In recent front page entries on OpenLeft like We Must Stop Raising Money For Blue Dogs Chris Bowers and others have done a great job of discussing mistakes being made and where the focus should be in general terms. I chipped in a late comment No No No on that particular post that I've heard myself saying a lot over the past two years.
In real terms, RIGHT NOW there are two primaries that have one obvious choice for real Democrats - Virginia's 2009 Gubernatorial primary and Florida's 2010 Senate Primary - both open seat races in bluing states.
In the 110th Congress, there were 236 Democrats in the U.S. House, 49 in the Senate, and two "Independents" who caucused with Democrats. Of those 287 congresscritters, 74 were members of the New Democratic Coalition, which is affiliated with the DLC. Overall, 25.8% of the Democratic members of the 110th Congress were openly affiliated with the DLC. An additional 31 members of Congress are affiliated with the Blue Dogs, but not with the New Democratic Coalition. If the Blue Dogs are included, the overall DLC-Blue Dog membership in of Democratic congresscritters increases to 36.6%, and 38.1% in the House.
Now, compare this to Obama's cabinet selections. Of the eighteen cabinet members (not counting Joe Biden, who I have seen listed as a cabinet member at times), sixteen are Democrats. Of those sixteen, eight are affiliated with the DLC, or 50%. Obama's Democratic cabinet selections have twice the DLC representation of the Democratic membership of Congress. This list does not include Rahm Emanuel, who will be the first White House Chief of Staff during the Obama administration. Nor does it include national security advisor Jim Jones, who supported McCain during the election.
No Blue Dogs seem to have been selected for the cabinet, but even so the DLC-Blue Dog membership in Obama's cabinet is higher than the DLC-Blue Dog membership of the Democratic caucus in the House or Senate. Adding in the two Republican members, and Obama's cabinet has a Republican-DLC majority. The 55.6% DLC-Republican representation in Obama's cabinet closely mirrors the overall DLC-Republican representation in the Senate (55% in the incoming Senate, plus freshman new NDC members) and House (53.6%, plus freshman NDC members).
The Congressional Progressive Caucus has 69 members in the incoming congress, plus former member Nancy Pelosi (the Speaker resigns from ideological caucuses), plus new membership among freshman. Additionally, three members (Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders and Tom Udall) have been elected to the Senate in 2006-2008. Overall, including Nancy Pelosi, 25.4% of the Democratic membership of the House and the Senate in 2007-2008 were Congressional Progressive Caucus members. One member of this group, Hilda Solis, will be in Obama's cabinet. Another member, Xavier Bacerra, was asked to serve as trade representative, but declined.
Obama's cabinet selections, when compared to the Democratic caucuses in the House and the Senate, has a significantly higher representation of DLC members and a significantly lower representation of Progressive Caucus members. If association with the New Democratic and Progressive caucuses can be used as a proxy for ideological inclinations, which voting records have previously suggested it can be, then Obama's cabinet is to the right of the Democratic membership in Congress.
Hopefully, this serves as a more systematic means of analyzing the ideological inclinations of Obama's cabinet than I have previously presented.
Update: Given the vagarities in the articles linked in this post, I would like create a definitive list of the DLC, Blue Dog, Republican, and pro-McCain members of Obama's cabinet. Wikipedia lists 22 cabinet-rank positions in the Obama administration, 21 of which have a current nominee. Seven of those twenty-one--Clinton, Daschle, Emanuel, Napolitano, Richardson, Salazar and Vilsack--have confirmed DLC ties. Two, Gates and LaHood, are either Republican or Republican-leaning. Larry Summers and Jim Jones do not appaear to have been nominated or appointed to cabinet-level positions.
More information as I find it. Help on determining the exact number of cabinet-rank positions in the Obama administration, as well as confirmable ties to the DLC among the current appointments for those positions, is much appreciated in the comments.
You could quibble with the details of this story but it is essentially correct that the moderate to conservative wing of the Democratic party is ascendant.
Consider the scorecard: The centrist Democratic Leadership Council claims ties with half the group. Movement progressives count a single one, California Rep. Hilda L. Solis, a union favorite, at the Labor Department.
