What is the BlueDog/DINO litmus test?

[OmahaBlueDog]

I consider myself a Blue Dog, as my DU name suggests. I've been asked about this. One poster once wrote that my stated views are much more in line with those of Dennis Kucinich than those of Ben Nelson. Nevertheless, I have never changed my name during the annual Skinner amnesties, because there are certain aspects of my views that are centrist and (dare I say it) conservative.

For example, I am a fiscal conservative. I believe that deficits should be an exception for times of emergency rather than business as usual. But I also believe that getting out of the world police business would be the fastest, best way to start cutting costs. Also, I tend to believe that the private marketplace is, on the whole, a better problem solver than government. However, Government needs to be the leader on solving problems that the market cannot or will not solve on its own -- which would include everything from building a trans-continental railroad to going to the moon to becoming a guarantor of universal health care.

This led me to ponder...where is the line? What is/are the views that drive those on this site to label a politician useless beyond redemption?

[stray cat]

1. If you are closer to democratic policies than republican policies and tend to vote democratic

your a democrat. DU is a whole different story.....

[Luminous Animal]

5. Really? Because when I was growing up...

I rarely met a Democrat who would cross a picket line. Now I see Democrats spit on unions regularly.

I rarely met a Democrat that wouldn't have fought for Social Security tooth & nail. Now I see Democrats whining that their taxes will have to help pay for poverty incomes for the elderly and advocate for even less.

[OmahaBlueDog]

10. Many Americans simply accept the "Unions killed American industry" meme

For all practical purposes, two generations of Americans have grown up sympathizing with the strike breakers, not the strikers. The breaking of the PATCO strike, to me, represents the turning point of mainstream opinion.

I was born in '65 -- as the baby boom was transitioning into GenX. The GenXers I meet (even Democrats) seem to just accept the notion that Social Security won't be there when it's their time to retire. If it won't be there, why (so their logic goes) would you want to pay the taxes to support it?

[Luminous Animal]

21. Why would you want to pay the taxes to support it?

For the same reason that the generation before the boomers supported public education. We, as a society, have abandoned the long view.

[Luminous Animal]

2. Speaking for myself...

1) A BlueDog/DINO does not recognize the necessity of unions and will compromise the needs and concerns of workers for both regional and global commerce.

2) A BlueDog/DINO will blur the line in the sand in regards to a woman's absolute control of her reproductive rights.

3) A BlueDog/DINO will confuse the responsibilities of a democratic system with that of capitalism. That is, they buy into the notion that government should be run like a business. (And why no expectation that businesses should be run democratically?)

4) A BlueDog/DINO believes in the "pull oneself up by oneself bootstraps" mentality without recognizing or admitting that a capitalist society is a competitive society and, as in all competitions, there will be losers. The system itself ensures that there will be losers but, unlike a footrace, the losers aren't compelled to live ill-housed, ill-clothed, ill-fed, and/or just plain ill.

[omega minimo]

4. Very well put, LA. Thank you.

:toast:

a simplistic litmus test is empathy. Many of those here making loutish pronouncements about how clueless other Dem/DUers are sound as if they are too comfortable still, too protected by an ivory tower or extra bank account, to cocooned in their own denial and too spoiled to admit that their civil rights have been gutted, to personally identify with others who are less advantaged.

[Luminous Animal]

6. You are welcome, omega.

And lyric, downthread, put it well, too!

[tango-tee]

26. Thank you and LA for stating this so eloquently.

No further words are necessary.

[omega minimo]

29. cheers then

:toast:

[tango-tee]

30. And a cheer back atcha, friend!

:toast:

[dmallind]

7. And you are mistaken then

Blue Dogs qua Blue Dogs care ONLY about balanced budgets. There is zip diddly squat in the BD manifesto about choice

[OmahaBlueDog]

13. Those are probably the four best tests I've seen

1) A BlueDog/DINO does not recognize the necessity of unions and will compromise the needs and concerns of workers for both regional and global commerce.

I recognize the needs of the consumer and the worker to be protected from the greed and excess of businesses. From my perspective, that should be a key role of government. Where you and I would differ, I think, is that there shoud be no "necessity" of unions if government is performing its job properly.


2) A BlueDog/DINO will blur the line in the sand in regards to a woman's absolute control of her reproductive rights.

