Evan Bayh the Quitter

Several days ago, I was shocked to learn that Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana has chosen to retire from the Senate rather than seek reelection to a third term.

Once upon a time, Bayh was a popular moderate governor of a red state, a rising star in the Democratic party, with a family name that, while never reaching the level of Kennedy or Bush, is a household one in the Midwest (his father, Birch Bayh, was a three-term senator). Bayh was good-looking, smart, had a telegenic family, quite a bit of money, and superb fund-raising connections. He was touted as a possible VP selection in the last three presidential elections.

Barack Obama's victory in the Democratic presidential primaries signaled a leftward shift within the Democratic Party. Obama, despite his post-partisan, "I'm a unifier" campaign rhetoric, was quite clearly a leftist ideologue throughout his entire life, an inconvenient truth that many in the mainstream media went to great lengths to cover up or obscure. The media was pretty successful at doing that, and they were no doubt aided by John McCain's lackluster campaign.

Barack Obama's decision to effectively cede much of his legislative agenda to his fellow leftist, the uncharismatic (boy, am I being charitable or what?) Nancy Pelosi, allowed the Democrat-controlled House to pass big-government bill after big-government bill. Voters got angry, and Obama tried to remain above the fray as much as possible. Obama succeeded in distancing himself enough from the legislative process to piss off the left for not being enough of a leader/failing to bring Hopenchange to DC, but not distancing himself far enough to prevent his approval ratings from cratering worse than any president in the modern era during his first year in office (most significantly among independents, the very voters who put him over the top in 2008). Quite the feat indeed, Barry!

Getting back to the point, though: Evan Bayh, as a centrist Democrat from a mostly-red state (Indiana did go for Obama, barely, in '08), was forced to take tough votes in the Senate on the uber-liberal House legislation. Evan Bayh had a choice: he could throw his lot in with the people of Indiana, who clearly weren't enthused about the big-government agenda being pushed in DC, or he could throw his lot in with Barack Obama. Bayh chose Obama. His support for the Senate health care reform bill cost him with voters in his home state, as polls showed potential Republican candidates running a close race against Bayh. Many therefore speculated that the political climate, which is extremely unfavorable for Democrats, led Bayh to resign. Why risk losing an election, an event that might tarnish your image (Bayh has never lost an election- he was governor for two terms and then senator for two) and damage your political future.

This might be true. Maybe Bayh seriously thought he was in danger of losing in November, which given his name, his history, and his enormous war-chest (he apparently has more than $10 million on hand), is a testament to how bleak the future looks for Democrats.

Now, politicians are often truth-challenged and less than candid, but it's only fair that we give Mr. Bayh the opportunity to explain his decision to quit in his own words. He did that yesterday in the New York Times. In an article entitled "Why I'm Leaving the Senate," Bayh proceeds to discuss the reasons why he believes Congress must be "reformed" and how we ought to go about doing it. Bayh's certainly entitled to his opinion, but the article begs the question: if things have gotten so bad in Congress, and the Senate in particular, would Bayh be in a better position to work for positive reforms from within the walls of the Senate or outside them? Logic would say the best way to overcome the "institutional inertia" that Bayh rails against in the Times piece is from within, not from without.

And anyway, all of this "government is broken" stuff coming from Democrats and their pals in the liberal media is getting way, way, waaaaay old. Think about it: Barack Obama is on record as having argued last autumn that his legislative and executive accomplishments in the first few months of his presidency were the most productive and plentiful in a generation. Does that boast suggest that our institutions are breaking down? Noooope.

George Will, one of my favorite columnists/commentators, said it best (as usual) today on ABC News: "With metronomic regularity, we go through these moments in Washington where we complain about the government being broken. These moments all have one thing in common: the Left is having trouble enacting its agenda. No one, when George W. Bush had trouble reforming Social Security, said, oh, that's terrible, the government's broken."

Will's exactly right, and Obama's braggadocio about his administration's numerous legislative accomplishments in 2009 proves the point. The "government is broken" trope is code for "damn, why can't we jam through this government takeover of the American health care system" OR "shit, you mean we can't reorder the American economy by levying enormous taxes on carbon emissions?". The fact that two enormously unpopular, big-government bills couldn't be rammed down the throats of Americans who are clearly saying NO (even with the Democratic Party's huge majority in the House AND filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate!!!) isn't indicative of a government that's broken. It's indicative of a party that has totally lost touch with the American electorate it claims to serve.

So, to finish up this admittedly all-over-the-place post, I'm not sure why Evan Bayh quit the Senate. Maybe he really is fed up with the Senate and eager to get into the private sector. Maybe he felt he actually might lose in November and couldn't bear the thought of it. Or, to delve deeper into the realm of speculation, perhaps Bayh is setting up some sort of third party challenge down the road. It could also be that Bayh is banking on Obama losing in 2012 and thinking about casting himself as the pragmatic, centrist Democrat in the 2016 presidential race. Who knows?