There's an argument that Obama has promised a raft of progressive policies, and that's not wrong. And he's got a great team to deal with climate policies, broadband and media reform, and a bunch of other important areas. Still, the significant element in his first two years is the trillion dollar stimulus, and there were no promises around that during the campaign. It's just spend wherever there's a shovel in the ground, or if you're a company, stick your hand out. Liberals are going to get rolled on this. The progressive caucus released a request that Obama spend one trillion dollars, while literally saying they would follow up with "specific policy proposals" later on. Meanwhile, the right is making noises that they will simply fight a stimulus; they certainly have been doing so over the last year or so. Isn't the logical scenario that the left screams for spending, the right screams for no spending, and the DLC types split the middle by accepting spending, but mostly along the lines of corporate support a la the financial bailout? I think so. Already Pelosi is putting out signals she's worried Rahm is going to triangulate her among Blue Dogs, and Rahm is making plans to return to the House to be on track for Speaker in a few years.
One little noticed part of the corruption problems encompassing Democrats like Rod Blagojevich in Illinois and William Jefferson in Louisiana is that they come from the more conservative/DLC/New Democratic wing of the party. Blago, when he was in the House, was the only Illinois Democrat to vote for the war, and as Governor pursued culture war issues like cracking down on violent video games. Jefferson was one of the few CBC members to vote for the war in Iraq, and has a well-trod history of voting against corporate regulations.
New Democrats are kind of struggling to find their niche at this point, ideologically speaking. There's not a lot of oomph left in the free market Democrat mantra, and the corruption scandals here suggest that this is in some ways simply about low rent pay to play.
Note: I don't usually think it is cool to single out individual commenters since they don't have an equal platform with which to respond, but I was pushed on this one by multiple people in the comments. So, please consider it a respectful rebuttal rather than an angry singling out. Also, consider it a rare event. I'm not going to make a habit of this--Chris
1. Liberals / progressives: Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle, John Podesta, and Rahm Emanuel
2. Moderates / centrists: Timothy Geithner, Lawrence Summers
3. Conservatives / Republicans: Robert Gates, Jim Jones
It will come as no surprise that, with the possible exception of Eric Holder, I completely disagree with the top cabinet and White House classifications who are listed here as "liberals / progressives." I won't discuss John Podesta, who doesn't occupy either an Obama administration position or a cabinet one. Instead, Podesta is leading Obama's transition team.
The main justification used in the above classifications are voting records provided by various organizations. The inadequacy of such a measure should be obvious to all those who follow Congress closely. Simply put, Congress does not vote on, nor do issue group voting records measure, a broad range of ideologically varied legislation. Members of Congress vote on legislation brought before their committee, and on legislation brought to the floor of their given branch of Congress. Left-wing legislation has reached the floor of Congress on rare occasions during the past fourteen years. Opposing the Bush administration most of the time, along with 70% of the country, does not necessarily make someone left-wing.
In order to develop a fuller picture of an individual's ideological leanings, consider the causes they have championed and, even more importantly, the groups with whom they publicly associate. It is in this way that Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Rahm Emanuel, Janet Napolitano and Bill Richardson are most clearly and easily understood as centrists. This is because, within the Democratic Party, all five of them associate with the Democratic Leadership Council and various "New" Democratic organizations. These are groups that were founded explicitly to push the Democratic Party to the right and to allow their membership means to avoid being labeled left-wing.
Things are tilting to the left now, in part, because people have abandoned the right due to their dramatic governance failures. But let's imagine a pre-Bush era when people hadn't yet abandoned the right. Given two sides with nearly equal support, what is the best way to tilt things to the left? For the DLC crowd the answer, paradoxically, was to stand closer to the middle. For most of the netroots, the obvious answer was to stand further to the left.
The only counterargument by those favoring the middle position is that they were moving the fulcrum to the right so they could get enough people to tilt things to the left. But if you're moving the fulcrum to the right, haven't you already lost?
This message has been brought to you by the Department of the Obvious.
