In 1992, Latinos and Asians made up only 3% of the national electorate. That year, Bill Clinton won the combined Latinos and Asian vote by a margin of 51%-35%, with the rest choosing Ross Perot. By 2006, Latinos and Asians combined to make up 10% of the national electorate, and Democrats won that vote by the much larger margin of 68%-31%. That shift, in and of itself, moved the entire national electorate more than 3% in favor of Democrats nationwide in just 14 years. Few things can cause such a rapid, nearly permanent structural shift in the electorate in favor of one party, but Republican demonization of a rapidly growing sector of the electorate has certainly done the trick.
So, what Democrats would be willing to throw away these gains, and put unfounded, short-term fears of an electoral backlash against immigration ahead of them? Not the Bush Dogs, who are Democrats that support Bush's agenda, since Bush actually isn't as hard-right on immigration as the rest of his party (perhaps the only instance where he isn't as hard-right). Under long-term advisement from Karl Rove on the subject, Bush knows that alienating a rapidly growing segment of the electorate is a bad idea for the Republican Party. So, instead of calling them Bush Dogs, I think the more appropriate term would be Rove Dogs. The term "Rove Dog" should apply to any Democrat who votes and act in ways that are harmful to the long-term political standing of the Democratic Party, just as Karl Rove would like them to do.
North Carolina Democrat Heath Shuler 's new immigration-enforcement bill, cheered by immigration hard-liners and jeered by Hispanic lawmakers, now faces a major roadblock: Rep. Loretta Sanchez , who chairs the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism.
Sanchez says Shuler, a former pro football player, made a rookie mistake by not consulting with her before he introduced the bill, which is deepening an existing rift between politically vulnerable centrist Democrats and Hispanic members. Homeland Security is one of eight committees to which the bill was referred, but the panel has the lead in dealing with it.
"I would say Heath better come talk to me about it," Sanchez, a California Democrat, told CQ Politics.
A good way to know that this bill will anger Latinos and other groups with large immigrant populations is when Loretta Sanchez, who is actually a Blue Dog herself, objects to it. Here is a list of the Democratic co-sponsors of the bill, and thus also the initial list of Rove Dogs (Bush Dogs in bold, freshman in italics):
These Rove Dogs are undermining positive feedback loops for Democrats and progressives, and any other Democrats who do the same should also earn the Rove Dog label. Given that this vote is called the "SAVE act" here are some other good bills for Heath Shuler and the Rove Dogs to propose that might piss off key members of the Democratic base:
The Save America's Management Act that abolishes collective bargaining rights. Because it would be a good idea for Democrats to eliminate unions, since their members only vote for Democrats 68% of the time
The Save America's Erogenous Zones Act that makes homosexuality a crime punishable by imprisonment. Because it would be a good idea for Democrats to alienate the LGBT population, since they only vote for Democrats 75% of the time.
The Save America's Theocracy Act that requires all citizens to declare Jesus Christ as their savior. Since it would be a good idea for Democrats to alienate non-Christians, since they only represent a growing 14% of the electorate, and vote for Democrats 74% of the time.
Let me close with a question: if someone is both a Bush Dog, and thus undermining the Democratic legislative agenda while abetting the conservative working majority, and a Rove Dog, and thus undermining the long-term potential for Democrats to be elected to office, is it actually a benefit to Democrats to have that person in office? It seems quite possible to me that it is not. If someone's presence in Congress is making it both more difficult for Democrats to pass legislation now, and more difficult to elect Democrats in the future, then such a person seems to be actively undermining Democrats at every turn. Now, with 23 members of Congress fitting this category, at least right now our majority narrowly depends on keeping at least one-third of them in office, at least right now. After we get some more seats in 2008 that probably won't be the case anymore, but right now Democrats need the Rove Dogs who are also Bush Dogs in order to maintain their majority. So, overall, yeah, I guess we do need them.
But let's focus on one person for now, Heath Shuler, who actually is the lead sponsor of this bill along with, of all people, cultural supremacist Tom Tancredo. A smaller Democratic majority that did not have Heath Shuler, and not propose legislation that angers key elements of our base seems as though it would be more effective for long-term Democratic electoral hopes. This should be obvious, since one seat in Congress is far, far less important to Democrats than maintaining a massive advantage within the growing Latino and Asian vote over the long term. It's not even close. And so, while I would certainly never advocate for a Republican to defeat Heath Shuler, I think it can be easily and accurately argued that, as a simple matter of priorities for the Democratic Party, defeating this bill is more important than Heath Shuler's re-election. In a hypothetical scenario where we only have enough resources to accomplish one of these goals, defeating the bill wins over Shuler's re-election every single time. Keeping the positive feedback loops for Democrats and progressive intact is more important than one seat in Congress, or even really a handful of seats in Congress.
