This is the second of a two-part series. Part one, Progressives are to Blame for Progressive Irrelevance," focused on congressional candidate fundraising
During the final weeks of the presidential campaign, then Senator Obama had a high profile meeting with the Blue Dogs. After the meeting, the Blue Dogs made a patently false claim about their power. Even though it takes 218 votes to reach a majority in the House, the Blue Dogs claimed they were important because, with 49 members, they supposedly had the power to either block or clear legislation:
But the three could play a big role in the success or failure of the next president, one reason Obama took a break from campaigning last week to call each of them, among the leaders of the "Blue Dog Coalition," a group of conservative-leaning Democrats who are committed to balancing the federal budget. The group's 49 members already wield significant power in the House, and their ranks are expected to expand in the next Congress.
"He said he planned to be the next president and he wanted to work with us," Ross said in recounting his conversation with Obama before the House approved a $700 billion economic rescue package. "He also recognized that we had the numbers to block or clear" legislation coming from the White House if he is elected.
How could 49 members of the House claim that they have the power to "block or clear" legislation, even though it take 218 votes, or 169 more than the Blue Dogs possessed at the time, to actually block or clear legislation? There is only one answer: they will join with Republicans.
More in the extended entry.
|
All of Blue Dog power comes from a constant, implied threat to join with Republicans. That should never be forgotten. Without House Republicans, Blue Dogs are entirely powerless. It is a simple fact that 49, and now 56, members of the House have no ability to sway House legislation on their own. However, rather than earning them scorn, it earns them vast media attention:
In the past 90 days, the Blue Dogs were mentioned 933 times in national press coverage according to Lexis-Nexis. The progressives were cited just 99 times.(...)
And the Blue Dogs wield this power with just 51 members, as Matt Stoller pointed out. Meanwhile, the Progressives claim 71 members and an impressive group of House committee chairmen in their ranks: Barney Frank (D-MA), John Conyers (D-MI), George Miller (D-CA), and leadership member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT).
And administration concessions
House Democrats won a key procedural vote Tuesday on the stimulus after a last-minute promise from the Obama administration to return to "pay-as-you-go" budget rules after the stimulus is approved.
In a 224-199 vote, the House approved a resolution allowing the stimulus bill to come to the floor for debate. Twenty-seven Democrats - 24 of them members of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition - bucked their leadership and voted against the measure.
But according to Democratic leadership sources, the number was almost much higher - and could have been high enough to hand the Republicans a monumental victory - had it not been for a letter from President Obama's budget director Peter Orszag.
The letter addressed to House Appropriations Committee Chairman David promised to return to "pay-as-you-go budgeting," and stressed that the stimulus was an "extraordinary response to an extraordinary process" and thus subject to different rules.
The key source of Blue Dog power comes from threats to join with Republicans. It wins them media attention, meetings with President Obama, and administrative policy concessions. There could be 180 members of the Progressive caucus, and they still wouldn't wield the same power as Blue Dogs, because they never threaten to join with Republicans.
The same can be said for New Democrats. When they held up the housing bill a few weeks ago, their policy demands were met, and in return President Obama called himself a New Democrat. Once again, it was achieved by threatening to vote with Republicans.
Given all of this, it is extremely difficult not to conclude that the current path to power in D.C. is to be a Democrat who threatens to vote with Republicans. Unless progressives start to do exactly the same thing, and start to threaten to vote with Republicans on bills that Blue Dogs and New Democrats support but Republicans oppose, then they will continue to stay subservient to the Blue Dog and New Democratic caucuses. Hell, we all all stay subservient to those causes unless there is a left-wing block in Congress that threatens to vote no on important legislation from time to time.
As it stands, the Progressive caucus is the most unified, most pro-Democratic voting group in the entire Democratic caucus. The end result is that the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats are the ones getting policy concessions, and meeting with / declarations of affinity from, President Obama. The housing bill was a perfectly good instance where the Progressive caucus could have taken a stand, blown up Ellen Tauscher's housing bill, and forced the chamber to vote on their bill. However, they chose not to do it. Now, we get quotes in Roll Call about the Progressive caucus feeling slighted because President Obama hasn't met with them yet. Gee, I wonder why.
Progressives have to start making real threats to blow up legislation prized by other members of Congress. The next best chance is Afghanistan policy. The Progressive caucus has been holding a number of events opposing and / or questioning the Afghanistan escalation. Further, news reports indicate that "the Armed Services Committee... would have to approve any increased spending to carry out the new strategy" in Afghanistan. As such, why isn't the Progressive caucus threatening to oppose any new spending in Afghanistan, unless it comes with a promise to withdraw troops in, say three years time? Given their numbers in the House, they could probably join with Republicans to block anything on this matter. At the very least, public declarations of "we vote no unless you give concessions" would increase their visibility quote a bit. And I guarantee it would get them a meeting with Obama.
In much the same way that the progressive grassroots has to make it clear that our money comes with strings attached, members of the Progressive caucus frequently need to make it clear that their votes come with demands attached. Just as there is no reason to take seriously the criticisms of people who donate to you no matter what, there is no reason to take seriously the criticisms of people who vote for your legislation no matter what. Because our financial and legislative support has too often been of the "we support you no matter what" variety, it isn't a surprise that Progressives in Congress are so often overshadowed by Blue Dogs and New Democrats. |