Lost in the hubbub of Obama doing lots of things that irritate progressives in recent days are two very significant pieces of good news about the potential of an Obama Presidency:
If you've been watching election returns on the cable news networks this season, chances are that you've seen a lot of Harold Ford. Ford began his stint as a political contributor with Fox News in 2007, making the switch to MSNBC in March, 2008. Since that time, he's been quick to offer advice to Barack Obama and Democrats across the country who seek seats in the great blue wave of '08. But just who is Harold Ford to be shaping the current? In his ten years as congressman from Tennessee, Ford established a reputation as ready to break with progressives, his party and/or basic common sense.
Once one of Anne Coulter's "favorite Democrats," Ford has been relatively sequestered to leadership of the centrist DLC. Having failed in bids for House Minority leader in 2002, US Senate in '06, and by some accounts DNC Chairman, Ford seems to be losing the competition with progressives for leadership in the senior party.
Ambitious as they come, Ford will no doubt continue to inject his presence into the general election campaign. However, it will ultimately be up to Democrats to decide where Ford goes next. In the meantime, progressives would benefit to ask what the Big Bend stater's dubious record on issues like abortion, alternative fuels, campaign finance, domestic partnership, domestic spying, immigration, Iraq, prayer in public schools and trade means to opening a real progressive window.
There are three new post "bittergate" Pennsylvania polls this morning, from Rasmussen, Survey USA, and Quinnipiac. the three-poll average comes out to 51.3%--41.7%. The three previous, pre "bittergate" polls from these same polling outfits produced an identical average of 51.3%--41.7%.
Obama's remarks do not appear to have any impact on the campaign so far, except possibly to slow his upward momentum. However, even that possibility is hypothetical, since public opinion is not tied to the laws of physics. There is no gravitational force that indicates public opinion will continue to move in a given direction once it has started to move in that direction. It is possible Obama would have cut into Clinton's advantage without "bittergate," but it is also possible that it has made no impact on the campaign whatsoever. As I said, that is speculative.
Now, even though what I am about to write is also speculative, I don't think that Obama has failed to take a hit over his comments because Pennsylvania Democrats agreed with those comments. Instead, I think that this is the sort of controversy that the national media is incapable of effectively using to damage a candidate. Josh Marshall explains why:
n this case, I didn't think what he said was offensive. Of course, I don't live in a small town or in rural America. But then again, neither do any of the other people I've heard sound off on this topic. So I'm in good company. (This has been one of the more comedic aspects of this 72 hours -- watching a cavalcade of extremely wealthy pundits, editorialists and political operatives from New York and Washington tell me how rural Americans won't stand for this.)
It is really possible for famous, rich, urban, NYC and DC television types to effectively portray someone else as out of touch with Democrats in small-towns in Pennsylvania? I'm doubtful. It might be possible that some religious residents of small towns in Pennsylvania found Obama's remarks elitist, but it is also possible that many residents of small town America found it offensive that a bunch rich media elites in NYC and DC are acting as though they know what small town Pennsylvania is like. Here is one pundit's characterization of the voters who will find this story offensive:
[Reuters Washington correspondent Jon Decker]: They do. And let's not forget Barack Obama bowling. You know, this cuts to "is this person real? Do they connect with me as a voter?" You know, for someone who's in a bowling league in northeast central Pennsylvania, in Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, they can't identify with someone getting a 37 over seven frames.
Yeah, you know you find this offensive, low-information, drunken, slovenly bowling types from the Scranton- Wilkes-Barre area. It is actually quite reminiscent of DLC-electability speak that openly talks of adopting certain policy positions in order to win more votes. Not only does such talk make the politicians who use it appear to only support given policy positions in order to win elections, but it also makes them look incredibly elitist in that they believe they can openly talk of fooling the electorate.
Yeah, you will vote for me if I shoot a gun. Yeah, you know you like that.
Yeah, you will vote for me if I adopt a third way approach on tax policy. Yeah, you know you like that stuff.
Yeah, you will vote for me even when I say, in public, that I am only doing these things to be elected. You are too dense to possibly notice that detail. Yeah, you know you are.
