Kyl was a natural legislator, uncorroded by political game
From the political notebook: » It is revealing and emblematic that Jon Kyl didn’t devote his farewell address in the U.S. Senate last week to reminiscing about his 26 years in Congress. Instead, he provided a thoughtful exposition of the political principles and causes that he has sought to defend and advance during his time there.
Kyl is what Margaret Thatcher called a “conviction politician.” Holding office was a means to an end, not the end itself.
Kyl was not a natural poli- tician. But he is a very disciplined person, and he doggedly set out to do the things that are necessary to win elections better and more comprehensively than anyone else. His campaigns left as little as possible to chance. And he leaves office as one of the most successful politicians in Arizona’s history.
Kyl was a natural legislator. While not a natural politician, he understood the political beast and the give-and-take of legislating. And he usually had two advantages: a greater mastery of the topic and a better sense of where he wanted to end up. Kyl went to Washington to matter. He did.
A long career in politics is usually corrosive. The game becomes more important than the outcome. Such an evolution is almost an iron rule, which is one of the reasons I support term limits.
Kyl is a close friend. I never detected the corrosion in him. The game never became more important than the outcome.
Kyl rose to the highest level in the game and leaves office as the second-highest-ranking Republican in the Senate. Yet he seemed to retain a healthy detachment from the political power game in which he was a principal player. He was able
to participate in the game to advance the causes he believed in without being completely absorbed into the game.
In fact, during Kyl’s entire 26 year career in Congress, the only thing I saw that I thought truly changed him was becoming a grandfather. That says a lot. » Arizona Congressman Raúl Grijalva is also a conviction politician, although decisively from the left. He reminds me a bit of Jeff Flake, current congressman and senator-elect, in this sense: Grijalva is a far more important national political figure than is commonly understood in Arizona.
Grijalva is co-chairman of the Progressive Caucus in the House, which is sort of the uncompromising liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It takes positions well to the left of the House Democratic leadership, particularly on fiscal issues. I think its positions are almost universally wrong-headed for the country. But I do give it credit for this: For the most part, the Progressive Caucus doesn’t
(Raúl) Grijalva is a far more important national political figure than is commonly understood in Arizona.
duck the tough questions or issues. In that respect, it offers far more honest leadership than President Obama or the official Democratic congressional leaders.
Recently, more than 200 environmental and other liberal organizations recommended Grijalva to be secretary of the Interior. This was remarkable because it isn’t clear that the current secretary, Ken Salazar, is leaving.
Now, I think it would be a disaster for Grijalva to be secretary of the Interior. It would be the left’s equivalent of Ronald Reagan appointing James Watt to the position in the 1980s.
The Interior secretary has to balance a lot of competing interests. Republicans strike the balance at a different point than Democrats, so elections matter regarding the regulation of public lands. But without a balance, the competition becomes destructive political warfare.
Grijalva ain’t about bal- ance. But it is testimony to his national importance that so many groups lined up behind him to try to shove him to the front of the line in case the position does come open.
Grijalva deserves more attention here in Arizona.
» All the wrong lessons are being drawn from the failure of House Speaker John Boehner to get the votes necessary to pass his bill extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone except those making over $1 million a year. The real lesson is that a big deal isn’t possible. Only a very small one is.
Obama and congressional Democrats are being unrealistic about what House Republicans will accept in revenue increases. House Republicans are being unrealistic about what Democrats will accept in budget cuts and entitlement reform.
Unless Boehner is willing to commit political suicide by bringing to the floor a big deal he negotiates with the president that is opposed by a majority of his caucus, kicking the can down the road again is the only thing that’s politically achievable.