THE PLANK JULY 29, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Ed Kilgore is managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, and a frequent contributor to a variety of political journals.
While Jonathan Chait is definitely right that much of the difficulty with House Blue Dog Democrats on health reform (like climate change) has had to do with the legislative timing, there is still a residual question about their generally reluctant position towards much of the Obama agenda. And the oversimplistic answer to this oversimplistic question has often been that Blue Dogs tend to represent marginal districts they could lose by toeing the party line.
So now comes the ever-insightful Mike Tomasky with an analysis of how vulnerable those Blue Dogs really are. He keeps this analysis clean by limiting himself to those Members from districts carried last year by John McCain--i.e., those where fears of a voter backlash are most reasonable. And his conclusion is that the vast majority of Blue Dogs seem to have little to worry about based on their 2008 performance.
His conclusion:
Yes, some Democrats have to be very careful and not be seen as casting a liberal vote. But they're a comparatively small number. A very clear majority of these people have won by large enough margins that it sure seems to me they could survive one controversial vote if they [put] some backbone into it.
But many of these folks manage to sell this story line to Washington reporters who've never been to these exurban and rural districts and can be made to believe the worst caricatures. I say many of these Democrats are safer than they contend. People need to start challenging them on this.
Mike's post is very valuable in dealing with broad-brush stereotypes of the Blue Dogs and of Democratic "centrists" generally. He doesn't, of course, deal with alternative explanations, including the diametrically opposed possibilities that they believe what they say they believe on policy issues as a matter of principle, or that they are deeply beholden to interests (whether home-grown or national) who oppose Obama's agenda.
But let's stick with electoral calculations. Mike plausibly assumes that any Democrat in a "red" district whose 2008 margin of victory exceeded McCain's might be in a pretty strong position to take a bullet for the donkey team. Here, however, are three provisos to this argument:
- "Risking serious GOP competition" is not as compelling a motive as "risking defeat," but anyone familiar with how Members of Congress think would understand that the former is treated as a personal disaster by anyone ill-accustomed to heavy fundraising and campaigning. This is hardly a Blue Dog exclusive: Some may remember the disputes over racial gerrymandering during the early 1990s, in which some members of the Congressional Black Caucus stoutly defended the "packing" of their districts with African-Americans, at the arguable expense of overall Democratic prospects, on grounds that they deserved a safe, not just a winnable, seat. (To their credit, many CBC members volunteered for less safe seats during the next round of redistricting). And in all fairness, it should be remembered that many of the "loyal" Democrats who fulminate about Blue Dog treachery haven't had a competitive race since their first elections. Avoiding actual accountability to voters is hardly an honorable motive, but it's real.
- It's generally assumed by many analysts that 2010 is likely to be a pro-Republican year, particularly in districts carried by McCain in 2008. So 2008 performance levels aren't necessarily dispositive of 2010 prospects. But equally important, more than a few Blue Dogs are from states where Republicans are likely to control redistricting after 2010. Invincible Members tend to be treated kindly in opposition-party redistricting; potentially vulnerable Members could wind up with much more difficult districts than they represent today. This may seem to be a remote worry, but again, it's real.
- Most Blue Dogs, whatever you think of their principles, loyalty, or ethics, are not stupid people. They understand that association with "liberal" Obama initiatives may be a problem, but that the value of the "D" next to their name on the ballot also depends on Obama's success as a president. So like any politician, they undertake a personal cost-benefit of their positions on legislation and the overall effect on Obama, the party, and political dynamics generally. This, as much as concerns over "timing," helps create the Kabuki Theater atmospherics of Blue Dog rhetoric. Most Blue Dogs want Barack Obama to succeed, but many would prefer that he do so without their own votes.
This last factor helps explain why, in addition to the important timing concessions, the Blue Dogs have reached an agreement with Henry Waxman that will allow health care reform to emerge from the House, but probably with only enough Blue Dog votes to avoid disaster. It remains to be seen how many of the conceded and ultimately insignificant "no" votes from Democrats can be sorted into the principled, the suborned, or the politically endangered. In any event, the Blue Dog bark may be worse than its bite.
