The problem with Bayh

Nobody likes Sen. Evan Bayh.

Sure, he has had millions of votes from Hoosiers to serve as their governor and senator, both for two terms.

But none of the partisans like him.

Republicans hate him because he took a seat that, in a red state like Indiana, they think was rightfully theirs. He would tell Hoosiers he was a fiscal conservative and then, they say, he would vote in Washington as a lock-step Democrat.

Bayh was the most successful Indiana Democrat in decades. But liberals, especially lately, have had nothing but bad things to say about him.

For many of the liberal students on this campus, Bayh is the Democrat who betrayed his party on tough issues such as cap-and-trade and health care reform.

The criticism coming at Bayh from the right and the left could suggest he was actually a great senator, ignoring the special interests on both sides of the political spectrum to be a genuine moderate most voters supported.

That is how he has portrayed himself, by claiming partisan gridlock sparked his retirement and proposing reforms to how the Senate operates.

The truth is, Bayh was the worst kind of moderate.

Rather than thinking about issues in a truly independent way, he seemed to simply stake positions right between the two parties, adjusting in sync with public opinion.

In his nearly 12 years in the Senate, he never led on a single major issue.

Congress needs moderates, but principled ones. Sen. John McCain is a good example. He doesn’t just adopt muddled positions in the middle. He took the lead on issues like immigration reform and torture when he disagreed with his party.

Bayh was uncomfortable with his party on the deficit and health care reform but was never eager to get pinned down with his own ideas.

On health care Bayh was a hold-out, but he said little about controversial issues like the public option as the bill was being negotiated.

On the deficit, Bayh mostly just complained about spending. He voted against an omnibus spending bill, which was mostly symbolic, and supported a bipartisan committee to recommend deficit cutting policies.

But why couldn’t he propose some policies himself?

Probably because he knows getting serious about the deficit will inevitably involve a combination of raising taxes and cutting Social Security and Medicaid benefits, both deeply unpopular policies.

His proposal to reform the Senate by lowering the amount of votes necessary to overcome a filibuster from 55 to 60 isn’t a bad idea, and he will deserve credit if he really spends his last few months in the Senate fighting for it.

But Bayh has been in the Senate for 11 years. Why did he wait until now to finally start dealing with the filibuster?

He has also said members of Congress of different parties should have lunch together and interact more socially, which probably won’t accomplish anything.

Bayh is right about Congress being to too partisan.

But the real solution is for senators and representatives to stake out more bold positions, instead of hedging on every issue.

E-mail: nrdixon@indiana.edu