Why Is It Wrong For Moderate Democrats To Reflect Their Constituencies?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I see folks like Evan Bayh and Harold Ford get trashed on this board for holding moderate views that come closest to that of their constitutents... It seems if their views were out of line with their constituents they wouldn't get elected... That's why Charlie Rangel could never win in Tom DeLay's district and Tom DeLay could never win in Charlie Rangel's district...


If I was to run for public office I would never become anti-choice or anti gay rights but I would be willing to look at civil unions and parental notification though as a voter I voted against the parental notification amendment which was on the Florida ballot this November and I favor gay marriage...


Isn't our goal to nominate the most progressive and electable candidate possible rather than nominate the most progressive candidate regardless of his or her electability.....

[Kagemusha]

1. Well if your goal is to kiss SS goodbye then go ahead, do that.

Keep letting your electable and progressive candidates get beaten by fanatics so that by the time your process actually works, social security will be a heap of trash in the landfill of history, and your moderate, fiscally responsible candidates could never justify spending the kind of money required to re-implement it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I Like Social Security As It Is With Some Minor Reforms...

I am not against investing in stocks and bonds but that is not the purpose of social security....

[Kagemusha]

4. How about I put this another way.

Solomon proposed cutting the baby in two.

How about we agree, as moderates, to only half-destroy Social Security? No one's gonna miss half of it, right? After all, the other half will be around.

Try that.

[PAdem2]

3. I think

that the MoveOn/Michael Moore/Soros part of the party had it's shot at this last election and blew it. (I'm so p*ssed off at them.) I think that there is currently some hell to pay behind closed doors, and the extreme element is going to be completely cut out of a leadership position. I think the folks that proudly call THEMSELVES socialists are going to scream like hell when they are shown the door. And I think that the old school democratic party is going to reassert itself; we're not the worlds oldest political party for nothing.

Or not, and we'll keep on losing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I Don't Want To Slam Any Interest Group....

but the challenge is to get elected while maintaining your priciples...


If you don't get elected you can't do squat.....

[Debs]

49. You moderate Dems

Have been blaming us liberals long enough. Bullshit. What sop did Kerry give me? HUH? He was trying to outwar Bush, did he bring up singel payer health insurance? What consessions did his campaign make to my politics? Because I missed them. Kerry was afraid to call Bush a liar when he most certainly and demonstably is. Its the moderates that keep taking us to the right and wondering why people vote for real republicans instead of lite republicans, why people say we have no backbone or principles. Kerry didnt go out of his way to campaign on my politics but I supported him all the way. I totally committed to an anyone but Bush ticket. Stop the internicene warfare, the dems eat their young and form circular firing squads far too often. The left didnt lose this election because we are too far left. Stop drinking GOP kool-aid and then trying to convince us that your Fox filtered view of the world is the way it really is

[JaneDoughnut]

54. Got news for you

It wasn't progressives that lost this election. It was the failure of the Kerry campaign to clearly demonstrate a better alternative. True progressives are winning on local and state levels, while the "Republican Lite" branch of the Dem party is getting creamed.

And anyway, we lost this election by a very slim margin in historical terms. We came very close to defeating a war-time incumbent president, while in the past, Republican incumbents during war time were winning with double-digit margins.

But to answer the original question, no, there's nothing wrong with doing your best to represent the interests of your constituency, as long as you don't compromise your own values to do it. Don't be a "moderate" just because it seems more politically correct.

[bread_and_roses]

73. What "extreme" element?

That would be people who stand up for the Bill of Rights? Or who think that our tax structure should not take from the poor to give to the rich? Or who think that the US should follow the Geneva Conventions (to which it is a signatory)?

As it was, "our" candidate wasn't even too strong on the above...so exactly what "extreme elements" are referred to here?

[InvisibleBallots]

6. If they actually represent their constituencies, fine - BUT

If they are instead deceiving the constituents, say, lying about what Social Security privatization is, then it's not okay.

