Goodbye, Cocaine Mitch
Photo by Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced yesterday that he will be stepping down from the Republican leadership in November. McConnell, who is the longest-serving Senate leader, suggested that he will remain in Congress until his term ends in January 2026. Although a very effective leader, McConnell is hated by the MAGA right as well as the progressive left.
McConnell, 82, arrived in the Senate in 1985 having previously been a judge in Jefferson County, Kentucky. He rose to the top-ranking Republican position in 2007 and has served as both majority and minority leader at various times, depending on Republican fortunes.
McConnell leaves his post with a mixed record. He has been very effective at pushing Republican priorities through the Senate, which hasn’t always been the best thing for the country. Donald Trump’s legislative legacy was not extensive, but where The Former Guy made permanent legislative gains, a lot of the credit goes to McConnell for ramming these bills through the Senate.
When I think of McConnell’s legacy, five things come immediately to mind. The first two are turtles and “Cocaine Mitch.” The turtle reference has to do with a series of memes that purport to show how McConnell resembles a cartoon turtle while “Cocaine Mitch” was a failed attempt at mudslinging by one of McConnell’s primary opponents. That’s just how I think.
But seriously, McConnell does make me think of the filibuster. McConnell invoked the nuclear option for Supreme Court justices following Harry Reid’s removal of the filibuster for lower court judges and executive branch appointments, but McConnell has otherwise been a staunch defender of the legislative filibuster despite factions in both parties that want to kill the rule that causes so many bills to die in the Senate. I think that McConnell realizes that the short-term gains from nuking the filibuster would be more than offset by chaos as the country veered from hard right to hard left and back again.
I think of the filibuster as a speed brake that slows down radical legislation and prevents one-party tyranny by the majority. It also encourages compromises between the two parties to meet the 60-vote threshold. This hasn’t worked so well in recent years as both sides have come to eschew compromises as traitorous and focus on executive actions as the way to move the ball toward the goal line (or at least try to look like they are doing something).
I also think of judges. McConnell was able to push through 226 judges during Donald Trump’s term alone. The appointment of so many constitutionalist judges is easily the best part of Trump’s presidency, and I’ll note that many of these same appointees did a lot to rein in Trump and prevent his January 6 plot from coming to fruition.
The same can’t be said of Mitch McConnell. The last thing that I think of is McConnell’s fecklessness in the post-election days of 2020 and Donald Trump’s two impeachments. I believe that history will judge McConnell (and many other Republicans) harshly for not holding Trump accountable for his many excesses and for not disqualifying Trump from holding future office through the impeachment process.
McConnell let Trump run amok after losing in 2020 and ultimately voted for acquittal even though he acknowledged that TFG provoked the January 6 mob. Still, McConnell is rumored to be considering endorsing Trump in his current campaign. If so, McConnell’s position that Trump is bad and should still be president is par for the course for Republican partisans.
Over the years, Mitch McConnell did a lot to advance a conservative agenda. Judges and tax reform are two of his successes, but his failures are numerous. The battle to reform Obamacare went dormant during the Trump Administration after years are demagoguing and the immigration system is just as broken as it was when he took over the leadership with reform repeatedly killed by right-wing hardliners. In recent years, McConnell has been one of Ukraine’s few Republican friends.
In the end, McConnell was a partisan to the core. He was a conservative but was unable to steer the party back to a conservative course when it veered off into Trumpian populism. When that happened, Mitch went along for the ride, occasionally applying the brakes when it was politically feasible to do so.
McConnell’s announcement leads to two questions Why now and who’s next?
As to the first question, McConnell is 82, a year older than Joe Biden, and has had recent health problems. About a year ago, the senator was treated for a concussion and a broken rib after a fall. More recently, last fall, there were two public episodes in which he froze and was unable to speak while addressing reporters.
Beyond his health, McConnell must realize, as Nikki Haley has, that the Republican Party of today is not the same as it was 10 years ago. This is a Trumpian party with no room for principled conservatives. And when the party faces another electoral disaster this fall, it still isn’t clear that Republicans will reject MAGA and embrace the old-guard conservatives once again.