I suppose I meet your definition of BlueDog here, in as much as I believe that abortion, excepting rape/incest/danger to the mothers life, is wrong. However, to paraphrase JFK, I do not confuse my personal beliefs with publc policy. Making the procedure against the law will mean that abortions in clean medical facilities, performed by doctors, will be limited to those who can afford a plane ticket and everyone else goes to a back alley butcher. My preference would be to promote birth control, abstinence, adoption, and universal pre-natal and maternity care.


3) A BlueDog/DINO will confuse the responsibilities of a democratic system with that of capitalism. That is, they buy into the notion that government should be run like a business. (And why no expectation that businesses should be run democratically?)

Reagan really sold a lot of people on this misguided notion. I do believe that government should make every attempt to be efficient and transparent. However, by design, it must do those things society needs which cannot be done profitably in the marketplace.

Also, there should be an expectation that exchange traded corporations should be run democratically. This means that the compensation packages of officers and key employees (including perqs and stock purchase options) should be disclosed to the stockholders, and stockholders need to become better educated about their rights and responsibilities regarding being heard at stockholder meetings.



4) A BlueDog/DINO believes in the "pull oneself up by oneself bootstraps" mentality without recognizing or admitting that a capitalist society is a competitive society and, as in all competitions, there will be losers. The system itself ensures that there will be losers but, unlike a footrace, the losers aren't compelled to live ill-housed, ill-clothed, ill-fed, and/or just plain ill.


In a perfect world, in which we all tried our best, I don't think most Americans (even Republicans) want to see life's losers, "compelled to live ill-housed, ill-clothed, ill-fed, and/or just plain ill." I daresay most of us here at DU are, for example, dedicated to the proposition that health care (routine, preventative, and emergency) should be available to all, regardless of age, regardless of income, regardless of genetics or past medical experience.

There is, however, a notion that is pervasive among Republicans, common among independents, and not uncommon among Democrats, that those who have lost in our competitive society, and who are not afflicted with a disability, have likely lost due to laziness. "If those bums on welfare would simply apply themselves" it is reasoned "they would get ahead." Drugs and alcohol become sticking points here as well. No one objects too much to the wealthy taking drugs or buying booze. But certainly, the reasoning goes, if you are receiving food stamps, or WIC, you don't have money for beer.

Abortion is probably the clearest, brightest marker dividing members of the two parties right now. The second marker, in my opinion, is public assistance. The GOP mindset is always that we can spend any amount on weaponry, and that's OK; we can cut taxes, and that's OK; but helping the poor is never OK. Their consistent reasoning is that if you make the business climate friendly enough, the jobs will come and all boats will rise. The problem is the business owners themselves. While there are many good, decent owners out there, there are an equal number who can't "afford" anything. They can't afford their taxes; they can't afford medical insurance; they can't afford dental; the damned work comp is bleeding them dry; but they can afford a five-bedroom home, a loaded F-350 as a "company vehicle", and golf outings in Hawaii. Is that view simplistic and unfair? It is no more simplistic or unfair than the view that holds that everyone receiving public assistance is a layabout.

OK...rant over.

Thanks for sharing your views.

[patrice]

35. Right on! LA! + A BD/DINO Does not recognize that we do not exist for Business, Business exists for

us. Business is not the measure of Social Policy especially since Business does not depend solely upon the market for its livelihood, but also upon many resources, goods and services financed by our tax dollars.

[Lyric]

3. In my view, "Blue Dogs" are people who tend to be more likely to

1. Oppose things like welfare and Food Stamps in the name of "personal responsibility"
2. Support deregulation, or at best, feel like regulation of corporations is not a national priority
3. Believe that taking action on hot-button social issues is not a good governing strategy
4. Believe that the "truth" is nearly always to be found "in the middle"
5. Think that government should prioritize the best interests of the middle class over the best interests of the lower, working classes--in essence, that government should function for the widest good instead of focusing on the greatest need

You may or may not fit that definition, but that is what *I* think about when I hear "Blue Dog".

[dmallind]

8. Absolute crap

1) NO BD I am aware of is for ending either welfare or food stamps
2) A side issue at best. There is no BD manifesto about corporate regulation
3) Nope - BD's run the gamut on social issues. The entire purpose of the BD coalition is fiscal not social. The most socially conservative dems like Stupak are not and nevre have been BDs
4) I have no idea what this means
5)Not relevant. The BD coalition is about fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.

[omega minimo]

9. "The BD coalition is about fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets" while gutting the social safe

social safety net and undermining civil rights, because they identify with the uberrich and assume they will always be privileged and protected.