I just don't see grassroots, "moderate" Democrats calling for dismantling Social Security.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I'm Against Privatization...

I would assume Evan Bayh and Harold Ford and most moderate Dems are too...


I'm more interested in why some folks here think it's a bad thing for moderate Dems to take moderate positions to win races...

[InvisibleBallots]

8. in that case, I don't have a problem

If they are honestly representing their constituents, even if they are moderate or conservative it's fine with me. I like democracy.

[Kagemusha]

10. Read above for my Solomon example to know why.

People see stuff like that happening all the time.

That story about Thai meterologists not giving out a tsunami warning to defer to the Thai tourist industry ('what if we were wrong?...') was also a moderate, consensus-based decision. Sometimes moderate doesn't mean better when things are black and white fundamental principles. For Democrats, the New Deal is a fundamental principle.

People who want to reject the New Deal can find or make another party to advance that goal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. I Wouldn't Vote For A Candidate Who Rejected The New Deal

but I would vote for a candidate that was for civil unions and parental notification especially if his Republican opponent was anti-choice and homophobic...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. If You Ignore A Threat For Selfish Reasons You're A Very Bad Person

Not A Moderate, Liberal, or Conservative....

[Debs]

50. You dont only fight the fights

You can win, you fight the fights that need fighting.

[ulysses]

9. it's not

but if they want leadership positions then they can damned well show me some leadership instead of following the polls whither they blow.

[Crowdance]

11. People aren't trading cards, no matter the constituency

I wouldn't vote for you or any other candidate willing to trade my fellow citizens' human rights in order to be elected. Moderate views can still be held without selling out. I guess if you're not a woman, gay or lesbian, it's easy to trade 'em. I expect those that I support to show some courage, and stand on principle. Personally, I'd prefer to retire to a dave forever than sell my friends down the river.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. That's The Trick Which I Identified...

To maintain your principles while maintaining the ability to get elected...

[Crowdance]

18. Parenthal notification is a bad idea,

it threatens the lives and well being of young women. These women, I reiterate, are NOT trading cards. Similarly, unless your platform would include renaming the legal act of joing ANY two people together a "civil union," leaving the marriage appellation to a religious ceremony--you're trading people's civil rights for your own gain.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Then We Better Boot All Forty Five Democratic Senators

including Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer because they both oppose gay marriage ....

I voted against the Parental Notifical Amendment to the Florida Constitution that appeared on the ballot... It passed with nearly 2/3 of the vote... If I was running for office against an anti-choice Republican I would regretfully favor parental notification if I could preserve what I could of choice....

[Crowdance]

56. Ya' know, you're right

As another Democrat since birth, I am dismayed to find that yet another DU thread leads me to the conclusion that my party has deserted me. I'll leave it to the highly principled to carry you all on home to the repubs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. I Am 100% In Favor Of Gay Marriage...

I want to find a way of getting there and not going on a quixotic mission that ends in defeat...


Even the civil rights acts took a long time to coalesce....

[Lenape85]

12. I've said it before and I will say it again

It's ok for a democrat to be socially moderate if the district tends to be more conservative, but lets look at these two examples here:

Evan Bayh:

Rated 43% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record

Harold Ford:

Rated 48% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record

____________________________________________________________

Do you honestly think that the good people of Indiana and Memphis, TN support pro-big business policies like this, you know, the types that benefit only the extremely wealthy and not rural regions and inner cities

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. That's Right Down The Middle...

And Indiana and Tennesse to a slightly lesser extent are conservative enough to send many Republicans to Congress...

Harold Ford is moving to the right or middle depending on your definition not to satisfy his largely urban Memphis district but to position himself for a senate race...

The sad thing is I don't think an African American Democrat can move far enough to the middle to win statewide office in Tennessee..

I hope I am wrong....

And Indiana has some doozies.. That Boyer (sp) guy and Dan Burton...

