Populist Caucus As New Progressives?

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 16:42


Last week, Representative Bruce Braley announced the formation of a fourth Democratic ideological caucus in the House: the Populist caucus. The Huffington Post produced a list of twenty of their founding members:

Reps. Michael Arcuri (D-NY); Pete DeFazio (D-OR); Betty Sutton (D-OH); Leonard Boswell (D-IA); Steve Cohen (D-TN); Joe Courtney (D-CT); Keith Ellison (D-MN); Bob Filner (D-CA); Phil Hare (D-IL); Mazie Hirono (D-HI); Hank Johnson (D-GA); Steve Kagan (D-WI); David Loebsack (D-IA); Eric Massa (D-NY); Linda Sanchez (D-CA); Jan Schakowsky (D-IL); Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH); Peter Welch (D-VT); and John Yarmuth (D-KY).

While it is something of a mixed bag, take a look at Populist caucus membership in the other Democratic ideological caucuses:

Blue Dogs and New Democrats (1): Arcuri (what joiner Arcuri is!)
Blue Dogs only (1): Boswell
New Democrats only (2): Braley, Courtney
Progressives only (11): Cohen, DeFazio, Ellison, Filner, Hare, Hirono, Johnson, Loebsack, Sanchez, Schakowsky, Welch
No previous alignment: (5): Kagen, Massa, Shea-Porter, Sutton, Yarmouth

Clearly, there is a strong tendency toward the Progressive caucus among the Populists, even though they were organized by a New Democrat. Further, Progressive punch puts the median lifetime score on "crucial votes" for this group at 55.5 of 256 (between Courtney at 54 and Loebsack at 57) in the Democratic caucus, placing it decidedly in the left-wing of the party.

More in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Populist Caucus As New Progressives?

Notably, the Populists are also heavy on the class of 2006, as 14 of the 20 members listed by the Huffington Post were first elected to Congress that year (and Massa came within an inch of being a 15th that year). Only Boswell, DeFazio, Filner Sanchez and Schakowsky were first elected to Congress before 2006. As such, while it displayed the same fractured tendencies of all ideological caucuses across the three bailout votes, the Populist Caucus appears to be primarily a caucus of progressive sophomore Representatives. This is particularly interesting since the class of 2006 was supposed to be a conservative dominated class ushered in by then -DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel. Now, the progressive members of that class appear to have organized a new caucus for themselves.

It is also worth noting that the caucus is 65% (13 out of 20) white and male, making the caucus demographically much more like the New Democrats (who are also at 65%) than like the Progressives (who are at about 28%). Thus, not only is the caucus a group of sophomore progressives, it seems to be a fairly "white progressive," too.

Even with that demographic caveat, this is still a caucus of which I think we need to be supportive. Upon entering the House, progressives lack a support network comparable to that offered by Blue Dogs or New Democrats. By organizing new House members, including nine potentially endangered Democrats who captured seats that were held by Republicans before the 2006 elections, the Populists have the potential to function as a non-right wing, non-corporate, support network for newly elected Democrats to succeed in endangered districts. As such, many of our future progressive leaders in Congress may very well come from the Populist caucus. That is a promising start, and one that I hope flourishes.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Mike Arcuri's not really a Blue Dog... (4.00 / 2)
...He just plays one in the district, IMHO. He voted against us on FISA, but I do remember him being a cosponsor for some pretty nice legislation in the 110th (the resultion to impeach Gonzales, among other things).

Pete DeFazio a great fit for this caucus (4.00 / 3)
My Rep. Pete DeFazio seems like a perfect fit for this caucus. And as one of the more senior Reps to join the caucus, I imagine he may have a significant impact on the direction the caucus takes. Which would be great!

Pete DeFazio declined to run for Senate in 2008, and I think we're seeing why. He is continuing to gain seniority and influence in the House to push the Dem caucus in a more populist direction. He's got a safe seat, and is willing to fight with other Democrats to move the party in a populist direction.

[sorry for the somewhat rambling nature of this comment]

Go Pete!

Check out Future Roots for organic rock'n'roll goodness from Oregon...


Pete is a good guy (0.00 / 0)
but I'm pissed as hell with him over the stimulus.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Updated List (4.00 / 1)
Missed late additions Perriello and Slaughter:

http://www.braley.house.gov/in...

But the Huffington Post article lists 20, but says "21 founding members."  The newer Braley press release says 23, but lists only 22.  Who's the missing member?


DeFazio (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't to crazy about DeFazio's vote against the stimulus bill.  It seemed like grandstanding to me.  If DeFazio's vote were necessary for the passage of the bill, I would hope that he would have voted for the package rather than supporting gridlock in pursuit of a better bill.  And I don't approve of voting differently than you would if your vote counted just to make a point.

He has said he wouldn't (4.00 / 3)
have voted differently, even if his was the deciding vote.

I think you have to give him credit for three reasons: he voted his conscience, his vote broke the taboo against progressives demanding more, and his vote represented his district.

It's not grandstanding if he was getting messages from constituents asking him to vote against - I know he got at least one of those, and I'd imagine he got a lot more.