[Marr]

11. Yes, their whole purpose is fiscal policy.

Blue dogs are about pushing corporate fiscal policy, and nothing else. They'll sell off anyone and anything to get that done. Of course they have no set-in-stone position on things like abortion-- these are meaningless issues to them, and they'll take whatever stance is most politically expedient at the moment, and allows them shove more corporate bullshit through.

[OmahaBlueDog]

19. We have a coalition?

..I had no idea

[dmallind]

24. Well "we" in the sense of the formal Blue Dogs ARE a coalition

http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/

[OmahaBlueDog]

15. Also an interesting set of views

1. Oppose things like welfare and Food Stamps in the name of "personal responsibility"
See my rant upthread


2. Support deregulation, or at best, feel like regulation of corporations is not a national priority

Some deregulation has been good (example: deregulating the airlines ultimately led to more affordable air travel)

Some was well intentioned, but not good (telecommunications and utility deregulation)

Some started out as a good idea and were continued way too long (Most Favored Nation trading statu for China)

To me, Enron serves as the poster child for the need for robust regulation and oversight.



3. Believe that taking action on hot-button social issues is not a good governing strategy
..no, I think you mean "re-election" strategy


4. Believe that the "truth" is nearly always to be found "in the middle"
I'm a consensus kind of guy, so I plead guilty here. While there are some moral absolutes (racial equality, for example), on the vast majority of issues, I subscribe to Oscar Wilde's notion that "The truth is rarely pure, and never simple."


5. Think that government should prioritize the best interests of the middle class over the best interests of the lower, working classes--in essence, that government should function for the widest good instead of focusing on the greatest need

I'd plead guilty here as well, but I'm not even sure where the line is drawn between the middle and working classes at this point. Is it an income amount? Is it living free of any public assistance? Is it home ownership? I see people in 5 bedroom homes with double incomes totalling over 6-figures complaining about the war on the middle class; to me, these folks are wealthy.

But heck, I'd settle for the-greatest-good-for-the -greatest-number. Under Bush, what we had was the greatest good for the upper 10%.

[TheKentuckian]

12. It's 99% about being pro-corporate fiscal policy with a side of faux budget hawk

looking to cut social programs to "get a handle on the nation's budget" while ignoring military spending and tax cuts.

Basically, they are Republicans minus the batshit/theocracy (mostly) factors.

I don't think being against deficits except in downturns and emergencies makes one a fiscal conservative at all. It makes one sane, only radical regressive Republicans really favor deficits for no reason and that's only because they want to "drown the pig in a bathtub". Liberals believe in a functioning and sustainable government which means you can't possibly be on 24/7 spending more than you take in.

If you put corporations over people then that makes you worthless beyond redemption, imo.

[OmahaBlueDog]

17. We've gotten away from two core concepts in the US

"The Common Good" and "Sacrifice"

I posted the other day that, had we passed a national sales tax specifically to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we might have quicky developed a different national perspective on the prosecution of those conflicts. This is because, since WWII, the only ones making any real sacrifice in a war are the American troops doing the fighting, and their families. The majority of us sit on the sidelines -- fat, dumb, and happy.

Put any public project to the typical American -- be it a road, health care reform, a wind-power generation project -- and you'll get the same response... "why/how is this MY problem?" There is little sense of common responsibility now, or of shared interest.

[TheKentuckian]

22. I favor a war tax but not sales but rather income and capital gains

Sales taxes are regressive and the rich glean the benefits of conflicts. We won't slow the empire down without taking it out of their ass.

Between a draft and a considerable tax on all income, I think the war machine would slow it's roll considerably. It would have to actually be critical or the whole ball of wax would get the gas face from all corners save the neocons/neolibs that get us into this stuff.

I agree with your thoughts and think you make a better liberal than a bluedog by far.

[Toucano]

14. I wish we spent half the time discussing ideas as we do discussing labels.

Not you, particularly. Just in general.

Whenever one falls from the grace of the bluer-than-thou, they become subject to name calling. It isn't even labeling in the sense of some practical taxonomy. It's just name calling.

I really think it's better to take each issue find the best solution regardless of what someone else wants to call it.

If calling oneself a "Progressive" or a "Blue Dog" makes one feel a sense of belonging or community, then that's rather pathetic.

Labels are for products, not ideas and certainly not people.

on edit:

Corrected a typo worthy of a freeper!

[OmahaBlueDog]

16. About the "Blue Dog" thing

When I was a kid, conservative, southern Democrats were "Yellow Dog Democrats." Because of the Republican role in the "War of Northern Agression," these folks would vote for a yellow dog before they'd vote for a member of the GOP...or so the story went. We became "Blue Dogs" (as far as I know) when the networks started the whole "Red State/Blue State" thing.