--Ed Kilgore
10 comments
I wonder how many Blue Dogs are from severely economically disadvantaged districts. I live in a not so disadvantaged Pennsylvania district that elected a Blue Dog Democrat in 2006 because moderate Republicans could not stand any more of George Bush and Democrats who often did not vote were also highly motivated by their hatred of Bush. That can all vanish in a minute. Republicans vote here: Democrats, not so much. Tick off the Republicans, and Nancy Pelosi has one less vote for her next term as Speaker.
The "Progressive" Democrats have to lighten up to get this passed in the first instance. Get something in place and the chances are that like most government benefit programs that affect large numbers of citizens of all incomes, it will grow and get better. Too much of what I hear on the left side of the party ignores the fact they had nothing until Rahm Emmanuel got many of the Blue Dogs elected in 2006. They should remember too that Democrats need to hold onto and win more state houses in 2010 to reverse the gerrymandering that so hurt them ten years ago.
- Shane Fergessen
July 29, 2009 at 6:44pm
"He doesn't, of course, deal with alternative explanations, including the diametrically opposed possibilities that they believe what they say they believe on policy issues as a matter of principle, or that they are deeply beholden to interests (whether home-grown or national) who oppose Obama's agenda. "
I'm not sure those are diametrically opposed. Most politicians prefer (and seek out) cash from groups and people who share similar dispositions, and feel more keenly their indebtedness to them. A pro-lifer who for some odd reason got a chunk of change from NARAL wouldn't care about delivering any quid pro quo.
- Simon Greenwood
July 29, 2009 at 7:25pm
Agree with Stuart Wild above, but one or two qualifications ought to be mentioned: my half-educated guess is that there is a record of highly centrist, right-leaning Dems in House seats not garnering enough support over a term or two to fend off revitalized GOP campaigns that, under the surface, charge that the Dem hasn't been "moderate" enough. No matter what he or she has done, in fact. Part of the job of politics is to also work on your constituents so that they get to see the value of what you've been saying all along. It's true of course that people have to fit with the culture of the districts they represent, but in most cases apologizing for being a Democrat isn't the best way to go, and there's no point in conceding right-wing talking points in an era when most Americans don't think they are worth a lot.
- ironyroad
July 29, 2009 at 8:03pm
Blue Dog Democrats are obviously Blue Dogs because Blue Dogs is a really cool name.
So, why don't they just split from the Democratic Party and form the Blue Dog Party instead.
After all, what exactly is the point being a Democrat when your commitment is only nominal.
Here is how the Blue Dogs describe themselves on their website:
"Blue Dogs represent the values of Middle America. Blue Dogs are conservative Democrats that do not support abortion, gay marriages or gun control. There are other issues. Primarily, securing the border to stop the flow of drugs into the United States and the hemorrhage of manufacturing jobs leaving the United States for other countries."
george:
In other words, they are the party of Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs. So, again, what exactly is the point of even calling themselves Democrats? On the Website, you read all these obituaries for the Republicans. But they don't really explain why on most issues they ARE Republicans.
More from the Dogs:
"Immigration reform was killed in Washington. This represented a victory for grassroots Republican conservatives who, spurred by right-wing radio talk show hosts, overwhelmed Congress with phone calls and e-mails assailing the legislation. The right wing radio talk show hosts must be countered with an effective strategy to minimize their strength."
george:
Here they take on the right wingnuts by [to their credit] accusing them of racism. But is there an ulterior motive behind this stand? How, for example, is their view on immigration reform linked to corporations in their states who want this reform to revolve around having access to cheap labor?
The bottom line [one of them anyway]: Behind virtually all issues related to the economy at home and foreign policy aboard there are three fundamental, crucial factors embedded in Congressional votes: 1] money 2] money and 3] money. And the difference between Democrats and Republicans here is but a matter of degree not kind.
So, I think Ed should put things like "loyalty to principles" on the back burner from time to time and analyze the stuff on the front burners instead.