Yeah, you rural Pennsylvania Democrats will find something offensive if a wealthy pundit in New York tells you that you will find it offensive, because you know that the image that pundit is portraying of you is accurate. Yeah, you know that you are an easily stereotyped caricature.
Yeah, you will vote for me when I do these things, because you are such a bumpkin that you don't know I'm only doing them in order to be elected. Yeah, you know that you have no ability to be skeptical of photo-ops, stump speeches and the news media.
The abundant elitism of wealthy media types thinking they can speak for you, caricature you, and think you won't even notice they are trying to speak for you and caricature you is completely lost on you, because you are such a simpleton. Yeah, you know you like it.
Even if what Obama said was offensive to some, this just isn't the sort of story that the national media can use to effectively damage a candidate. Ultra-elitists just are not going to be able to convince people that someone else is actually even more elitist. And the polls today demonstrate this.
Has the DLC ever made a single policy proposal outside the context of how that policy proposal will help Democrats win general elections? It would surprise me if that were the case, and today's broadside is no different (emphasis mine):
Paul Weinstein Jr., a senior fellow at the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute who teaches public policy at Johns Hopkins University, and Marc Dunkelman, the DLC's vice president for strategic communications, argue that either Clinton or Obama will have to propose at least some spending cuts if they want to take advantage of President Bush's record of deficit spending.
"They have to offer some really specific proposals on spending to pass the smell test," Weinstein said in an interview. "That would give them some credibility, and voters would not be so easily scared that they're just interested in raising taxes."
If Democrats don't establish their bona fides on reining in spending and "demanding that the federal government live within its means," Weinstein and Dunkelman suggested, then they'll continue to be vulnerable to GOP charges that they're tax-and-spenders.
This is the essence of DLC language: policy proposals are always presented in the context of how those proposals will help Democrats win elections. They do this all thetime. The obvious problem with this sort of language is that it causes Democrats to appear to only be proposing policy because it will help them win elections, not because of some set of core values. Couching every proposal in the language of electability functions as a perpetual, public statement that you are a power-hungry, spineless panderer. This sort of language is especially damaging for Democrats, given that one of the longstanding negative images of the party is that they are power-hungry, spineless panderers who don't stand for anything. Given that our language has been dominated by DLC speak for so long, I don't think it is a secret where that image came from.
Of course, the irony is that publicly stating how your policy proposals will help you get elected will actually make it far less likely that you will be elected. The fact is that people do not like pandering politicians whose only values are getting elected. As such, publicly pointing out that we are power-hungry, spineless panderers it probably not a good election strategy. However, it appears to be the only strategy the DLC ever employs, and certainly the only strategy that ever gets them media attention. The more we are able to stamp out DLC speak among Democrats, the better our election chances will become across the board.
Barack Obama talks to a couple of conservative papers:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he would be more willing than Hillary Rodham Clinton to work with Republicans.
"Her natural inclination is to draw a picture of Republicans as people who need to be crushed and defeated," Obama said during a telephone interview from Texas with the Cincinnati Enquirer editorial board. "It's not entirely her fault. She's been the target of some unfair attacks in the past."
"I'm not a person who believes any one party has a monopoly on wisdom," Obama said.
I'm not sure where the idea of Hillary Clinton has some sort of super-left, ultra-partisan came from, exactly. During the 1990's, the Clinton's were seen as the epitome of the New Democrats (not Blue Dogs, but New Dems--there is a difference), and of a moderate, bi-partisan way forward for the Democratic Party during an increasingly conservative era. Hillary Clinton herself has been closely allied with the DLC for some time. You know, the same DLC that defended itself from losing its tax-exempt status by noting:
The DLC responds that its exclusive purpose is to develop and promote its "Third Way" agenda and that some causes it has lobbied for-e.g., welfare reform, fast-track approval of free-trade agreements-got more Republican than Democratic votes in Congress.
As a resident of Pennsylvania, back in 2006 I remember Rick Santorum ads that boasted of his bi-partisan relationship with Hillary Clinton, to the gasps of his conservative supporters in the advertisement. If the Republican-friendly DLC and working with Rick Santorum isn't moderate and bi-partisan enough for you, then I'm not really sure what sort of territory we will be entering during a Barack Obama presidency.