[Selatius]

15. There is nothing wrong with being a moderate

I don't accept the premise of the thread. Regardless of one's political views, it largely depends on whether or not the voters can connect with the candidate on issues. It's the message you bring and the promises you make. At least, that's what I like to think. Too often though, image and personality gets thrown in there as well, but I digress.

If I don't qualify as a socialist, then I'd be an extremely left-leaning liberal. Who else leans pretty damn far left? Well, Dennis Kucinich is one, yet he gets elected over and over again. I mean, this is a guy who advocates single-payer universal health care and withdrawing from the WTO and NAFTA and isn't afraid to tell you so. This guy is European style progressive. Why does he get elected? Well, it's his message. He appeals to people as far as everyday issues are concerned (jobs, health care, education, the economy). His message connects with voters in his district. You think most folks in his district are as left-leaning as he is? Hell no, but that doesn't stop him from connecting with voters on the issues.

I don't think anyone should have to radically change their political views in order to run for office. Your views and opinions are your own, no one else's. What you promise to deliver and what message you give to your constituency is theirs, and that is where you connect.

If folks like Evan Bayh and Harold Ford have trouble voting for the interests of poor and middle class Americans whenever they collide with corporate interests, that's their problem. Are they taking corporate cash? Or have they promised something to voters that they themselves are not willing to deliver?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Live In Dan Mica's Central Florida District...

He ran unopposed... He wasn't even on the ballot I believe.... Florida law allows uncontested congressional races to not be on the ballot...

I'm pro choice, pro gay marriage, and pro universal health care...

I could be the most sincere, attractive candidate and I'd get 20% of the vote max if I didn't "trim" my positions...

I think my original point is a strong one... Dennis Kucinich could never win in Sugarland, Texas and Tom DeLay could never win in Cleveland, Ohio....

[Rowdyboy]

19. Your original point is a very strong one....

Thats why so many people ignore it in theie responses (not ALL, but many). It conflicts with the demand for perfect ideological purity, which is is both unattractive and unrealistic.

[ulysses]

22. more "ideological purity" crap.

Yes, I have the brass ones to want my party to actually stand for something, preferably something progressive.

Harold Ford needs to support privatizing social security to keep his job? Ok. Just don't expect *me* to bow to *his* constituency by supporting him for a leadership position.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I Agree With You Some What...

I wouldn't be anti-choice or anti-gay to get elected and I wouldn't do anything to undermine the safety net but I would try to come up with a program that could get me elected...

[ulysses]

30. splitting hairs only gets you so far

before you have to make a choice - pick which constituency to dump or stand the hell up and try to change a mind or two.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I Agree To A Point...

Let's take gay marriage...


I support gay marriage but I couldn't be elected dog cather in my area if I supported gay marriage...


I might be able to get elected if I supported civil unions and hate crime legislation...


It beats the pants off having a Republican who opposes all gay rights and hate crimes legislation...

[Rowdyboy]

52. What do you mean, "bow" to "his" constituents by supporting

him for a leadership position. Harold Ford isn't running for a leadership position-he's running for re-election to the House. He'll probably run for the senate in 2006. If you live in Tennessee, you have the right to vote for whomever you choose in the primary. Otherwise, why should it matter to you, unless you plan to donate to one of the candidates? Anyone potentially electable in Tennessee would be WAY too far to the right to gain your support, most likely (or do you disagree?). I just can't see any justification in attacking people like Ford-why waste your time fighting your own party? Anyone replacing Ford in Tennessee would likely be no better, so its difficult understand the vehemence against Ford. There are SO many better, more evil and worthy targets.

[ulysses]

53. you'll recall that he put himself in the running

for House Minority Leader before Pelosi got that call.

I have no particular problem with Ford as a congressman. I do hope he draws a challenge in the primary if he runs for the Senate, though.