But there is one thing we can be reasonably certain about in Kilgore posts: This part of the narrative hardly ever shows up at all. Instead, he wallows in the sexier political intrigue that is the staple diet of the inside the beltway WHCD pundits.
george walton
- iambiguous
July 29, 2009 at 8:10pm
stuart for most issues I would agree with you, but at some point being a Democrat must mean something besides a D next to their name. How you vote on card check, or on a free trade agreement with Columbia, or even on most social issues do what you want, but good lord, this is an issue Democrats have been fighting for for over 50 years. To be honest, if you can not be a Democrat on this issue than I could frankly not give a damn if your district is Dem. or Republican. In fact, to some degree I would prefer it were Republicans because then I would know where they stand (and Republicans are far, far more disciplined). What the Democrats need is a Democratic version of Tom Delay, (without the corruption). Do you imagine for one second Republicans in the house would have tried such nonsense? They would have been relegated to being lowest ranking members on subcommittees investigating beach erosion in Iowa.
- blackton
July 29, 2009 at 10:02pm
He doesn't of course deal with alternative explanations...........
Does anybody take account of "alternative explanations anymore"? Many of my fellow Republicans stopped dealing with alternative explanations years ago; as a result we have become a minority party. Now it's the Democrats' turn. Maybe they are happier being a minority party too. Maybe we can have two minority parties, who spend their energy beating each others' brains out and accomplishing nothing. Maybe that's really what people want. Stalemate.
With all due respect to H. L. Mencken, I think the American people do get it. They want health care reform in the abstract, but not if they think it's going to change their family's health care. The more they see of Pelosi and Waxman the less happy they are about entrusting their economic future to them. The more they see of Obama--and Lord knows, they see an awful lot of him-- the more they wonder who's running the show. They thought they were electing a president, not a prime minister or some kind of primus inter pares.
Democrats, don't blame the Republicans; it's all in your hands now and everybody knows it. Cherish your blue dogs; the Republicans wish they still held those seats. They are the "alternative explanation" to holding power or losing it.
- lsernoff
July 29, 2009 at 11:08pm
lsernoff, hold power to what end? Republicans are far more happy with nothing getting done since they believe Government (in the abstract) is bad. I love how Republicans scream how the health care bill is 1000 pages long and nobody read it, but nevertheless this document that nobody read is bad. If this bill fails it will be because Democrats lack discipline and nothing to do with how "Americans get it"
As I wrote above, there is no way this would have happened under Republicans. Anyone who did not get with their program were labelled traitors to America. Think of all the legislative successes Republicans had operating under instances when there were far more Democrats. Bush passed his tax cuts with the Senate at 50 50 minus a face saving reduction in the enormity of it. Dems. can't even get this done with 60. I will say one thing about Repubs. at least they have balls.
- blackton
July 30, 2009 at 10:13am
Americans loved the Republican majority leader and the key committee chairs? Come on, lsernoff. At the moment, the Democrats as a body are coming off in polls a lot better than the GOP, and the figures aren't knife-edge either. That could turn around fast, certainly, but it shows little sign of it now. It's not a sign of political maturity to be going around apologizing for the party that you're a member of, and whose electoral success you participated in, and asking your constituents to re-elect you despite the letter by your name. Ask Christopher Shays!
What are the Blue Dogs going to use for their pitch in 2010/12? "Health Care Reform finally got a job done that's been bottled up for decades. We made a major historical decision for the benefit of all Americans. I'm so sorry. I tried to stop it. Oh, and please vote for me."
- ironyroad
July 30, 2009 at 10:35am
The disapproval rate for the Congress is 62%. Dems can't be doing THAT much better.
Blackie, it just ain't so that Reps want the federal gov't to do nothing. We want it to keep those defense dollars coming, among other things. I agree that we don't want it to own car and insurance companies, things at which it is manifestly incompetent. As it is at most things, except writing checks.
- butchie b
July 30, 2009 at 4:42pm
True enough. But that said, it appears to be the case that car companies, insurance companies, and a bunch of other companies have also shown signs (just now and again) of manifest incompetence. The problem is that their problems very quickly become our problems too. And government is -- now and again -- the best place for emergency solutions when the market gives out.
- ironyroad
July 30, 2009 at 5:25pm