ryan. And some on House Republicans. And oy. Give a listen.

3
Shares
Google+ Print

Trump Fans: You’re the ‘Establishment’ Now

Donald Trump and Paul Ryan are on the same team, whether Trump fans like it or not.

The 2016 elections created an irreconcilable contradiction that now threatens to paralyze the GOP. The Republican Party in Congress is dominated by conservative lawmakers, many of whom won their seats in the tea party-led wave midterm elections of 2010 and 2014. Donald Trump, however, ran for and won the White House by campaigning against ideology. He marketed himself as a fixer married only to what works and suspicious of the rigid partisan divides that had crippled Washington. When Trump was elected to the White House, he was also selected to lead the Republican Party—a party that remains a congeries of committed conservatives. This contradiction was bound to lead to conflict someday. That day is today.

25
Shares
Google+ Print

Terror, Not Donald Trump Jr., Is the Problem

Donald Trump Jr.'s insensitive tweet nevertheless contained a sound critique of the left.

On Wednesday, London was attacked. Just before 3 p.m. in the British capital, a terrorist drove a vehicle at high speed down the Westminster Bridge toward Parliament, running over pedestrians along the way. In an attempt to gain entry to Parliament, the man stabbed and killed a police officer before being shot to death. Forty people were injured in the assault. Three died. The attack occurred on the one-year anniversary of a deadly ISIS-linked incident in Brussels. It happened as an anti-ISIS coalition of Middle Eastern leaders met in Washington D.C. and as militias prepare for the siege of the Islamic State capital, Raqqa. Hours later, ISIS took credit for the attack.

48
Shares
Google+ Print

Just how out of Touch is BDS?

The BDS movement hasn't evolved with the changing Middle East.

Even if they have suffered some recent setbacks among academic umbrella groups, the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is an increasingly loud presence on university campuses and among activist organizations in Washington, D.C.

19
Shares
Google+ Print

Your ‘Historical Detail,’ Our Real Life

Daily life in Israel is a mystery to so many who comment on it.

A review of a comedy of manners set in England in the 1920s wouldn’t seem the obvious place to look to understand why the average Westerner really has no business trying to tell Israelis how to run their country. But two sentences in this New York Times book review encapsulate the problem perfectly: “Historical details, which abound, are often fascinating. (Who knew that beards interfere with gas masks?)”

32
Shares
Google+ Print