Do some Democrats vote for legislation like FISA because they believe that warrant-less, widespread spying on American citizens is actually a good thing for Alberto Gonzales to be doing, or do those same Democrats vote for legislation like FISA because they are afraid they will be portrayed as terrorist hugging, anti-American liberals if they don't? In other words, is the problem with some "New" and "Blue Dog" Democrats that they lack progressive convictions on certain matters, or that they generally lack political courage to stand up for their beliefs? This is a debate I have seen floating around progressive circles for some time, and both Mike and Matt have commented on it lately. While Mike tends to come down on the side of "lack of courage," and while Matt tends to come down on the side of "lack of progressive conviction,", I admit that I occupy a smarmy, centrist, "third place" in this debate: I honestly don't know.
The reason I don't know the answer to this question is because the Democrats who are most often discussed in these debates make it incredibly unclear themselves. Generally speaking, these Democrats are associated with what I term the DLC-nexus, and have an odd habit of discussing what they stand for in ways that sounds like they don't actually stand for them. Consider these passages from Harold Ford and Martin O'Malley's missive in the Washington Post last week:
George W. Bush is handing us Democrats our Hoover moment. Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven't voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out. With an ambitious common-sense agenda, the progressive center has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation.
Now, I have already commented on the bizarre term "progressive center" in this passage, but something perhaps even more disturbing is taking place here. Despite conflating two non-identical terms with each other, another major problem with this passage is that the apparently the best attribute of "an ambitious common-sense agenda," is that it will help Democrats win elections. Rather than, say, this being a good agenda that will help strengthen America's position in the world and improve the lives of ordinary Americans, apparently the key facet of this agenda is that it will help Democrats "win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation." Given that the DLC foregrounds the electoral utility of its agenda above all other facets, it becomes a little more difficult to swallow that they actually believe in this agenda themselves. They seem to be pushing it onto Democrats simply for the sake of winning. In fact, in the previous paragraph, they even say that "[t]he temptation to ignore the vital center is nothing new." Even if the DLC is not tempted in this manner, they clearly are trying to encourage most Democrats to not give into temptation, set liberal beliefs aside, and instead adopt an agenda which, while it may not be what most Democrats believe in, will help Democrats win elections. In other words, they are openly appealing to Democrats to abandon their personal convictions in the name of electoral expediency.
Now, maybe it is just me, but when Democrats who vote poorly in Congress talk like this, it is hard to believe that they actually believe in what they are voting for because they just told me I should vote the same way even if I don't believe in it. Further, DLC types talk like this quite often, as I discussed during on last year's DLC convention. Sometimes, it is a never-ending stream of both bad votes like FISA, coupled with public statements that people should vote against their beliefs as we saw from Ford and O'Malley. How is someone supposed to figure out which one is real, the regular votes that lack progressive convictions or the regular public statements of political cowardice? It is so hard to tell, that I don't begrudge anyone who holds either position. I do think, however, that those people who are convinced it is a lack of courage, and those people who are convinced that it is a lack of conviction, are both ignoring the vital center at their own peril. After all, us wishy-washy types in the vital center truly control elections. While I am not personally offended by the strong stances others take on this matter, I bet most people in the center are, and they feel alienated by your partisan polarizing on this issue. If you ever want to win another election, your best course of action is probably to abandon your beliefs at once. |