Welcome to the scene Rove Dogs. I'll be monitoring your progress as time goes on. One vote isn't enough to make a strict definition, a strict definition, but another move like this and a solid list can be produced. (Oh, and has Ciro Rodriquez sucked in the new Congress, or what? I mean a freshman Latino who is both a Bush Dog and a Rove Dog? Good lord.)
I've been kicking around the idea with Chris that we should raise the costs of bad decision-making on things like FISA, or when they fold to Republicans on the supplemental or (insert fight here).
It's not much to put up some google ads criticizing these members for their position on FISA. The way Google adwords works is that the ad will only show up for the search terms we select. That means that if we select 'Chris Carney', then people searching for Chris Carney (PA-04) will see an ad criticizing Chris Carney for his vote on FISA. And the people who are searching for Chris Carney are people who want to know more about Carney, like reporters, activists, and constituents. We can even geotarget his state, so only people in Pennsylvania see the ad.
It'll probably run around $100-150 per member for a six month period, which is the amount of time until the law must be reauthorized.
Would you put a bit of money and effort to go after these wayward Democrats? We can't replace all of them with progressive Democrats, but we can certainly annoy at least a few of them and raise the costs for voting against the Constitution.
Aside from money, this will take some work, since we'll have to get posts written about each member that did this. It's not worth doing unless you'd support it. So if you think this is a good idea, put it in the comments or send me an email at stoller at gmail.com. We need support in one of two ways. One, you could throw in a few bucks for this. Two, you could write up a problem Democrat, on this blog or on your own site, and we'd use that as the Google ad advertised link. Let me know if you'd be willing to do either.
Yesterday, I tested out the idea that what we are dealing with in Congress is a nominally Democratic majority but an effective Republican working majority. I mostly pinned this on the Blue Dog swing bloc and a conservative Senate, but there are other important factors at work. The conversation was really amazing, and punctured some holes in my piece.
The fact is, things have changed quite a bit. I'm friendly with a lawyer in a major executive branch agency, and she told me that the investigations going on by Congress are allowing her to do her job. Steve Novick, candidate for Senate in Oregon (who is really quite terrific), told me the same thing about friends he has in the Federal bureaucracy. Governance itself is getting better, or at least has stopped getting worse. So Blue Dogs are not Republicans.
There are other weaknesses in what I wrote, and the commenters pointed them out. In particular, this comment by Paul Rosenberg is I think accurate, as he argues that we are facing a conservative but not right-wing Blue Dog/DLC bloc combined with an anti-progressive elite consensus in the form of a hostile media establishment, a hostile think tank and academic structure, a hostile regulatory structure, a hostile set of cultural leaders and a set of old world economic incentives for elites.
I'm going to revise my earlier title, and argue that while we don't have a Republican working majority, we do have a conservative working majority to contend with. Most of the strategic problems I highlighted in the original piece remain, with the additional need to attack and/or subvert elite structures. The irony, or perhaps the not entirely-coincidental pattern of the Open Left, is that we're all at once going after the right-wing, their Blue Dog enablers, and the elite structures that love them.
I'm beginning to explore an idea that I'm not entirely sold on, which is that in the House, while Democrats are in control, there is effectively a Republican working majority. If true, this has a number of implications, both electoral and political. But first, I'll illustrate my thinking, which basically boils down to the fact that politically speaking, Bush is effectively using the surge model to govern in all policy arenas. Take tax policy.
President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.
Advisers presented Bush with a series of ideas to restructure corporate taxes, possibly eliminating narrowly targeted breaks to pay for a broader, across-the-board rate cut. In an interview with a small group of journalists afterward, Bush said he was "inclined" to send a corporate tax package to Congress, although he expressed uncertainty about its political viability.
It's a simple pattern. When Bush loses ground politically, he simply changes his ask. It's the equivalent of negotiating with someone to sell them a bike for $50, and when they find a problem with the bike, changing the price to $75 and negotiating the final price to $65. It's bad faith negotiating, but it's working, because Democratic leaders aren't able to walk away from the table out of a mixture of fear, incompetence, and insufficient liberal voting strength. They always stupidly buy the bike at the higher price.
The FISA bill debacle is a good example. I've been in email contact with a variety of sources inside the House, and there's certainly tremendous bitterness at what happened with FISA, as well as a recognition that the 'stand up and cave' rhetoric strategy is now a clear pattern for this Congress. Steny Hoyer is the weak link in the House leadership, and though I can't read tea leaves that well, I think that Blue Dogs are essentially threatening a revolt against Pelosi if she tries to impose real discipline. In addition, the Senate is making it nearly impossible for her to stand up for liberalism. With a reactionary Senate that has about 10 neoconservative Democrats and a neoconservative President, liberals cannot govern except on the most clear-cut and non-controversial issues, like poor children's health care (which itself might be vetoed).
