by publius
I will not be joining the celebration of John Warner this week. In fact, he may be my least favorite Senator. Warner -- and Senators like him -- are actually far more harmful to progressive politics (and sane policy) than more certifiably extreme people like Coburn and Inhofe. That’s why I’d take Coburn any day of the week over the Furrowed Brow.
Needless to say, I disagree strongly that Warner was “immune from politics.” As I’ll illustrate below, he consistently put politics before policy in recent years. But . . . that’s not what annoys me about him. Hell, everyone does that on some level -- it’s often the necessary price of political power. There should be limits of course, but if that’s the only criticism, I would have to indict 99 of his colleagues along with him.
No, the problem with Warner isn’t that he puts politics first. The problem is that he puts politics first while pretending not to do so. Few can furrow their brow on the Sunday morning talk shows better than Warner. But when push comes to shove, Warner never really did anything different than people like Inhofe. Consider the following:
Abu Ghraib: The brow was in Maximum Furrow after Abu Ghraib broke. Warner vowed to get to the bottom of the torture allegations. He didn’t, of course. He held a few hearings, but never forced the administration to stop stonewalling. Thanks largely to his inaction, only grunts have been accused/charged with any wrongdoing when it’s clear to everyone that culpability runs much higher.
Torture: Another sighting of the Sunday Morning Furrowed Brow came on the eve of the 2006 election as Congress debated whether to sanction and institutionalize torture (it ultimately did). Warner – joined by McCain and Graham – caused a big stir by supposedly taking on the administration in defense of basic human (and Western legal) rights. Pundits lauded them, and I sadly must say I did so too (a mistake I vowed to never make again). But in the end, they folded and torture was sanctioned and institutionalized.
Iraq Withdrawal: The more recent Brow Furrowing has come with respect to troop withdrawal. For all Warner’s furrowing, he’s never cast one vote against Bush on this – not one. What he says to reporters is irrelevant. (And remember too that the entire Iraq debacle took place on his watch under his jurisdiction.)
Of course, he’s not alone in casting bad votes (many Democrats are right there with him on that). The problem is the pretense that the Sunday morning preening matters more than the actual vote. For this reason, Warner is far more harmful than Inhofe. With Inhofe, you know what you’re getting: a man who supports torture, supports what we did in Abu Ghraib, and who will never vote to withdraw troops from Iraq. If you go by actions rather than words, Warner’s record is identical to Inhofe's. But unlike Inhofe, Warner gets glowing headlines proclaiming his “Immunity from Politics.”
And that’s the crux of it – to the uninformed, Warner creates the illusion that centrist elected Republicans exist at the congressional level. His high-profile Brow-Furrowing creates the illusion that the party is far more moderate than it is. His furrowing thus prevents public and political accountability by masking the true position of his party on these issues.
Senator Warner is also a giant walking opportunity cost. Regardless of what I think, he is a widely respected Senator. Unlike Inhofe, he had the potential to actually change policy on the ground. But he didn’t. And because he was capable of doing more (and because he presumably disapproved of current policies), his inaction is far more damning than, say, Inhofe’s inaction. It goes back to the old saying, “Of whom much is given, much will be expected.” I don’t expect anything out of Inhofe, but I do out of Warner.
All that said, I wasn’t around in the Elizabeth Taylor era, so maybe he was different in the pre-Gingrich/Rove days. But in the Lindsey Lohan era, he’s the most overrated and disappointing Senator in the whole institution.
I was around during the Ray-gun era and Warner was even more of the same. He's bad on all civil rights, and just a wee bit cukoo on race. You have to dig a bit, but the truth is there.
Posted by: brat | September 01, 2007 at 03:00 PM
"All that said, I wasn’t around in the Elizabeth Taylor era, so maybe he was different in the pre-Gingrich/Rove days."
Not that I ever noticed, for whatever little that's worth.
He voted against Robert Bork, and has made a smattering of minor votes in the course of his career that I approve of, but I can't think of much more positive to say about him than that, other than that he certainly has always looked very Senatorial. He opposed Oliver North's run for the Senate in Virginia, and also Michael Farris; small stuff like that has kept him from being an Inhofe or Coburn -- he's not stupid, and he's not crazy -- but mostly he's just looked pretty.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 01, 2007 at 03:22 PM
A lot of people in Virginia are grateful to Warner for helping save them from the prospect of Sen. Ollie North, but other than that I have to agree with your view of him, at least in recent years. He's just one of the spectering "independent" Republicans, and I suspect he'll continue on that path even now that he no longer needs to worry about reelection.
Posted by: KCinDC | September 01, 2007 at 04:01 PM
He's a pompous old fool. Won't be missed.
Posted by: Johnson's Dog | September 01, 2007 at 04:59 PM
Thanks for this, publius.
Jim Webb's tribute makes me nauseous.
Posted by: Nell | September 01, 2007 at 05:17 PM
To add to your list of Furrowed Brow/Enabling Actions: In late August 2002, when a delegation of 30 Virginians assembled in his office in Richmond to urge against war on Iraq, he promised to hold hearings in the Armed Services Committee.
And he did; the SASC held the only hearings at which actual opposition to the war was expressed (by Gen. Hoar, along with twice as many pro-war witnesses), in the second or third week of September. The hearings did not receive a single drop of press coverage. I believe we've seen enough in the last few years to recognize that if Warner had wished those hearings to be publicized, they would have been.