The second question is more difficult to answer, but recent history has taught us that when leading Republicans are replaced, it is usually by someone worse. It would be hard to find a leader as capable as McConnell even if the party was united, and it isn’t.
John Thune (R-SD) is the minority whip and an obvious choice. Wyoming’s John Barrasso is currently the third-ranking Republican and has embraced some fringe candidates such as Kari Lake in Arizona. John Cornyn of Texas is another possibility, but he is hated by many on the far right as a RINO. Rick Scott of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas are both very ambitious but less likely to be taken seriously by their colleagues.
A lot of people will be celebrating Mitch McConnell’s departure, but I wouldn’t be so quick to cheer. These days, the watchword should be that it can always get worse. Both Republicans and Democrats might be missing Cocaine Mitch before too long.
Your facts are correct, but you appear to be complaining that he didn’t pass immigration reform.
I think that McConnell favored and advanced multiple immigration reform efforts, including the latest one, which is likely to die in the House. I saw him quoted saying that a divided government is the best time to do this kind of deal.
So, I don’t think that’s on his plate. You can’t hold him accountable for the House.Report
Turtle Mitch not only defended the filibuster- he turbocharged its use (by Republicans of course). When the filibuster dies, and it assuredly will die in the near future, more blame should accrue to Mitch for that than any other Republican in the past quarter century.Report
And what percent blame would you assign Reid?Report
Not much. Reids’ options were to either respond in kind or be supine. He chose the former and I’m glad he did.Report
It took me a second to figure out what you’re saying. Your position is that the Republicans deserved it? So probably the Democrats were reasonable, then the Republicans overused the filibuster, so Reid did the reasonable thing, then the Democrats were reasonable again, and the Republicans were unfair by restricting the filibuster more. Then when the Democrats cut it back further or get rid of it completely it’ll be McConnell’s fault. If I were to write a parody of a partisan’s position on it, would it be any different than that?Report
I mean one could scoff but it sure seems like reality has a liberal slant yes? The filibuster was, pre-McConnell, used only sparingly on issues the various sides cared passionately about. Then McConnell instituted his policy of blanket opposition* and universal filibuster. So Reids option was to only allow Republicans to appoint judges and pass laws or else start trimming down the filibuster. This culminated with McConnell nakedly obstructing Gorsuch and then equally nakedly reversing his previous position to install Barrett. I’m not going to adopt some chin stroking “both sides do it” nonsense. The Dems for example, to this day, generally honor blue slips (because Durbin is an idiot) whereas that policy goes in the memory hole when the GOP is in charge. Both sides just don’t do it equally and, yes, the GOP has more nakedly abused the filibuster and will deserve it good and hard when the filibuster eventually is axed- which is will and should be.
*And to support his blanket opposition he also blessed the demgogery and hyperbole that turbocharged the tendencies Newt had already set the GOP on the path to.Report
This comment reads exactly like Putin’s explanation of why Russia was right to get involved in Ukraine, and it’s equally absurd.Report
Oh? Do enlighten us with the right wing POV of the past couple decades of filibuster use and partisanship in the Senate so we can contrast them.Report
Nah, you stay you. There’s almost a purity in the “look what you made me do” spousal abuser.Report
Fair enough, I’ll accept your concession. It’s not like either of us are young enough to not remember. We were both here in the late aughts when Mitch started his campaign. Filibusters doubled in the Senate as soon as he took over as leader. Everything he did is on record, heck, he boasted about it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/01/strict-obstructionist/8344/Report
That’s what I’m looking for. None of this “oh honey, you know I get upset sometimes”. Stick with the “I work every day, I expect my dinner ready!”.Report
So in this odd non-sequitur sort of metaphor, to be clear, the Senate Dems for the past couple decades are an abusive husband and the Senate GOP under Mitch are a beaten housewife? Is that correct and if so how do you figure?Report
McConnell nakedly obstructed Garland, not Gorsuch. And yes, the Democratic Party still has too many “norm harder” people on it’s side.Report
Because clearly Team Blue, given a Senate Majority and a recent election promising to stop the President from flipping the Supreme Court, would have voted to let him flip the court?
