John Dingell, reality checker?

I've got to disagree with David's semi-apologia for both Dingell and his forthcoming bill, which in my mind can only be interpreted as a sneering act of obstruction. David writes:

Try, if you can, to look at this from Dingell's perspective: he's convinced global warming is a problem. He's been charged with crafting legislation to tackle the issue, and he takes his responsibility very seriously. He's jealous of his prerogative as a committee chair. He's been battered around by conservatives (who say there's "no energy" in the energy bill), and then by progressives and by the head of his own caucus for failing to go far enough in his legislative proposals.

So this is what he thinks: "Look, you want me to do something serious about global warming? Fine. I'll propose a cap-and-trade system accompanied by a carbon tax, since that's what will do the job. You'll quickly see that the American people aren't prepared to pay what it will cost to do this, the proposal will disappear, and I'll get back to my job, i.e., creating a bill that can get bipartisan support and pass the House."

The problem with this view is it casts Dingell in two incompatible lights. Climate change isn't a fringe issue any longer. What it needs now is not grass roots support, but the movement of men like Dingell from their seats upon the fence on to their feet behind the podium. Read what Dingell said, as quoted by David:

I sincerely doubt that the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them.

I will be introducing in the next little bit a carbon tax bill, just to sort of see how people really feel about this....And I think, when you see the criticism I get, you'll understand that you will be getting the answer to your question.

Forget for a moment that he admits, very plainly, that his motive here is "just to see how people really feel about this." His motives are pretty plain anyhow. I realize that his bill won't pass almost no matter what. But it certainly won't pass if Dingell flings it into the House like a rank piece of dog shit and says, "I bet none of you want to go anywhere near that!" The point is that Dingell can't be both a good, pragmatic legislator who understands how to move people to our side and a good, pragmatic legislator who does things that prevent our side from moving forward.

So how does he interpret his own actions?

I'm hoping that I will be supported by the leadership in the House and the Senate. I'm hoping that I will be supported by the White House. I'm hoping that the American people will endorse the idea.

We'll find out whether the American people - and whether their leaders here in Washington and elsewhere around the country - are willing to support what they have to do to really address the problem.

Those are either words we take seriously or they're snide bullshit. If Dingell was on our side then I'd take him seriously. I happen not to think he is. Ergo, snide bullshit. And I think the fact that he isn't out there drumming up support from all the members of Congress he's so famous for whipping together is pretty hard proof of it. Dave responds:

Of course Dingell's not going to go out an martyr himself trying to get a carbon tax passed. It's not his passion; it was never his issue.

This guy is a Democrat who says he thinks climate change is an important issue. If it's not his passion, he should resign his position atop the Energy & Commerce committee. Obviously he won't. And obviously Pelosi and Waxman have influence over where things go moving forward. Honestly I hope that, even as the bill falls, it pulls a surprising number of "yeahs"--enough to jar the people who think its advocates don't take this seriously. I hope Al Gore shows up and meets with "in between" people to help sway the numbers. But what would be better is if Dingell said nothing at all until he was ready to genuinely engage the issue.

Comments

[David Roberts]

Yeah, well, there's certainly an element of ressentiment here. Dingell doesn't like getting pushed around by the likes of Markey and Pelosi, and he doesn't like being set up as the global warming Bad Guy. He thinks Pelosi and Markey are full of pious, unrealistic talk, that right now global warming is all positive PR for them and no risk. So he's calling their bluff, and making them risk something -- they either stand behind this tough bill, and show that they really are serious, or run from it and show that they were all talk. You kind of have to admire the old-school brashness of it (if, you know, the world wasn't at stake).

Still. If Pelosi, Markey, Waxman et al want to throw themselves behind this bill and drum up support for it, I'd bet Dingell won't stand in their way, and might even help. But in his heart, Dingell thinks that public concern over climate change will rapidly vanish in the face of short-term energy price spikes. And I'd bet Pelosi and crew fear the exact same thing.

Sooner or later we gotta find out, right? If the public's not serious about this -- if they're going to let this get HillaryCare'd -- then we can't very well blame Dingell for the lack of boldness any more, can we.

[Brian]

Here's what I think.

I, like you, have, for some inexplicable reason, a genuine admiration for Mr. Smith style politicking. In general. I liked watching Harry Reid outmaneuver Bill Frist. I like reading about LBJ's mastery of the game. I think Ted Kennedy is as effective an American litigator as there's been.

But that thing you said about the whole world being at stake....

What I mean is: there are limits to my admiration. Right now, we need somebody much like Ted Kennedy--with Dingell's legisltive powers but an ability to think nationally and even internationally--heading that committee. Barring that, we'd be better off with somebody less adept at dealmaking but with a genuine interest in making change.

I hope you're right (and think you may be) that he'll have his tantrum and then eventually settle down and make nice. But Dingell is something like the gatekeeper at the mountaintop. If he--keeper of Ford and Chrysler and GM--says the jig is up, it makes more waves, I'd wager, than five appearances by Al Gore on the Hill. Right now the last thing something as serious as climate change needs is this sort of infantile intransigence making it seem hopeless.