U.S. Rep. Harry Teague (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
Looking back, I suppose Harry Teague’s tenure as the congressman from Southern New Mexico was destined to be short.
A number of factors outside the control of the Democrat from Hobbs worked against him, including the national mood and the conservative nature of the district he represents. But there’s a key issue Teague never seemed to understand that I believe doomed him.
Teague failed to take definite stands on many issues. He failed to lead when doing so might not be popular. He failed to show the courage to stand by his convictions.
He leaves office with many in his own party questioning whether his actions were principled or simply attempts to save his own political skin.
Teague did one thing very right. When he was elected, he established constituent services in the 2nd Congressional District that rivaled those of the legendary former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici – and that was Teague’s goal.
But Teague failed to understand and replicate the other reason for Domenici’s success. Domenici took decisive stances on issues. He fought for his beliefs, even when the majority of his constituents wouldn’t agree with him (which happened often, since he was a Republican in a Democratic state). He took the time to come back to the state and explain his stances to his constituents.
The majority of New Mexicans trusted that Domenici was doing what he believed was right and shooting straight with them. That’s why he was re-elected so many times.
The same can be said of U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat who at times is to the left of the majority of New Mexicans. He has survived decades of elections because New Mexicans believe he is honest with them.
Heath Haussamen
Teague, by contrast, spent so much time “listening” and gathering input that he rarely shared his own opinion or took decisive stances on the most visible or contentious issues until he had to vote. On many key issues, he did little to influence things. And he sometimes put out statements about issues that some interpreted as attempts to appease everyone – which tended to anger people instead.
Dancing around issues
The latest example is the Organ Mountains – Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, which would have designated hundreds of thousands of acres in Doña Ana County as wilderness. Bingaman and Sen. Tom Udall pushed for the legislation, which was backed by a broad local coalition and most of the state’s largest newspapers.
A significant group also formed to oppose the bill, making this a politically delicate issue for Teague. And he played it that way by issuing lukewarm statements. He said he was concerned about border security, a reference to the concerns of the opposition group, but he never stated opposition to the bill and offered no suggestions to make the legislation something he would support.
Without Teague’s support in the House, Bingaman never pushed the bill through the Senate. With Republican Steve Pearce replacing Teague in January, many believe Doña Ana County has lost its best chance in decades at creating permanent wilderness areas.
The debate over health-care reform is another example. Teague said little about how he thought Washington should handle health care reform during the 2008 campaign, talking instead about how his company provided health care for employees (his company later stripped that benefit from employees, further angering constituents).
In statements released when he voted against the health care bills (here and here), Teague said he would continue working to lower health care costs for families and rein in insurance companies, but he was not specific about how he thought that could and should be done.
In both instances, Teague used buzz phrases no one could disagree with – I support conservation; I’m concerned about border security; I want to lower health care costs for families – instead of getting specific or taking a stand.
Maybe past precedent led Teague to dance around issues. He was decisive early in his tenure in supporting the Democrats’ cap and trade bill, and he was hammered for it by constituents, by the energy industry, and by Pearce. Maybe the outrage over that vote led Teague to believe he couldn’t oppose the conservative forces in the district if he wanted to be re-elected.
But dancing around issues didn’t win Teague any conservative votes, and it lost him liberal votes.
The importance of taking a stand
Teague did some good during his time in office. Perhaps most notable was his consistent work for veterans. And he was a tireless worker who traveled to the district nearly every weekend.
But winning re-election was already going to be difficult in the political climate of 2010. Teague’s attempt to tap dance around controversial issues left him with a 10-point loss on Election Day.
Perhaps Teague’s loss is best summed up by the words of U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., who, unlike Teague, did win re-election this year. Heinrich wrote in a guest column on this site that Democrats who won re-election “did so by having the courage to stand by our legislative decisions – to run on, and not away from, our records.”
Heinrich recently told me he believes Americans want their elected leaders to stand up for their values, regardless of whether they view things from the left, right or center. And when I asked him about Bingaman and Domenici doing just that, he agreed.
“I think I’d be wise to look at their leadership as a model in the future,” Heinrich said.
Agreed. Teague didn’t do that.
So, as Teague leaves office, what I can say is that he is an incredibly nice man who worked tirelessly as the congressman from Southern New Mexico. But he failed to be the sort of decisive leader New Mexicans want, and they responded accordingly by booting him out of office.