Ranting On...Angus King

Sen. Angus King (I-ME)

One of the juicier tidbits coming out of Washington this past week revolved around the junior senator from Maine, Angus King.  King has been on the national stage for a considerable amount of time.  He first parlayed his fame as a television host in Maine into a surprise third party win for governor against former two-term Governor Joseph Brennan (who also had a wildly successful career in Maine politics in the 1980's and went on to watch it evaporate in two high-profile losses in the 1990's) and future U.S. Senator Susan Collins.  King would become incredibly popular as governor and win a second term with ease.  Afterwards, he went off the grid for a number of years only to return to the national stage with a successful run (again, as an independent) for the open U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Olympia Snowe.

There was some debate going into the November elections in 2012 over whether King would caucus with the Republicans or the Democrats, but as a whole both parties seemed to be pretty much in agreement that King would caucus with the Democrats.  The DSCC sure thought so, as they spent over $410k funding his campaign, even though there was a Democrat in the race against him.  King's views occasionally side with the Republicans (he has a pretty conservative record on civil liberties and opposed a minimum wage increase in Maine as governor), but as a whole he's a fairly standard-fare Democrat.  He's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-Obamacare, has a pretty progressive stance on gun control, and has a solidly liberal record on the environment.  According to Progressive Punch, while he is the 47th most liberal senator currently serving (tied with Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota), his score of 72.31 is 44 points higher than the most liberal Republican, his home state co-senator Susan Collins.

And yet, King's headlines make it look like he's far more conservative, as he stated publicly that he would consider joining the Republicans in 2015 if the party were to win the majority in the United States Senate.  King further cemented this by voting with the GOP on the Paycheck Fairness Act (the only member of the caucus to do aside from Harry Reid, who voted that way for procedural reasons).

Sen. King speaking with Majority Leader Harry Reid

The reasons that King would do this, of course, are simple and of self-interest.  Being in the majority gives you better committee assignments and chairmanships, and you have a stronger say in the agenda that is being put forward.  King's vote could also be decidedly crucial-there is a very strong chance, considering the GOP will make gains next year, that the Senate will be 50/50 and that King's vote will become essential for Harry Reid's maintenance of the Senate majority.

This is a problem, though, because while this reeks of opportunism, it also means that King is essentially a whichever-way-the-wind-blows politician or someone that only cares about himself.  The reality is that King's voting record is far, far too liberal to work in the modern-day Republican party.  His co-senator Susan Collins is the most liberal senator in that caucus, and she is considerably more conservative than her fellow senator.  King's views on social issues, the environment, and health care are simply unacceptable in the GOP caucus, and though he might side with them to become a committee chairman, that doesn't remotely mean that the GOP is going to be willing to bring his positions on these issues to the floor in the ways that Harry Reid and the Democrats clearly will.  I cannot fathom, for example, the Republicans clearing the field for King in 2018 in the way the Democrats attempted to do so in 2012.

There's also the problem that Washington is basically too polarized these days for someone to have a genuine change of party without it reeking of either opportunism or lack of political principle.  The Republican Party and the Democratic Party could not be at more extremes in Washington these days, and nothing has changed enough from 2012 to 2014 for anyone to have had a legitimate argument to say that their party has abandoned them.  King's support of the Democrats and of President Obama's re-election in 2012, not to mention his voting record, clearly show that he is too liberal for that party, and quite frankly, regardless of whether or not the Democrats are in the majority, he'd be better off staying with their caucus if he cares about the beliefs he espouses.

Of course, one of the problems in Washington is that Reid and McConnell will jump through hoops to cater to King if the 50/50 Senate does appear to be an issue, despite Reid's caucus already showing him great financial support and support for his beliefs.  King likely will be paraded as a hero for doing such a thing amongst people who are only casual observers of politics, but that doesn't mean that it should be celebrated.  One person should not be able to hold the entire legislative agenda of a political body up waiting for a better deal.

How this would affect King in his liberal home state remains to be seen.  Clearly him supporting Mitch McConnell would not be a dealbreaker, as his fellow senator has done that for years and looks to be in for a healthy re-election in November to a fourth term.  Maine liberals, many of whom assumed King would side with them, may not appreciate him supporting McConnell after promising not to, but considering Maine's laws regarding third parties, that's hardly a deal-breaker.  The Pine Tree State, more than any other state in recent history, has an amazing history of strong third-party bids, and in some cases (particularly the 2010 gubernatorial race), splintered liberal voters have allowed for a Republican to win with a plurality.

State Sen. Cynthia Dill (D-ME)

This is a lesson for progressives in two ways, though.  One, they need to continue to make IRV voting a part of their platform-candidates like King and 2010 Independent Eliot Cutler or, yes, the 2000 bogeyman of Ralph Nader wouldn't have as much power to throw elections one way or another if there wasn't concern about your votes throwing the election to a more conservative candidate.  This is something King and those who hate the two-party stranglehold should in theory support-IRV allows for a stronger third party option because people don't have to worry about vote splintering.

And two, unless it's an extreme situation like Bernie Sanders (an independent in name only), the DSCC should never support someone who doesn't have a D behind their name.  You would think that King faced a gadfly candidate from the Democrats in 2012, but that wasn't the case.  The Democrats did run a candidate, Cynthia Dill.  Ms. Dill was not only a competent lawyer and candidate, but she also was a scandal-free, sitting state senator who had also served in the state legislature prior to her election to the upper body.  This is a blue state, and Ms. Dill should have been the candidate we supported (for the record, I said this during the 2012 campaign as well, and that I was uncomfortable with us backing a candidate who seemed like a potential flight risk).  Had the DSCC made a point of supporting Ms. Dill in 2012, we may well have had a lifelong Democrat in the junior Senate seat and we'd be focusing our national attention on more pressing matters than Sen. King's random self-aggrandizement.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you think that Angus King will join the GOP in 2015?  Do you think we'll continue to see him go rogue on the Democrats like he did on the Paycheck Fairness act?  Share in the comments.