A senior Democrat notes how career politicians serve themselves

A fallacy at the heart of what Americans call "democracy" suggests that the rot in Washington may stretch even deeper than the two-party corporate duopoly

This Tuesday, a Democratic Senator spoke with journalists in the context of promoting his new book. His comments included several noteworthy reflections about foreign policy & diplomacy, as well as domestic politics and changes in the Biden administration.

One of his comments was particularly insightful, and predictably overlooked by journalists. In addition to its profound insight, it ultimately represented an institutional admission with constitutional implications.

What happened

Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) is most widely known for being Hillary Clinton’s running mate when she ran for the White House in 2016. As a U.S. Senator occupying seats on both the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees, he has also played a prominent role in the foreign policy establishment for years.

Kaine recently published a book described by the publisher as a “captivating memoir of his travels through Virginia’s wilderness blend[ing] adventure, reflection, and political insight.” His goal to promote his book led him to a fascinating interview with the Guardian earlier this week.

What Senator Kaine said

The bulk of Kaine’s interview addressed the genocide in Gaza, and his assessment that President Biden may grow more assertive vis-a-vis Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now that Biden has discovered the limits of his influence when trying to engage Netanyahu as a trusted ally.

Kaine previously challenged Biden’s recent decision to approve weapons transfers to Israel, arguing that it unconstitutionally cut Congress out of the process. As a senior Democrat with particular experience in the foreign policy establishment, he expounded on the nature of the relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv, saying that:

“I do believe [that Biden] felt like that relationship and the true compassion that he had for Israel over his career would lead him to be listened to by the Israeli leadership. I think he is enormously frustrated that he’s been trying to give advice, not like a foe would give it – ‘I think this is better for you if you listen to me. I’m not just saying this is better for me; I’m saying this will be better for you.”

Kaine went on to observe a series of changes that followed Biden’s recent shift last week:

“They turned water back on in northern Gaza. They allow bakeries to start to operate again in Palestine. They announced they’re pulling troops back in southern Gaza, and there’s probably more that they’re going to do, because I think he finally heard in Joe Biden’s voice, ‘Yeah, I’m a friend but you played me and I know you played me; that ain’t going to happen any more.”

Of course, journalists seized on Kaine’s observation that Biden knew he had been played by Netanyahu. That emphasis, after all, offers a compelling combination of politics and interpersonal drama.

But two other parts of Kaine’s comments were frankly far more important.

Why it matters

First, looking beyond Biden’s relationship with Netanyahu, Kaine also observed how Israel’s domestic security has grown increasingly perilous under Netanyahu’s so-called “leadership.” Kaine observed and predicted that:

“Benjamin Netanyahu…has made Israel dramatically less safe during his long tenure as prime minister....

He’s going to end up being one of the most successful politicians and most destructive public servants to be on the world stage in the last quarter century, because he’s successful if you measure it by maintaining his own position but, in terms of what he has done that has made Israel less safe and less secure, there’s a real lesson there.”

What might that lesson be? He went on to make it explicit—and we’ll return to it in a moment.

But first, observe the stark observation with which Kaine began: “Benjamin Netanyahu…has made Israel dramatically less safe during his long tenure as prime minister....”

Much of the reporting about Gaza that preceded the October 7 attacks charitably presumed the national security bona fides of Netanyahu. But the genocide that Netanyahu has reprehensibly engineered in its wake exposed his commitment to Israel’s national security as ultimately fraudulent. He represents what some observers have described as “muscular” foreign policy, bathed in the same kind of ignorant bravado that characterized the foreign policy of Presidents George W. Bush or Andrew Jackson. 

Kaine’s observation—that “strong” policies meant to ensure security can ultimately undermine it—has crucial implications for everything from foreign policy to the looming scheduled expiration of a critical federal surveillance authority (about which I plan to write more soon).

Why it really matters

Kaine’s closing comment observed how the political success of a candidate or politician can sometimes come at the cost of voters and our communities. It has deep—and disturbing—implications.

“[Netanyahu is] going to end up being one of the most successful politicians and most destructive public servants to be on the world stage in the last quarter century, because he’s successful if you measure it by maintaining his own position but, in terms of what he has done that has made Israel less safe and less secure, there’s a real lesson there. You can be successful as a candidate and as a politician but end up being unsuccessful or even destructive as a public servant.” (emphasis added)

Kaine’s comment was aimed at Netanyahu, but it could fairly be made towards any number of figures in Washington whose “public service” has helped diminish opportunities for working people and our families.

But because the press is so co-opted by the two-party duopoly and its shared interests, few readers of American journalism would have any idea that the most successful politicians in Washington have also been among the most destructive. 

That tension between the individual interests of politicians and their constituents is obvious with Republicans, who have proven shameless about denying basic rights to their constituents and serving the interests of Wall Street and their own careers. One could, however, make a similar observation of corporate Democrats in light of their longstanding co-optation and support for policies which were once exclusively objects of conservative support.

How many politicians in Washington have been successful politically while supporting policies that made America less prosperous, secure, and happy? I ran against one of them, but I fear the answer includes the 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 elected members of the U.S. Senate, not to mention thousands of state legislators across the country.

There’s another layer, however, for which Kaine’s admission carries important implications. 

Our Republic is based on representative democracy. In sharp contrast with a democracy defined by direct rule of the governed, democracy in America has always allowed privileged elites—chosen by elections—to make policy, oversee the executive branch, and interface with their colleagues on behalf of their constituents.

But that constitutional theory seems to have a hole in the bucket, one which Senator Tim Kaine pointed out to an international audience which seems to have largely overlooked it.

How often are the interests of politicians distinct from those of voters? Are they always opposed? Do they ever align?

Paid subscribers can read my answers to those final questions.