No type of congresscritter is easier to defeat than the near-mythical Republican moderate:
On top of that long-term trend came the 2006 election, where Republicans lost 11 moderates. But despite those losses, more are likely in 2008.(...)
Of the 21 Republican retirees, nine are moderates in competitive seats that Democrats will have a serious chance of winning in the fall.
Looking at the 110th Congress vote-rating scores of political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal (www.voteview.com), Republicans who voted most toward the middle are the ones most in trouble.
Of the 10 most liberal Republicans, six may be gone come November. Four are retiring: Reps. Mike Ferguson and Jim Saxton of New Jersey, Rep. Jim Ramstad of Minnesota and Rep. Jim Walsh of New York. Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois may face a difficult general election race. And Maryland Rep. Wayne Gilchrest is in a spirited primary battle with Club for Growth candidate Andy Harris.
The top 40 least conservative Republican members include at least four who will face tough fall campaigns and 11 retirees, and there is still speculation that Reps. Mike Castle of Delaware and Tom Davis of Virginia may join the retirement list.
Since the above article was written, Tom Davis did in fact retire, and Wayne Gilchrest was defeated by primary challenger Andy Harris. Through retirements, primary challenges, and general elections, both progressives and conservatives have consistently found "moderate" Republicans to be the easiest members of Congress to remove from office. And the trend shows no sign of slowing down, as the 2008 harvest of Republican moderate scalps appears to be as much, or more, of a bumper crop than 2006's.
My question is, why isn't there anyone in the Republican Party doing anything about this? The DLC was formed in the 1980's in an attempt to try and secure the Democratic Presidential nomination, and thus control of the party apparatus, for a southern conservative. When conservative southern Democrats realized just how precarious their position in Congress was after the 1994 elections, they formed the Blue Dog caucus as a sort of self-protection society. In 1996, the New Democrat Network was founded as a multi-million dollar effort to elect more centrist, corporate Democrats to Congress. In other words, when conservative Democrats faced duel threats within their own party and from Republicans, they engaged in a number of serious organizing efforts to protect themselves, attempt to take over the party, and attempt to take over Congress. Now that "moderate" Republicans are facing are facing a similar, and arguably more severe, range of threats, there is simply no comparable, intra-party organizing effort to solidify their position. They have no DLC, no NDN, no Blue Dog, caucus, nothing. They might as well just band together and call themselves the Sitting Duck caucus, because that is effectively what they are.
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.
Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.
Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.
It was nice of them to toss in Whitman is a token non-white dude. "Gridlock in Washington" must only be a major problem for people who are so rich and powerful that they have to make-up problems in their lives. This is because, over the last five years, Democrats in Congress have only blocked the following pieces of legislation:
Three conservative judges (out of several dozen)
Privatization of Social Security
Retroactive immunity for telecom companies in the warrantless spying program.
Legislation to deport millions of illegal aliens
Given that these are the only conservative pieces of legislation that Democrats in Congress have blocked in the past five years, one must assume that a "government of national unity" means a government that will confirmation 100% of all conservative judges, the destruction of social security, retroactive immunity of telecom companies, and the mass deportation of twelve million people. If this third-party did not favor these things, then there would be absolutely no need to form "a government of national unity." Those four things are the sum total of what Democrats in Congress have prevented Republicans from passing, and thus are the entirety of what Democrats have contributed to "gridlock in Washington." Every other reform has been blocked by Republicans.
It would be nice, for once, if the constant drumbeat from Aging Wealthy White Men for National Unity Under Billionaire Media Moguls (AWWMNUUBM for short) decrying polarization, the lack of bi-partisanship and gridlock in Washington would actually provide specifics on what legislation their hated polarization, partisanship and gridlock is blocking. Of course, they won't actually do that, because blaming national problems on vague, undefined concepts like "polarization" and "gridlock" is much easier than actually analyzing the contemporary political scene in America.
"When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], 'See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who's strong to defend America at a time of concern.' Well, Senator Clinton is strong," he said. "And she's experienced. And she's tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that's true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that's one of the reasons why I'm supporting her."