You really think that’s the “norm”?Report
Mm yes, I mixed up my G-men there.Report
I’m not going to adopt some chin stroking “both sides do it” nonsense.
You should. There’s a reason it’s called “the Biden Rule”
The President was elected in year X.
The Senate was elected in year X+2 to stop him from flipping Supreme Court Justices.
Both sides can point to their own election.
Team Red and Team Blue disagree and the Constitution says they have to agree.Report
Heheh are you still trying to make that Biden rule nonsense fly Dark? It was just a very weak fig leaf that the GOP rolled out with Barret and it doesn’t exist.And if your reasoning somehow held water (which it doesn’t) then it’d justify holding supreme court seats vacant indefinitely until the party controlling the Senate and Presidency matched.
Finally, I can think of absolutely no times the Dems have ever done such a thing, at least in my adult lifetime, so even by your own dubious logic both sides -don’t- do it.Report
RE: I can think of absolutely no times the Dems have ever done such a thing,
Rose colored glasses. Biden announced his rule because there was a potential of being in this situation and he wanted to point to his speech as a “rules change”. It wasn’t official because if Team Blue was in this situation he wanted to argue that it wasn’t official.
None of which changes that it’s expected that the Senate and Prez will fight over the Supremes and we can have both of them point to their last election as what the voters really want.Report
I note, you still haven’t produced an example of any time the Dems have done such a thing so both sides continue to not do it. Biden wasn’t in leadership and his supposed “rule” (and actual off the cuff statement) was never implemented. And do you believe, then, that you’d expect a Supreme court vacancy to be held open indefinitely if a President and control of the Senate remained in opposing parties hands. Even multiple Supreme court vacancy seats?Report
The issue has come up once in the last 60 years.
Ergo you are the one who can’t show any examples of the Dems behaving differently.
And having announced how they would behave in that situation, it’s been a lack of opportunity.Report
SO you take them seriously and literally?
Good to know.Report
I recognize when Politicians are doing ass covering for themselves.
I also find it hard to believe Team Blue would cooperate with Team Red’s efforts to outlaw abortion after having run on doing the opposite.Report
Once in the last 32 years. Joe did his announcement in 1992.Report
When? Joe talking off the cuff when he was a Senator certainly doesn’t count.
Anthony Kenney and David Souter were both nominated by Republican Presidents and approved by Democratic controlled Senates, so was Clarence Thomas for fish’s sake.Report
Quit injecting actual history into the discussion.Report
Thomas only got in there by showcasing Team Blue as racist for opposing him.
Kenney and Souter were pro-choice by GOP standards and opposed overturning Roe.
I expect if Obama were willing to nominate a Justice who was in favor of overturning Roe, then he could have gotten his pick.Report
Those are just rationalizations- I’ll note that all the current sitting justices who overturned Roe all said nice things about respecting Roe being established precedent during hearings and then simply reneged on their words.
Garland was quite moderate and the GOP still blockaded him to take a throw at seizing that seat. Both sides, assuredly, do not do it. It’s beyond me how you can say otherwise with a straight face and that’s without talking about the filibuster use that Mitch pioneered or his incredible policy of blanket opposition to Obama even on policies he would otherwise support.Report
Garland was initially approved to the District Court something like 97-0. He and Obama expected that to continue. McConnell had other plans.
Both Sides Don’t In Fact Do It.Report
RE: Both Sides Don’t In Fact Do It.
I find it more honest and less destructive to say “we disagree so we’ll have to have an election to clear this up”…
…than it is to say “we believe these made up rape claims”.Report
Garland was approved for the district court 76-23 in 1997.
Here’s the votes for the current members:
Thomas district 98-2, SCOTUS 52-48
Roberts district unanimous, SCOTUS 78-22
Alito district unanimous, SCOTUS 58-42
Sotomayor district 67-29, SCOTUS 68-31
Kagan solicitor general 61-31, SCOTUS 63-37
Gorsuch district unanimous, SCOTUS 54-45
Kavanaugh district 57-36, SCOTUS 50-48
Barrett district 53-44, SCOTUS 52-48
Jackson district 53-44, SCOTUS 53-47Report
RE: Garland was quite moderate
Garland was replacing the Rightmost justice (or 2nd most). He would have been a massive court swing by that measurement.
