Given Representative Lynn Woolsey's claims about the White House playing extreme hardball with freshman progressives over the Afghanistan supplemental, it is important to note that her claims are, in all likelihood, exaggerated. The White House is applying pressure, but it probably isn't in the cartoonish form of "vote with us on this or you are dead to us forever." It is extremely rare for such a threat to ever be made in D.C. politics. Further, it is unlikely that consensus seeking President Obama or freshman Democrat defending Rahm Emanuel would make such a threat. Pretty much across the board, threats like those just don't fit the profile of the technocratic and cautious figures that compose much of the Democratic leadership. Karl rove might make such a threat, but even he probably wouldn't do it very often.
However, it is also likely that new progressive tactics--specifically, joining with Republicans to block and / or alter Democratic legislation--are frustrating the Democratic leadership. It is a lesson Progressives have learned from Blue Dogs. Over the past few years, Blue Dogs have demonstrated an ability to wield influence through constant threats, and some actual instances of, joining with Republicans to block Democratic legislation. While the tactic has long proven to be effective no matter what faction of the Democratic Party does it, until recently there hadn't been a Progressive--Conservative alliance for, according to Dennis Kucinich, almost ten years (more in the extended entry):
The GOP is also objecting to the inclusion of IMF money in the war bill. Kucinich recalled that the last time progressive Democrats joined with Republicans to defeat a Democratic agenda item came in 1999, when 26 Democrats sided with Republicans to block President Clinton's continuing bombing of Serbia.
"Republicans had their own agenda," recalled Kucinich.
Further, the Afghanistan-IMF funding bill is not the only area where Progressives have managed to increase their clout by joining with Republicans. Ron Paul's legislation to audit the Federal Reserve now has 223 co-sponsors in the House, enough for passage. About one-quarter of the co-sponsors are Democrats, and most of them are Progressives. Alan Grayson helped whip on this bill, for example.
No matter what pressure the White House is or is not applying, Progressives haven't done themselves any favors over the past ten years by pretty much always bowing to leadership pressure. The progressive caucus has the most consistently loyal voting habits to the leadership of all ideological caucuses, but unfortunately that loyalty has not yielded much in the way of progressive legislation or influence for the past decade. Progressives could have, for example, used this coalition to force significant alterations to the Wall Street bailout. Instead, Progressives caved to leadership pressure at a rate far exceeding that of other Democrats, and a virtual blank check ended up passing through Congress.
A new coalition is forming, and it has a real chance to pass a lot of legislation. Further, it also has the potential to significantly increase the influence of Progressives within the House. The lesson is clear: Progressives will be pressured if they go up against the Democratic leadership, but with that pressure comes the potential for influence.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