Few things irritate me more about prominent DLC types than their tendency to preface virtually everything they propose for Democrats with how that something will help Democrats get elected. They do it all thetime. I know that an election is close, and electability will be a concern for some. Still, it is one thing to say that Bhutto's assassination shows that we need an experienced hawk to defend America, and quite another to say that Bhutto's assassination shows that we need an experienced hawk to defend America because otherwise Republicans will attack us. The former isn't very good, as it consents to a conservative view of foreign policy. However, the later is even worse, since it implies we need to adopt a conservative view of foreign policy in which we don't really believe so that we can accrue more political power. One buys into Republican and conservative frames, while the other buys into Republican and conservative frames while simultaneously making Democrats look like valueless, power hungry politicians who think they can trick the rubes who are the American people. And so, in addition to making Democrats look weak on national security, DLC types like Bayh end up reinforcing a second insidious conservative narrative: that Democrats are a bunch of soulless, liberal elites who think they are better than most of the backward rubes who live in America.
The electability language of the DLC is so colossally bad for Democrats as a whole that it is difficult to think of a less effective way for Democrats to get elected than continuing to utilize said language.
Historically in politics, when different factions within a given political party are fighting with each other, one of the following things happens:
-One faction scores an overwhelming victory, marginalizing the other for a long period of time. The best example of this was the conservative-moderate Republican fight of the 1960s. Although the two factions co-existed in earlier days, to a great extent in the Nixon/Ford era, and to a lesser extent during Reagan and the first Bush's 12 years, over time the "Rockefeller Republicans" lost the battle and never recovered, and have become more and more marginalized over the last 40 years.
-The factions cut a deal and agreed to uneasily co-exist for at least a while. Think here of Southern segregationists and northern liberals in the New Deal coalition, or labor/progressives and the DLC in the Clinton years.
Those of us in the progressive movement obviously all hope that over the long run, in both the Democratic Party and the country as a whole, we gain a clear, strong and long-term progressive majority to allow us to move forward on all major issues we care about. However, the direction of the Democratic Party will be driven, as it inevitably is, by the next Democratic President, and based on everything we know now, that person will be a mixed figure in terms of the progressive agenda. There is simply no major candidate running who isn't pretty good on many issues and moderately bad, or at least beholden to conventional wisdom, on others. (I'm guessing we will win the presidency in 2008, but if not, Party leadership will continue to be a mishmash of different leaders.)
In the Clinton years, Clinton handled the tension in the Party by siding with DLC types on two major issues, trade and welfare reform; siding more with progressives on some others- Family and Medical Leave, Motor Voter, minimum wage, abortion, children's health care, and some of the big budget fights; and trying to split the difference on a great many other issues. The progressive community waged losing fights against Clinton and his corporate and Republican allies on trade and on welfare reform, and occasionally railed against DLC-style politics in op-eds and speeches, but generally went along with the uncomfortable alliance for a couple of reasons. The first was that the groups representing progressive politics were at the table, were being listened to, and were getting some of what they wanted. The second was that with the 1994 elections, the specter of right-wingers in control of Congress made progressives distinctly aware of the dangers of not being allied with Clinton.
If we retain control of Congress (perhaps even expanding our margin, as currently seems likely), and elect a Democratic President, the political dynamics will be quite different. The combination of the Democrats being firmly in control of Congress, public opinion having moved generally in the progressive direction since the mid-1990s, and the progressive movement being revitalized and empowered all shift the nature of the playing field.
This raises a series of questions in my head that I'd like to get the OpenLeft.com community's collective wisdom to start chewing on:
1. Knowing that the new President will be more center than left, and that the Democratic leadership will likely be the same in the next Congress as it is now, it is likely that progressives will be asked to live with the same kind of co-existence deal with DLC types that we had in the 1990s. How do we respond to such a deal?
2. What would the nature of such a deal look like? What would we oppose no matter what, demand that we get no matter what, agree to negotiate on?