[Rowdyboy]

57. So we're in total agreement, pretty much?

1. Had I had a vote in the House, I would have voted for Pelosi over Ford without question. I could not believe he would be so arrogant as to run for the leadership so early in his career (though it worked for Lyndon Johnson!).

2. I disagree with Ford on some issues, but have no particular problem with him as a congressman from Tennessee.

3. Certainly, I hope Ford gets a challenge in the 2006 senate primary, BUT it really doesn't matter much. If Ford wins, enough conservative white Democrats will desert to elect he Republican. If Ford loses to a white candidate, the backlash from the black community will doom the nominee.

[JaneDoughnut]

55. Standing for something

I have heard a lot of Bush supporters say they voted for him because they knew where he stood - even if his stand is frightening and dangerous. They didn't agree with him on ALOT of issues, but they percieved him as a man of integrity because he was passionate and uncompromising.

I believe the best progressive candidates will also need to be passionate and uncompromising.

[Selatius]

24. I think it still depends on the message, not the messenger

I live in Mississippi, and look at Rep. Bennie Thompson. He's pro-choice, voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002, and believes in making health care a right instead of a privilege, and he won against Clinton B. LeSeur, who was overtly pro-life and ran an overtly Christian campaign.

Compared to other folks in Mississippi, he's a solid liberal. I would say it is more difficult but not impossible to win. I will concede that much. More difficult but not "never." I believe the point is that it is still the message you give to your constituents and what you promise them.

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Bennie_Thompson.htm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. He Represents A Majority African American/Democratic District

I could win in that district if I had a (D) after my name....

[autorank]

20. Why is it wrong for Ford to lie to the public when he knows better.

I don't know Bayh's position on social security. I liked his general positions when I reviewed them a month ago. He is actually leading his constituency. Ford, on the other hand, is a weasel. That simple. He should shout from the rooftops that his people are getting screwed by * and that social security needs to be taken care of. Shame on him.

Giving politicians the excuse of reflecting their constituencies when they deliberately misrepresent the truth and hurt their constituents is the worst form of enabling I can imagine.

These people should read Profiles in Courage!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I Love John F Kennedy

but the same man who wrote Profiles In Courage also abstained on the vote to censure Joe McCarthy and dragged his feet on civil rights out of political expediency... At least Martin Luther King believed so......


That doesn't make JFK a bad man... It just shows that a leader has to be concerned about electability and popularity....

[autorank]

59. Good points but social security is not exactly controversial.

Nor is voting rights. These are broadly accepted by Democrats, Independents and most Republicans. I think anyone that doesn't stand up for these, given their wide popularity, is very suspect. I suspect that the people who want to trash social security and who support Republican electoral fraud will hardly give Ford a look.

The Kennedy's had a thing with anti-communism. Bobby actually worked for mean Joe (as I'm sure you know) and that was highly controversial as was civil rights at that time (although my man Harry Truman didn't shy away from that; told Strom not to let the door hit him on the way out).

Seriously, anyone that tries to screw social security deserves to be in Atrios' Wall of Shame.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. I Am Against Privatizing Social Security

and would vote against a candidate that favored privatization...


I am pro markets and pro safety net...



In JFK's defense, Tailgunner Joe was dating one of his sisters and was a family friend....

[SharonAnn]

21. Harold Ford is appealing to others, not his constituents. He

represents an urban area with a large African American population and all that it encompasses.

He is trying to appeal to the white, conservative, Tennessee voter.

I do not believe he represents his current constituents, he represents his now and future interests.

And he may finds that not enough Tennesseans just are ready to vote for an African American for senator.

[autorank]

23. What an inspiration.

It's all about getting elected, style over substance. This means that the goal of these types of politicians is ego gratification, the amber of narcissus. Politicians with a heart-felt goal can also be frightening -- look at *! He actually believes this crap. No point in waiting for a savior or hero, it's all grassroots now, the long march.

[DaveinMD]

38. a point that Lakoff makes

is that the conservatives have worked for 40 years to get to the point they are today. We need to take what they did and apply to our cause.