So while we may have thought we gained a check on Bush in 2006, we actually didn't. What we gained was a more progressive Democratic Party, but we started from such a low base that the Republicans essentially can still govern. Now, holding the majority is nice for subpoena power, and that matters. But when you combine a conservative Senate, a Blue Dog swing block, and an extreme White House, you may have a situation similar to the Boll Weevil Democrats in the early 1980s and their working relationship with Reagan. I'm not sure how well the analogy holds up since I've never studied that period in history, but regardless, Bush has realized that his conservative governing mandate is still intact.
In 2006, the midterms registered a clear antiwar message, but instead of listening, Bush surged troops, and politically speaking, it worked. No one stopped him. Bush, weaker than he's ever been as President in terms of popular approval and credibility, is governing this country through a mix of veto threats, bad faith negotiating tactics via surrogates like Mike McConnell and David Patraeus, and Blue Dogs. This is true with Bush's rampant lawbreaking and authoritarian criminal impulses. No one stops him. I'm no longer content to think that Blue Dogs are acting out of fear of being criticized, at this point I am going to take the Heath Shuler's at their word and recognize them as right-wingers.
To be clear, there's reason for optimism, as this is a temporary situation and we've made enormous progress since 2002. There are more self-identified liberals today than there have been since 1972, independents are swinging far to the left, and the base Democratic vote is making the difference in elections. The Democratic Party of 2007 is much more progressive than that of 2002, and at the rate we're gaining reliable liberal votes (10/year), there will be an unbreakable progressive House majority by 2012. The overall intellectual environment, the shattering of the right-wing careerist foreign policy community, the increasing efficiency of liberal advocacy groups, the increased participation of progressive economy sectors in the political sector, and the liberalization of the White House and Senate, can also have significant effects. Our politicians are obviously behind the curve, with Clinton quasi-supporting the surge and Obama in his most recent Iowa ad doesn't call himself a Democrat. But this is temporary.
I don't have a good strategy on how to 'fix' the Senate, but to get to a progressive working majority in the House, we need to pick up 41 more reliable votes, either by beating Republicans or by converting or beating Blue Dog Democrats. If we can get to an uncompromising progressive majority in the House, then the Senate will be dragged along through conference committees and a Democratic White House. In the Senate, we'll need 16 for a clear progressive majority, but because of institutional dynamics we'll probably need less to have a working majority.
There are several paths to making this happen in the House.
Pick Up Safe Seats Progressives: This is what we are trying to do in Massachusetts 5th, where a reactionary Niki Tsongas is facing four other candidates, including progressive Jamie Eldridge. There's also a primary in TN-09, Harold Ford's old haunt.
Convert Reactionary Democrats: Both Al Wynn and Ellen Tauscher are good examples of how this can be done, and this is continuing against Daniel Lipinski, Al Wynn, and Henry Cuellar.
Beat Republicans: In 2006, Democrats picked up 30 seats in the House. Out of those pickups, 11 voted for the FISA expansion, and 19 didn't.
Convert Republicans: I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq is trying to crack Republicans, but this is very very difficult. Republicans have run right-wing primary challenges against dissidents for 30 years, since 1978. Countering that is extremely tough, though recent moves by the Mainstream Partnership could have effects.
If there is a Republican working majority, with the Blue Dogs as the swing group, that should have one very significant effect on our strategy. In a House with a minority role for Democrats, electing a Blue Dog Democrat is far superior than electing a Republican. But in a majority Democratic House where conservatives have a governing working majority, electing a Blue Dog Democrat is little different than electing a Republican when it comes to public policy choices. Electing a Blue Dog is not going to help us restore out Constitutional fabric, hold these people accountable, deal with global warming, energy, health care, or restore a progressive tax code. More significantly, more Blue Dogs aren't going to give someone like Pelosi the leverage she needs to do any of these things.
What this means is clear. No longer should we as progressives particularly care whether a Democrat is in a swing district or Republican district when considering how to evaluate them. It is more important to elect progressives and destroy the power of Blue Dogs than to increase our partisan advantage in the House, though these goals are complements and not substitutes. The Colorado example, of turning a libertarian-esque red state into a Blue Dog state at the behest of wealthy billionaires, is not something to emulate. Rather, we should look at the New Hampshire example, which has turned a libertarian-esque red state into a deep blue progressive libertarian area.
There's one other important rhetorical consequence here. When Blue Dogs vote with Bush, they are not 'betraying' us any more than Republicans are when they vote with Bush. Blue Dogs just don't agree with us. And when they vote to expand wiretapping or to cut taxes for the wealthy or to support endless war, they are acting like Blue Dogs, and Blue Dogs support President Bush and the conservative movement.
STATE BLOGS