3. Given the dispersed and democratic nature of the online movement, where it is up to everybody to decide for themselves what they will and won't support, is this kind of traditional "deal"- the kind of deal that traditional groups and power brokers might agree to- even possible? Or desirable? Or is it better to think in terms of each blogger, each online activist, making their own decisions on what to support or oppose on each issues, and not even getting into the insider-y world of negotiations and deal-making.
4. What would "a deal" look like prior to the 2008 election? Once a nominee is picked, what role do online activists want to play in helping that nominee win? How important is it that online activists work to hold the Democratic nominee accountable, and push them to move the right way on issues, during the general election campaign?
5. Given the fundamentally different nature of the netroots vs. more traditional styled organizations, do you have ideas about how to make sure online activists' views are really heard?
I ask those questions because I hope they will start an interesting discussion about the nature of the Open Left (the movement, not the blog). Does this movement want to be "at the table" in the conventional way that organizations and power blocs have always gotten themselves invited to the table in the past? Or is there more value in continuing to stay firmly planted on the outside? I can see it both ways, and will be interested in the discussion.
I had a conversation with a Democratic staffer a few days ago about FISA, and he told me that, while I had a legitimate point that civil liberties are important, how could I know why the Democrats passed the evisceration of civil liberties and the expansion of executive power? I wasn't in the meetings, and the reason for the law was classified. So how could I object? After all, Director of National Intelligence Director and Republican Daddy figure that all the Democrats love Mike McConnell was telling high level Democrats about very serious chatter in August. It's a secret why Bush needs more power, but the Democratic leadership gave it to him anyway because Mike McConnell is an honorable man, like Colin Power and David Petraeus.
It turns out McConnell was lying. Awesome. Good job, Democrats.
There is a growing trend among candidates to talk in public as though they are pundits. This problem is particularly severe among Democrats. Instead of, say, talking about their religious beliefs, standing up for what they believe in, and laying out comprehensive national security plans that will make the average American feel safe, Democrats have a strange desire to talk about the need for other Democrats to talk about religion, talk about the need for Democrats to stand up for what they believe in, and talk about the need for Democrats to lay out comprehensive national security plans. Even among Democrats, Pundidate Fever has reached exceptional, even chronic levels within the DLC-nexus of the party, as virtually everything DLC-types propose policy wise is justified first and foremost by how that policy will supposedly help Democrats win elections. For quite some time now, many of online have argued that this pundit lust has been one of the primary reasons why most people don't Democrats believe in the policies they propose. For example, I made this argument last August, in one of my better linked posts of all-time.
It's very understandable why politicians would want to be pundits. Pundits get far more public exposure than politicians do. They can be wrong 100% of the time, with no fear of losing their jobs, their credibility or their clout. And they don't have to do any real work at all. Certainly not cold calling folks for thousands of dollars, or shaking so many hands you risk dislocating every joint from your shoulder on down.
And, naturally, the politicians who are treated best by the pundits are the ones most eager to be like them.
All this, I think, explains a good deal of what's gone wrong with Obama since he went to Washington. Why'd he hook up with Joe Lieberman of all people? Well, Joe's #1 on the pundit's speed dial for Democrats. Why'd he take sharp jabs at non-existent Democrats who hate religion? Standard pundit fare. Why attack an entire generation of voters--those who routinely show up most reliably in low-turnout primary races? Pundits love to talk generational stuff. Makes them seem all world-historical, like Newt Gingrich!
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.
"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.
Oh, Lord. No matter what else she said in the speech, and even if she thought it was undeserved, why is Clinton talking about perceived Democratic and Republican strengths on terrorism as though she was Joe Klein? This is absolute pundit lust, where Clinton is discussing herself on terrorism not in terms of her approach to terrorism, but rather in how her position on terrorism will help Democrats win elections. An entire generation of neoliberals pundits have made a living concern trolling for Democrats this, and Peter Beinart is now threatening to make it two generations. However, Democratic politicians themselves should not talk like this, because it only undermines our national image as a party that takes winning elections as more important than standing up for what we believe in. In this specific case, it is even worse, because it simply isn't true, as Democrats have drawn even with Republicans on terrorism.