[Radical Activist]

44. Harold Ford does not represent his constituency

You are absolutely correct. The people in his district are much more liberal than he is. He sold out long ago in the hopes of becoming a Senator.

There are many other like him representing solidly Democratic districts that are blue dog conservative Democrats. They should get out of the way and make room for someone who will do something valuable. No on can tell me we can't get a liberal elected to Lieberman's Senate seat in Connecticut.

[tx_dem41]

68. If he does not represent his constituency, then why does he keep

getting re-elected?

[tx_dem41]

67. Yet that "urban area" keeps electing him.....

I wonder why? :eyes:

[SharonAnn]

72. He's an incumbent. There's no real primary competition. He's

from the "Ford" political machine in Memphis.

[tx_dem41]

74. So you don't have a lot of respect for those urban voters..

in Memphis?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. "..willing to look at..."? What does that mean?

If it means that you would, as a nominee, be willing to sell out your principles for "electability" on such issues as Women's Rights and Gay rights, what would differentiate you from your opponent?

A certain senator sold out his principles by voting for a war that is illegal and immoral. It supposedly made him "electable".

I prefer politicians that have principles..even tho' it may render them "unelectable".

[ulysses]

29. it did too work for Max Cleland, so stop saying...oh wait...

;-)

[Geek_Girl]

31. If Ford wins the Senate Seat in '06 I'll be his constituent

and I have to say Ford does not reflect my values or hold my views. But then again I'm not your average Chattanoogan.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Two Points...

No matter how far Harold Ford moves to the right Tennessee ain't sending a black man to to the Senate...


And I'd rather have Harold Ford as my senator than Bill Frist, Lamar Alexander, Bill Brock, or Fred Thompson any day....


I think the last Dem to hold a Senate seat in TN was Al Gore or Jim Sasser..

[greenohio]

32. Moderates are hated here.

They bash anything that even remotely resembles caving. Then they turn around and call themselves moderate.

[ulysses]

33. poor thing.

Have you been persecuted?

[greenohio]

40. No. I'm not moderate. I just think

we should lay off the rest of them. Apparently you have no sympathy for them.

[ulysses]

42. of course not.

I'm from the evil leftist fringe. Take me to your leader.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. I'm not a "moderate" so can I bash them?

Not that I'm asking for permission.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. It's Like Bashing The Propensity To Get Hungry...

It's just a natural reaction to a stimulus....

[greenohio]

41. Bash away. It wouldn't feel like DU without it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. I'm Pro Choice, Pro Gay Marriage And Pro Strong Safety Net

but I lack the vanity to believe a candidate with my positions would stand a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected president...


A poster upstream said supporting civil unions is a sellout of gay rights...

By that measure all forty five senators including Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer fail...


Gay marriage was subject to the most democratic of processes... It was on the ballot in eleven states... It lost everywhere from progressive Oregon to reactionary Oklahoma...

I would suspect voting for candidates who oppose gay marriage but support civil unions is a lot more appealing to most gay folks than senators who would appoint judges who would overturn Lawrence v Texas...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. Correction, Oregon is not "progressive"

Portland, Eugene, Corvallis, and Ashland, the big city and the university towns, are progressive. The rest of the state is Libertarian-leaning Republican.

Most of Oregon's "progressive" reputation is based on things that old-fashioned liberal Republicans enacted thirty and forty years ago.

The macho-macho men in the rural areas defeated gay marriage.

That's how I see it after having lived in Oregon for 19 years (until 2003).

But Oregon is also the home base of Peter DeFazio, a Boston Italian and extremely liberal Democrat, who keeps getting re-elected and stays popular across a wide swath of the population in a district that includes the university city of Eugene and some otherwise Republican timber and fishing towns.

[Radical Activist]

46. Nothing will change if people don't lead

Most Congressional districts are drawn to benefit one party and once someone in office has the power of incumbency they are difficult to defeat. Most Democrats could be more liberal if they chose to do so without serious danger of being voted out.