But exactly. Moderates don’t vote to overturn Roe. Just like Kenney and Souter.
If we’re going to use those to as examples, then the Senate has a very strong voice in who is picked.Report
And, again, both sides don’t do it but, as far as I can tell your argument is “both sides do it because the GOP wants it more so it’s understandable when they do it”.Report
My point is you’re moving the goal posts so it only counts when the GOP does it.
Team Blue’s Senate announcing that it should be done doesn’t count because they lacked the opportunity and didn’t sign the paperwork to make it formal.
Team Blue Senate insisting pro-choice Supremes be on the court doesn’t count because all potentials claim to be pro-choice (really?).
Team Blue making fake rape accusations against someone who is clearly anti-choice doesn’t count because reasons.Report
Correct. This isn’t “Minority Report” and pre-crime doesn’t yet exist.
No, Team Blue insists that prospective justices be honest about their opinions regarding Roe as precedent. Three times in the last decade – all Team Red nominees – we are collectively lied to about it being settled law. No one gets a pass for that.
The accusations were and are not false – the FBI never investigated them because the White House at the time never told them to. The outcome here was no difference then when Justice Thomas was nominated and Anita Hill was dismissied – by none other then Joe Biden.
Team Blue does, in fact, play by a set of rules, and they are entirely consistent about it. As is Team Red for that matter – though Team Red is more then happy to lie about the outcome they desire.Report
You keep trying to make the “Biden rule” happen but it was an off the cuff comment by a non-leadership position Senator that was never acted on by anyone. By that standard anything is a rule. Which is why it’s easy to dismiss. It’s just spin.
You claim that both sides issued blanket blockades the other sides supreme court judge nominees and I demonstrated that in the time frame -you specified- the Dems appointed nominees from Republican Presidents to the Supreme Court and have never held a seat open. I haven’t moved any goal posts. Both sides haven’t done it. Thus both sides don’t do it.
You keep saying that when the GOP does it it’s rational because of “reasons” but I’m not claiming the GOP is behaving irrationally with their actions. Just that both sides aren’t doing it. You can’t, world wearily, claim equivalence when there isn’t equivalence- well you can, it just is senseless.
But let me try and simplify the question. Do you honestly think that Mitch McConnells’ long turn as GOP Senate leader was simply typical? Nothing out of the ordinary in the things he did or the behavior he endorsed? Honestly??Report
The filibuster is great. We can’t have good politicians, because we don’t have a good electorate. The next best thing is ineffective politicians.Report
We have a very good electorate. You just don’t agree with a lot of them, so you’d rather have a bad process to keep them in check. Own it.Report
Conservatives love America but can’t stand the people who live there.Report
They certainly don’t want liberals and leftists to live here. Or have power here.Report
Their choice of Make America Great Again as their slogan tells you everything.
America is fallen from grace, from some earlier time to which we must return.
Those who led and applauded the things which caused the fall are the enemies of America and have no legitimate interests which the Trumpists are bound to respect.
This is why they always start with benign platitudes, like how they merely want to protect children from inappropriate content, but then if you let them talk long enough eventually they will admit that it is the very existence of queer people that they see as harmful.Report
It’s understandable that libertarian minded folks like you, BB, would like it since it distinctly advantages libertarian priorities (judges and tax cuts aren’t subject to filibuster now). Which is also why it’s dying and will likely be gone as soon as the cycylical sway of politics gives the Dems the Presidency and 54-58 or so Senators again. Good riddance when it does go.Report
The electorate is the electorate. They always want “free” stuff. We don’t have good politicians because there are no incentives to be good, or perhaps the incentives incentivize bad ones.Report
Preceded by: Bill Frist
Who was preceded by: Trent Lott
If you’re a republican, the thought should be something like “We could do a lot worse than McConnell. We have.”
I imagine that Democrats will be thrilled. I can’t imagine that whomever replaces him will be *MORE* skilled at blocking stuff.Report