When, a week later, three delegations of constituents came to his DC office to lobby against the war resolution, they were foisted off on a 22-year-old aide who took no notes and looked at the ceiling for most of the "meeting". Oh, yes, he's certainly quite the gentleman, our silver-haired senator.
I can't wait to see the back of him.
Posted by: Nell | September 01, 2007 at 05:30 PM
publius.: progressive politics (and sane policy)
I’m not sure why you would think those are the same things. ;)
Posted by: OCSteve | September 01, 2007 at 07:47 PM
SANE's policies have always been quite progressive.
:-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 01, 2007 at 07:53 PM
Like others have said in comments here, Warner is probably more responsible than anyone else for sparing us from Sen. Oliver North, and for that at least I remain grateful.
Posted by: Steve | September 01, 2007 at 09:15 PM
One of my favorite Warner moments was when he went to Afghanistan about a year into that war, and was suprised to learn that there were French soldiers there, and that they were effective. He was head of the Armed Services Committee, but he didn't have a clue what our NATO allies were contributing.
Posted by: sab | September 01, 2007 at 09:23 PM
Thank you, Publius. The same criticism can be said about Richard Lugar. These people knew better; not just should have known better, and they did nothing to stop it.
Until my dying day, I shall never understand how Reagan could lose enough Republican support to have vetoes overridden, and yet no one challenges Bush. Where is their self-respect?
Posted by: Vadranor | September 01, 2007 at 09:56 PM
Warner is probably more responsible than anyone else for sparing us from Sen. Oliver North.
You credit him with organizing Marshall Coleman's candidacy, then? Could be.
I suppose that's what accounts for some of Webb's warmth for Warner, also; he hasn't had a lot of use for North.
Posted by: Nell | September 01, 2007 at 09:57 PM
Nell:
What do you expect Webb to say? He's not going to publicly spit nails at Warner. I would bet privately he's disappointed in Warner.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | September 01, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Y'know, I hadn't actually read the WaPo piece by Brigid Schulte until just now, and I have to say I love this:
Senator Warner went on to explain that he was also a mutant genius, far wiser than any other human who has ever lived, and that he has six toes on each foot, but you can't see them. Also, he is the kindest Senator ever, he confirmed reluctantly when pressed.He also bears Narsil, the sword of Elendil, which he keeps in his office, under wraps.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 01, 2007 at 11:24 PM
What do you expect Webb to say? He's not going to publicly spit nails at Warner. I would bet privately he's disappointed in Warner.
And by talking nice now, Webb is able to keep those moderates on his side for when he's helping whichever Democrat runs to replace Warner (hopefully the other Warner).
Posted by: Incertus (Brian) | September 02, 2007 at 12:18 AM
As someone who's had the misfortune of being represented (read ignored) by Seantor Warner all of my voting life, let me just say good riddance. I have enough form letters from his office that ignored what I actually wrote about to fill a decent sized folder.
Posted by: Nate | September 02, 2007 at 12:25 AM
More gratitude for calling it like it is. Warner was very zealous about making sure that Virginia benefited handsomely from the military-industrial complex. Other stuff -- more like a tertiary concern.
I heard him on C-SPAN a week or two ago, talking about his half-assed proposal to consider a gesture that would look like something resembling a withdrawal from Iraq -- so long as it didn't come within a light-year of treading on Presidential turf, of course. The guy couldn't do anything more than orbit around a handful of vacuous phrases, the most prominent being variations on, "I've been in the Senate for 29 years". He said that three or four times in a few minutes.
I always figured the guy has the reputation he does because he physically resembles the comic book version of what a 'good' Senator is supposed to look like.
Posted by: sglover | September 02, 2007 at 02:18 AM
He also bears Narsil, the sword of Elendil, which he keeps in his office, under wraps.
Good luck finding some Elvish smiths on Capitol Hill to forge that baby back together.
Btw, is it still illegal for elves and mortals to marry in Virginia?
Posted by: Johnny Pez | September 02, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Until my dying day, I shall never understand how Reagan could lose enough Republican support to have vetoes overridden, and yet no one challenges Bush. Where is their self-respect?
It's been "obvious" to me for many years now that W et al have used our our intelligence services to spy on everyone and that much Congressional compliance/inaction has been extorted.
Posted by: /b | September 02, 2007 at 12:22 PM
"Btw, is it still illegal for elves and mortals to marry in Virginia?"
Yes, but there are many orc-human marriages and partnerships, as well as mixed-race people.
A few half-orc relations can can really get you ahead in Washington, as well. Look at Robert Novak and Richard Perle.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 02, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Italiexo!
Posted by: cleek | September 02, 2007 at 01:09 PM
deEmphalo!
Posted by: cleek | September 02, 2007 at 01:11 PM
What I don't understand is why journalists have such a hard time with things like looking up voting scorecards for pols.
If they did, they'd see that Warner is solidly right-wing. OK, his ADA rating wasn't zero, but the historical average was pretty low, roughly 10/100 IIRC.
Posted by: liberal | September 03, 2007 at 08:07 PM
sglover wrote, Warner was very zealous about making sure that Virginia benefited handsomely from the military-industrial complex.
The funny thing is that I think one of the articles about his impending retirement cited that as some kind of virtue.
Posted by: liberal | September 03, 2007 at 08:08 PM