The problem is that people will never change and our society will never make progress if no one shows leadership. Liberal Democrats like Paul Simon and Dick Durbin struggled in rural downstate Illinois districts for years. They stuck to their principles and learned how to appeal to moderate voters on controversial issues. The result is that downstate Illinois is voting more Democratic than it ever has in the past and Illinois has moved to become solid Democratic state.

The attitudes of the electorate are shifted by people who show conviction and make a principled argument for their point of view. If we elect a group of cowardly Democrats who only reflect their district then things will only stay the same or get worse as Republicans push everyone to the right. Do you want change or more of the same?

[Geek_Girl]

47. I agree Democrats need to stand up for Principles

Otherwise they are just seen as wishy washy and this is especially true in the red states, were people vote based on gut feeling rather than logic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. I Want As Much Change As Is Realistically Possible...

I am not saying a leader can't use his political capital to move a progressive agenda only that there are limits as to how much change the electorate will embrace...

[Radical Activist]

51. I'm more forgiving in cases

where someone really does represent a conservative area. I still think they should be trying to move people to the left.
My bigger issue is the many moderate or conservative Democrats representing safely Democratic areas. Harold Ford and Joseph Lieberman are good examples. They represent areas that could be electing socialists running as Democrats.

[itzamirakul]

60. We got burned well enough this

past election with the so-called "most electable" candidate.

If we are going to lose anyway, then why not lose with the most progressive candidate?

[Silverhair]

70. Kerry wasn't the most electable.

Clark didn't have Kerry's war protester baggage. Clark was far more credible on military matters than an ex-junior officer. Clark has a lot more international experience than Kerry.

Kerry was the most moderate candidate that the far left would accept. Clark had a military career and that made him unacceptable to the ultra-left. Kerry had military service, but had atoned for it by leading antiwar protesters so the ultra-left could accept Kerry. Kerry was too far left for the rest of America.

As I posted very early in the year, this election would be decided on national security issues, and the Republicans have always had the edge there. Democrats are viewed as weak on protecting the nation. So at a time of national fear, we put up a war protester, and then wonder why we lost.

[bettys boy]

75. Bingo

Tragedy, really. Clark's policy agenda in toto was to the left of Dean.

You can sell liberal values in Oklahoma if you're a retired General, if you've lived a life devoted to a masculine form of service.

[Raiden]

61. I can handle moderate Democrats

What I can't tolerate is anti-choice, anti-equal rights, anti-New Deal right-wingers posing as Democrats. As far as I'm concerned, Evan Bayh has just as much right in the Democratic Party as Dennis Kucinich, but people like Zell Miller do not...

[greenohio]

64. Well said.

Zell is a traitor.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. Even Gene Taylor Is Better Than Zell...

If you can past his antebellum voting record on social issues.....

[Silverhair]

69. I used to live in Gene's district, and I met him once.

Of course, I also met Trent Lott once too. Gene's first election was a fluke. The district is CONSERVATIVE!!!!!!! (Mississippi Gulf Coast) Gene had run for congress against a popular Republican sheriff, and lost. Then, before the first session, the new congressman died in a private plane crash. A special election was held. Lott pushed for an unknown buddy of his to be the Republican candidate, while the Democrats ran Gene again. Gene won, mostly on name recognition. The election was a hurried thing, without much campaigning. Local Republican were pretty angry with Lott over that as they wanted to run the sheriff's wife, who was known locally and would have got the sympathy vote.

Gene is well aware of the nature of his district, and knows that if he goes social liberal, then he will be gone at the next election.

You are NOT, absolutely NOT, going to get a flaming social liberal out of Mississippi's 5th district. Your choices are Gene, are a real red-meat Republican.

[moderate_hero]

66. Principles matter

That is why I voted for Nader.

[greenohio]

71. Good post.