I’m probably more critical of the Kennedy clan than most Democrats but I generally have a good opinion of them and respect their commitment to public service. I just can’t support a primary challenge to Senator Ed Markey. I’m getting a little tired of Massachusetts Democrats throwing out perfectly serviceable and experienced members. But I find it particularly irritating in this case because the Kennedys are acting like they’re owed a Senate seat by virtue of their name. Young Joe Kennedy III can’t even articulate a reason why he’s better than Markey, and he’s not better as far as I can tell.
Markey isn’t a spectacular member of Congress, but he’s a leader on climate change who has a solidly progressive voting record and has slowly built up a bit of seniority, which is something Massachusetts usually enjoys but is currently lacking.
This isn’t some huge big deal, but it’s unnecessary and a distraction from critical battles that will be settled next year. Kennedy should stay in the House and seek out opportunities to rise up the leadership ladder. Warren’s seat could open up if she’s elected president. If not, Markey will be nearly eighty in six years and could be challenged then.
I honestly can’t see how Massachusetts would benefit in any way from replacing Markey with Kennedy. They’s lose seniority in both chambers and probably come away with more conservative representation.
Seniority is a problem when you’re ruled by a geriatric party that is unnecessarily conservative and can’t read the moment of urgency. They all need to be cleared out.
However, I’ll be voting for Markey. Kennedy is worse than Markey on the issues, he’s done nothing to stand out in the House, and worst of all he’s been a leading drug warrior when we needed leaders against the war on drugs. He’s an old man in a young body with a legacy last name. And yet, his name alone might be enough. I hope not.
‘The war on certain people who use drugs’ is what they always mean when they say ‘war on drugs’. It’s like when someone says ‘it’s not about the money’, you know it’s about the money.
.
Veteran #mapoli journalist David Bernstein has observed that running against Markey may be Kennedy’s only chance (for a while) to run as the candidate of generational change. if Warren’s seat opens up, he’d likely have to run against the like of AG Maura Healey, or Rep. Ayanna Pressley, or any of several other experienced “young” (i.e., under 50) candidates.
I’d love for someone to do a deep dive into the generational change races of the 1970s as a way of offering some perspective on what’s happening now that those who entered politics in the 1970s are on the other end of generational change.
P. S. The future is uncertain. When Liz Holtzman (aged 30) narrowly defeated longtime Congressman Manny Celler in the 1972 primary, it meant the loss of the Judiciary Committee chairman (and his nearly 50 years of seniority). The inexperienced Peter Rodino became Judiciary chairman and did (according to many observers) a better job than Celler would have done at building a bipartisan majority to impeach Nixon.
I generally agree with you in the Kennedy / Markey case, but I think the Pressley / Capuano case, Pressley > Capuano. This is because modern politics is not just about legislative tactics and machinations, where seniority is important. Modern politics is extremely media heavy, and while some older progressives (e.g., Sanders) are very savvy in this new world, the vast majority are not.
I’d never heard of or seen Capuano on the teevees, certainly not the Twitters or the intertubes. Pressley is all over it, and that alone, in a case where policy positions are a wash, is a deciding factor for me — far more important than seniority.
Ideally, the Democrats would take a page from the GOP and put some limits on seniority (e.g., the 3 term limit for committe chairmanship). The present situation has exposed how bad of an idea the existing system is — all our ossified House leaders are completely incapable of acting on impeachment. And in this very narrow sense, I am partly against starting impeachment, only because I fear this bunch is too incompetent to handle the process. Were a more media-savvy group at the helm, impeachment would be a fantastic strategy as it would be part of the campaign; as it stands, I just can’t see Nadler (my rep, whom I generally adore, but in this case… oof), Pelosi, Hoyer and co. handling this competently.
I think the Ed Markey situation is not at all like this — he’s definitely one of the good ones (see, Green New Deal), and Kennedy seems too centrist/careerist for my liking. But in general, good progressives who lack media savvy should always be replaced by good progressives who have it.
There is only one reason to support Kennedy, as Markey is superior to him in every other respect. That reason is the filibuster. Markey wants to preserve it and go back to a 60 senator approval threshold for judges if Dems retake the Senate.
Kennedy wants to trash the filibuster (which is dead anyway because of Gorsuch). We will need the filibuster to stay dead to expand the house and pack the courts. That one issue might lead me to vote Kennedy if I lived in Mass, even though I am NOT a fan and don’t trust (even reformed) drug warriors.
I agree with you in this *particular* case, not being a big fan of Joe Kennedy.
But, I think a vibrant party should endure primaries every once in a while. We’re seeing what an inherently (small c) conservative party gets you, and a little more responsiveness is needed in this day and age.