On Tuesday night, Congressman John Olver of our Massachusetts 1st congressional district came to talk to a group of students in Paino Lecture Hall. Here’s a brief recap of what happened, and some impressions of our congressman (who also happens to be the husband of Professor Rose Olver, Amherst College’s first female tenure-track professor):
1. Questions swirled, of course, about the primary campaign. Congressman Olver explained his rationale for waiting to endorse (he, like the other Democrats in Congress, is a superdelegate, but unlike most, is uncommitted), which amounted to what you might expect: He’s waiting to see what happens, and also because he didn’t want to get out in front of his own district (which voted on February 5th, admittedly a long time ago). In his discussion, the congressman didn’t make any conclusive statements–he said he’d been called by both Clintons and Ted Kennedy on behalf of each campaign (respectively, obviously. Bill has not, as far as anyone knows, made calls on Obama’s behalf). Some folks listening really really carefully thought they could detect a hint of a preference for Obama, but that’s pure speculation and ought to be treated as such. In any event, it was encouraging to meet a responsible steward of the party’s fate. I stress responsible.
2. Iraq came up, along with the issue of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s command of the neophyte Democratic majority in Congress. Congressman Olver spoke highly of the Speaker’s emergent leadership of the Democratic caucus, a harder trick than we might expect, as he explained. As we know, plenty of the freshmen/women Dems in Congress are in centrist and center-right districts–so getting them to vote in a bloc with the liberal wing of the party on issues like Iraq puts them in direct electoral peril, and thus is very hard to do. Again, we kind of knew this already, and what else was he going to say–but it was still cool.
3. But not the coolest. This was the coolest: After two hours of questions and answers, and a brief discussion of Democratic trade policy, my buddy Meredith Case stopped the congressman and asked him about the failed Colombian trade deal, which the Democrats more or less killed (for now) a couple of weeks ago. Now, I don’t think the congressman was expecting to run into anyone with such frightening command of the facts of the situation. But he did. And the cool part was, he took it quite well. While doing his best to explain his position, and its origins, Congressman Olver kept stressing that he was constantly reassessing his own position on trade–and when Meredith was done, he scratched his head and earnestly said, “Maybe I need to reassess again.” How many times in your life do you get to witness a politician admit that he or she–perish the thought–might be wrong? Well, I can now count to one.
Their discussion touched on a divide within the Democratic party that has been broiling for a good while, both in Congress and in the electorate. On the one hand, segments of the party’s labor and working-class support often favor protectionist policies to keep production and jobs here; on the other, plenty subscribe to the Ec-11 mantra that trade makes everyone better off, even though it can have painful consequences in the short run. (That’s my simplistic summary–I’m not an economist, although I’m working on it.)
What troubles me and interests me all at once regarding this divide is that it’s not limited to trade– there’s a class divide within the Democratic Party, and if you ask me, Senator Hillary Clinton is on to it. I can’t think of any other reason she’d propose lifting the gas tax for the summer. Economic populism is one way to stir up votes among a big section of the party’s base.
So: that was a little scattered. But what are your thoughts? Take a position on the gas tax “holiday.” Take a position on the Colombian trade deal, and on free trade in general. Bring some facts to bear (please). These are debates essential to the continuing health of the Democratic party. Might as well have em out.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Dave Ullman (dullman10) // Apr 30, 2008 at 9:21 pm
The gas tax holiday may be the worst policy prescription in a long time. When you have opponents ranging from Greg Mankiw (your friendly Bush-advising conservative Ec-11 textbook writer) to Paul Krugman, economists to environmentalists, etc., you know it must be bad. Check out Tom Friedman’s latest op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?hp
2 Eric Schultz (eschultz10) // Apr 30, 2008 at 9:38 pm
The gas tax holiday strikes me as shameless political pandering, and as Friedman points out, provides the wrong kinds of incentives. It seems like Hillary (and McCain, who has a record of wanting to cut taxes) are resorting to economic populism, in this case, to differentiate themselves from Obama, who I believe has taken the right course in criticizing the proposed tax holiday. How can we cut down on gas consumption if we increase demand by lowering prices?
3 Eric Schultz (eschultz10) // Apr 30, 2008 at 9:39 pm
And yes, Meredith is a baller. I’m expecting Olver to become the new voice of free trade in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
4 eandrews09 (eandrews09) // Apr 30, 2008 at 11:12 pm
5 gcampeau11 (gcampeau11) // May 1, 2008 at 2:09 am
Protectionism…ew. Gas tax holiday…bah humbug.
6 gcampeau11 (gcampeau11) // May 1, 2008 at 2:11 am
Please excuse my impoliteness — or is it delirium? In any case, I would like to know in what ways Olver defended what seems to be a terribly inept (or at least inactive/impotent) Pelosi reign thus far.
7 Nic Zhou (yizhou10) // May 1, 2008 at 2:12 am
The gas tax holiday is a pretty terrible idea. For both McCain and Clinton to have endorsed it speaks to the sad state of politics in America. Its onion politics, writ large.
On the other hand, gas prices have been killing me lately…
8 Aaron Nathan (anathan10) // May 1, 2008 at 11:52 am
Greg-
Someone else who was there might remember better than I, but I think he was talking about the relative improvement in her management of the Democratic caucus, and not her effectiveness in governance writ large. He was also speaking in some pretty cushioned language–and I would not have expected to say one cross word about his boss. I happen to agree that Pelosi’s reign has not been perfect; I think that the free trade-protectionism split is a good example of one of the chief cracks in the Democrats’ armor right now, and I think Meredith is writing about that in a lot more detail than I’m capable of.
One other thing Olver spoke about is the dynamics of a large majority against a small one. When the Republicans had narrow margins in Congress, they learned to be very disciplined in voting as a bloc. Party divisions were bridged by a common interest in passing bills and keeping the Democrats down. But with a 30 seat majority, the Democrats have taken time to learn (and are still learning) the discipline needed to keep a powerful executive branch (etc.) in check. And because of the tenuous positions of a lot of the firsties, a vote to cut off war funding (or anything quite so drastic) is nearly impossible.
9 Max Suechting (msuechting11) // May 1, 2008 at 2:33 pm
So can we pretty much agree that the gas tax holiday is insane and blatant pandering? What a joke.
10 Ben Goldfarb (bgoldfarb09) // May 1, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Aaron, in keeping with “Bush/Phanatic deserve each other,” I propose that you compare the villain in each of your posts with Phillies or Braves personnel. Hillary= Shane Victorino. Don’t ask me why.
11 Aaron Nathan (anathan10) // May 1, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Great idea, ‘Farb. I think I’m onto it… Karl Rove=John Schuerholz, George Allen=John Rocker, John McCain=Bobby Cox (can’t you see him throwing his hat at the feet of an umpire?), Mitt Romney=Pat Burrell, Zell Miller=Brett Myers.
You must log in to post a comment.