[ Parent ]
Maybe not Grandstanding (4.00 / 1)
If he really would have voted that way if his vote counted, then it wasn't grandstanding.  However, I think it would have been a poor decision. We needed a big bill ASAP.  I think there's  good chance that if the democrats would have insisted on more it would have resulted in gridlock.  There will be plenty of non-emergency measures with which to play hardball.

[ Parent ]
Aren't a lot of these rural/suburban districts? (4.00 / 2)
I got the sense that this was a progressive caucus for non-urban districts.  That would explain the lean towards white members.

I think this is something we need to embrace.  Some of these seats are republican leaners, and we can use these representative to show that progressive/populist values can win anywhere.

"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority." -William Jennings Bryan


It's also pretty close to being a progressive caucus for swing districts. (4.00 / 1)
I notice in particular that Steve Kagen, Carol Shea-Porter, John Yarmuth, and Eric Massa had no prior caucus membership.  They didn't join the conservative Blue Dogs or New Dems, and also the first three, who are all pretty progressive, didn't join the progressive caucus.  (I leave out Massa because I don't know much about him.)  If you might have to run against a strong republican in the future, it's better for general-election messaging to be in a populist caucus than to be in the (as you said, urban) progressive caucus, which is just a little far left for some of these swing districts.  

It's good that we're not going to have to watch newly elected members like Arcuri flee into the arms of the Blue Dogs just for re-election cachet with their hometown newspapers.  There is now a fairly left-leaning caucus that nonetheless is helpful for general-election environments.


[ Parent ]
Also (0.00 / 0)
The list includes the two Buddhists in the House: Hank Johnson and Mazie Hirono.

[ Parent ]
Historically, the caucus demographics you cite above make sense (4.00 / 1)
Broadly speaking American Populism was focused in whiter, rural communities while Progressives were centered in urban areas which are no longer hot-beds of white male power and prestige (at least at the neighborhood and ward level where elections tend to be won and lost).

And if you consider today's exurbs and second/third ring suburbs to be cultural heirs to America's rural tradition, then you are really seeing some significant parallels over time.

So the two congressional caucuses are really mirroring longer-standing American political trends; trends which brought us a ban on child labor, an 8 hour day, banking reform (twice) social security and the broader New Deal.

So things are shaping up nicely, though slower than what is needed at this time.  


Farmers of suburbia! (0.00 / 0)
"... if you consider today's exurbs and second/third ring suburbs to be cultural heirs to America's rural tradition..."

Both major parties have collaborated to annihilate small farmers in the United States, and now a bunch of suburbanites who ride their gas-hogs through the countryside once a day on the way to their ridiculously over-sized and over-priced houses are supposed to be the inheritors of the "rural tradition!"

Harharharhar!!!

A way of life was destroyed, with hardly a trace left of it anywhere, and now some pseudonym on a blog thinks it's time to add insolence to injury!

Brilliant!


[ Parent ]
An encouraging development (0.00 / 0)
I like the idea of a (left) Populist caucus for a number of reasons.

Coincidentally, I just posted on another thread here about the need to reclaim (or clarify) the term "populist".  

http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

A lot of people are confused by left populists (which I hope and believe includes this group) and right-wing populists like Pat Buchanan.

I'll be very interested in how this group defines itself, and what issues and causes it chooses to champion.

In my mind, the definition of a left-wing populist hinges on suspicion of, and antipathy toward, concentrated private and corporate wealth and power.  While the right-wing populists are a dangerous bunch, with nativist and sometimes proto-fascist tendencies, there are some possibilities for common ground -- such as breaking the backs of the Wall Street oligarchs.


New Democrats and Populists (0.00 / 0)
It seems to me that there would be a pretty big conflict between New Democrats and Populists, and it surprises me that there is overlap between the two caucuses.

The New Democrat Coalition (NDC) provides moderate, pro-growth Members of Congress with the opportunity to advance a common sense policy agenda to move our country in the right direction.

...

support policies to expand economic growth and ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to benefit from that growth; a fiscally responsible and efficient government; a secure homefront; and a robust foreign policy that includes trade, constructive U.S. leadership throughout the world, and a modern and strong military.
http://www.house.gov/tauscher/...




[ Parent ]
the Iowa representatives get along well (4.00 / 1)
with each other. I really doubt Boswell would have joined a caucus with this orientation if Braley were not leading it.

I am interested to see where Braley will take this venture. I support the effort.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


If this caucus is unified on economic issues (0.00 / 0)
But not unified on social issues or foreign policy, how would people feel about it?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

Applauding those in tough districts (0.00 / 0)
I applaud those MoCs that are in tough districts for joining this caucus.  Folks like Carol Shea-Porter, John Yarmuth, and Eric Massa and others.  It's so often we see new members jump on the Blue Dog train as a way to easy reelect that the meaning behind Blue Dogs is lost.  I'm happy to see so many 2006'ers truly pushing forward with the proud populist badge of honor.  And why not. A lot of them were elected in a populist wave!  

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

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
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search