Even if it wasn't true, Democratic candidates should not talk like this. When asked a horserace question, Dems should just say things like "I'm taking nothing for granted" if they are ahead, "we are still in the game" if they are behind, or "I have a lot of work to do" if it is close. When asked their position on any given issue, Dems should just state their position, and not frame it as a good position because it will help win elections, appeal to swing voters, unify the party, appeal to new voters, or whatever. We have to stop the meta talk about our party, and stop the horserae talk, too. Simply put, it makes us look spineless and hollow inside-even condescending. Our candidates should not talk about why what they stand for will appeal to voters. Instead, they need to appeal to voters by talking about what they stand for. This might results in being invited on fewer Sunday talk shows, but in the end it will be much better for the party as a whole.
I'm hearing more and more frequently a sense of rage with the Democratic leadership in Congress. From failing to stop the war to expanding Bush's wiretapping authority, the swing vote of conservative Democrats in the House are forming an effective conservative majority that is enabling Bush to govern as he wishes. The polls show that this is a very bad political move for Democrats. Congress has an 18% approval rating, from Democrats, and 60% of all voters strongly disapprove of Bush's new wiretapping authority. Democrats haven't stopped the war, haven't stopped torture, haven't curbed corporate abuses, and haven't really done anything except raise the minimum wage as part of a package to send $100B of taxpayer into the sands of Iraq.
By and large, the conservative Democratic elites really don't care, and they think they are going to win in 2008 without having to lead on anything the public or the activists in the party thinks is important. For instance, DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen complained about progressives upset with Chris Carney, even though Carney lied to get campaign contributions in 2006 and just endorsed a Republican for President. This is part of a pattern. DCCC recruitment chair Artur Davis complained earlier after the blank check bill passed that Moveon was criticizing Democrats, saying, "I would urge MoveOn and others to recognize that the person who is extending this war is George Bush."
There's no doubt that Bush is a very bad man and a very bad President, but this excuse to not lead will no longer fly. I think we're all tired of conservative Democratic politicians thinking that their goal in life is to get better parking spots than they did last cycle.
I'm hearing more and more frequently a sense of rage with the Democratic leadership in Congress. From failing to stop the war to expanding Bush's wiretapping authority, the swing vote of conservative Democrats in the House are forming an effective conservative majority that is enabling Bush to govern as he wishes. The polls show that this is a very bad political move for Democrats. Congress has an 18% approval rating, from Democrats, and 60% of all voters strongly disapprove of Bush's new wiretapping authority. Democrats haven't stopped the war, haven't stopped torture, haven't curbed corporate abuses, and haven't really done anything except raise the minimum wage as part of a package to send $100B of taxpayer into the sands of Iraq.
By and large, the conservative Democratic elites really don't care, and they think they are going to win in 2008 without having to lead on anything the public or the activists in the party thinks is important. For instance, DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen complained about progressives upset with Chris Carney, even though Carney lied to get campaign contributions in 2006 and just endorsed a Republican for President. This is part of a pattern. DCCC recruitment chair Artur Davis complained earlier after the blank check bill passed that Moveon was criticizing Democrats, saying, "I would urge MoveOn and others to recognize that the person who is extending this war is George Bush."
There's no doubt that Bush is a very bad man and a very bad President, but this excuse to not lead will no longer fly. I think we're all tired of conservative Democratic politicians thinking that their goal in life is to get better parking spots than they did last cycle.
On August 10, I wrote about a long-standing theory of mine, that the Democrats' culture of caution has been the single biggest reason for Democratic failures, both electorally and policy-wise, over the last 20 years. I think the Bush Dogs campaign we've begun here at OpenLeft.com is a great example of one way to begin to break down that culture. Today, I want to examine the two big long-term structural barriers that keep the culture of caution alive and well, and to lay out some ideas as to how the three pillars of progressive politics can work together more effectively to overcome these barriers.
For each DVD you purchase, Brave New Films will donate $5 to OpenLeft.com to support our various projects. Please click on the buttons above to make a purchase.
SEIU will donate $1 to OpenLeft for each individual who signs up for their campaign to pass health care for all Americans. Sign up here.
