Blue Dogs and 'Ideological Myopia'....

[ProSense]

BLUE DOGS AND 'IDEOLOGICAL MYOPIA'....

It was tough to keep track of all of the center-right Blue Dog Democrats who lost re-election this week. By one count the other day, the 54-member caucus was cut in half.

As a few months ago, Blue Dogs expected to be the key power brokers in a closely divided House in 2011 and 2012. Instead, they've been decimated and left largely irrelevant.

Joe Klein noted the other day that the conservative Dems contributed to their own defeats through "counter-productive" "ideological myopia."

Normally, I don't have much patience for the whining on the left about the Blue Dog democrats.... When they lose, the Democrats lose control of the Congress. This year, however, I do feel that there is an argument that, to an extent, the Dogs brought this on themselves by being penny-wise, dogpound-foolish.

The argument goes like this: a larger stimulus package might have helped the economy recover at a faster clip, but the Dogs opposed it on fiscal responsibility grounds. A second argument: the public really has had it with Wall Street, but the Dogs helped water down the financial regulatory bill, gutting the too-big-to-fail provisions. There is real merit to both points. If the stimulus had been bigger and the financial reform package clearer and stronger, the public would have had a different -- and, I believe, more positive -- sense of the President's agenda.

Klein regrettably went on to add some false equivalencies about the left, but this point about the conservative Democrats has real merit.

In fact, we can even keep going with the list of policies. Blue Dogs balked at cramdown legislation, which would have helped with the foreclosure crisis, and which their constituents would have benefited from. They also didn't care for a little something called the "public option" during the debate over health care reform.

The point is, the Blue Dogs' operated under a series of assumptions that were badly flawed. For purely ideological/philosophical reasons, conservative Dems opposed good ideas, fearing a voter backlash. As a result, policies voters would have liked either didn't happen or were watered down, generating less success.

And less success meant weaker support meant more losses.

I'm well aware of the response from conservative Dems: if we'd been more supportive of ambitious progressive legislation, we were more likely to lose.

But they lost anyway. How'd that strategy work out?

[PassingFair]

1. 1st post of yours I've ever recommended.

Can Democrats start speaking out in a unified voice for the working class now?

[Hello_Kitty]

4. Yes, it's time to end the unrequited love affair with corporations. eom

[niceypoo]

2. "For purely ideological/philosophical reasons, conservative Dems opposed good ideas"

"...fearing a voter backlash"

Sounds like the Democratic party in general these days.

[OHdem10]

3. Some operate on another plane.and it is called saving my seat.

Make deals with the Republicans to vote with thme
on certain issues and as payoff, their seats are
not targeted --in other words they get no serious
challenge from the Republicans.

The Republicans are a;ready figuring how they can
get a "working majority" by having Blue Dog Support.

2012 a large number of Democrats are up for election
It will be very tempting to have ways of protecting
one.s seat.

After all Politics is Hard Ball.

[Beacool]

5. Yes, but in lieu of those "Blue Dogs" now we have even more conservative Republicans.

Why do you all think that they were "Blue" in the first place? Most of them come from conservative areas and that's the only way that they could survive in that environment. After all, the job of a Congressperson is to represent his/her constituents.

Before you dance on their graves, do you prefer the Republicans you got in their stead or are some of you delusional enough to think that a true progressive could have gotten elected in those parts of the country?

The left, always cutting its nose to spite itself......

:eyes:

[PassingFair]

6. Couldn't blow any of that watered down shit past the Senate, anyway....

Now the Progressive Caucus has more members than
the Blue Dogs and New Dems COMBINED!,

So, YES, this is a good thing.

We can now present legislation and a united front that
can resonate. Even if we don't get it, we will be able
to overcome the wishy-washy image that loses elections for us.





http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9498570&mesg_id=9498734

[Beacool]

7. Well, all I can say is that we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Only time will tell if the remaining Dems prove to be effective now that they are in the minority.

;-)

[ProSense]

8. That's their own fault.

No one could save them from themselves. When you're a Democrat campaigning on voting for McCain and against the Democratic agenda, don't blame the loss on Democrats.

[Beacool]

9. I don't think that the majority of BDs campaigned or voted for McCain.

:eyes:

[ProSense]

10. Who said they did?

Are you saying they weren't campaigning against the Democratic agenda?

Not a good thing:

[Beacool]

12. YOU said it.

I only responded to your comment.

:shrug:

[ProSense]

13. No I didn't

"When you're a Democrat campaigning on voting for McCain and against the Democratic agenda"

Was an example, and "a Democrat" is not plural.

[LiberalFighter]

11. Were any of those Blue Dogs concerned more about their lobby friends?

[Cosmocat]

14. Look ... There are only two choices ...

But the larger issue is this - there is NO middle in politics today, and by extension congress ...

The republican party is by far the most dysfunctional party this country has ever seen in that it is one big, singular voting block ...

There has been no time in our history when a party voted in complete lockstep on every single issue, for or against ... In the house AND the senate (see outgoing 41 seat superminority via never ending filibuster of the freaking suspension of debate) ...

What "middle" exists in congress exists within the democratic coalition ...

People want to say, "GREAT, we got rid of them!" But, there are only three groups in congress right now ... Zombie like Rs who slobber and vote the way the party dictates, progressive democrats fighting the good fight, and "Blue Dogs" in R leaning or split districts who are trying to keep their jobs ...

Whatever their motivations, whatever lack of spine when the chips are down on big time bills that the right is applying great pressure too, it is 1,000,000 times better to have a "blue dog" than an R who will not, NEVER vote for ANYTHING other than corporate give aways, top tax rates and the cultural issues that keep the base lathered up ...

I have news for some people here - like it or not, there is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER going to be anywhere near a majority of fire breathing liberals/progressives in the house or senate ... Two choices, a dem majority with "blue dogs" and some hope for a congress acting on the behalf of the people to some extent OR R controlled chambers that will NOT, NEVER, EVER advance or support anything aimed at serving the people ...