I would vote for a Blue Dog before I voted for most Republicans. That's just how I roll.

[Greyhound]

18. Cognitive dissonance is prerequisite.

Right in your OP, it is apparent that your philosophy cannot tolerate itself.

The mythical/theoretical marketplace solves no problems beyond the circulation of currency and that is all it is supposed to do. There has never and can never exist a "free" capitalist market, capitalism itself is driven to capture markets as it inevitably does.

The libertarian fantasy world only works in the imagination as it utterly fails to consider that it is based and depends on a socialist foundation to exist. Ayn Rand was a seriously damaged and disturbed woman deserving of help, but that doesn't validate her sadomasochistic/Übermensch ravings.

[OmahaBlueDog]

20. Of course the marketplace solves problems

If my air conditioner is broken, someone will sell me the goods and services necessary to give me back my cold air. Money changes hands for the goods and services. I had a problem, and the marketplace solved it.

You and I agree completely that the libertarian worldview pushed by the Ron Paul crowd is built on a foundation of false assumptions, and also that (and I think you put this well)"Ayn Rand was a seriously damaged and disturbed woman deserving of help."

[okie]

23. It's not that simple

This is no marketplace. Your air conditioner, after all, is dependent on technology and R&D that came from very large corporations working within that military-industrial complex everyone is always talking about. There is no free market in that kind of relationship. Your transaction with your repairman is just the end part to a very rigged game (and it's really not even the end, since ACs break and leave behind waste and harmful pollutants, and who pays for that in the end?).

[Greyhound]

27. It was late and I didn't take the time to expound the idea

(and I don't assume people here are really interested in conversation), but to use your scenario, the market didn't solve your problem, the HVAC guy solved it, the market merely facilitated the transaction between you (circulation of currency). We have come to confuse 'capitalism' with 'the marketplace' but they are independent of each other as a star system and space are independent. The star system is in space but does not constitute space itself and other start systems can and do exist in space, none of which alter space (OK science-type geeks, I realize this can be argued but it isn't germane to the issue at hand).

The marketplace is and will always be. Capitalism though, like a giant star going supernova (to continue the analogy), seeks to consume/overcome/replace space. The single driving force of capitalism is profit and in seeking that profit the capitalist enterprise must seek to overcome the marketplace by eliminating all other enterprises as we have seen many, many times in the past and present.

So let's say you paid HVAC guy $100 to fix your AC. Now in the mythical marketplace HVAC guy exists because he is competent and available and if either of these criteria are no longer met, you go to HVAC gal because she can do the same job for the same money and everybody is happy and this scenario plays out forever with more and more, better and better HVAC guys and gals being available until there are simply too few AC's to keep them all busy and supply begins to shrink to sufficient, but not excessive, capacity. In the real marketplace however, the one we have that is dedicated to American Capitalism, you have only one or two HVAC corporations that employ all the HVAC guys and gals and they do mediocre work because they are given too many AC's to fix and are paid only $50 to do it, while you are billed $300 for the same job. When if HVAC gal decides she can do better than HVACInc. and starts her own HVAC repair business, HVACInc. and it's partner HVACLtd. have the means to prevent her success, making the the slap-dash $300 job the only alternative available to you.

Have you read The Wealth of Nations? If not, you should.

[OmahaBlueDog]

32. I've read "Wealth of Nations", but many brain cells have died since college

I'm not sure that I can see the marketplace being viable without capital. If your point is that, without a watchdog, capital will create a "rigged game" in the marketplace, we agree. But greed can be a good and valuable driver. Let's say we need to purchase large quantities of swine flu vaccine, for example. Would I like to think Pharma would be socially responsible, and get everyone working hard out of a sense of responsibility? I'd love to think that, but it's just not true. Wave a $500,000,000 purchase order out there to the first company that can produce 1,000,000 viable vaccine doses at acceptable levels of q/c, and you'll see action. The companies may opt to pay workers overtime; they may opt to invest in more efficient production machinery; they may devise a new production method; or they may combine those activities.

Where I run into a problem is here. Let's say I run the HVAC repair company, and I have hired 5 workers to run around Omaha and repair heaters and air conditioners. I put up the initial investment, and I perform all of the administration and dispatching. OK, so far, so good. I have good workers, they do a good job, and, as a result, I am making a swell profit. Again, so far, so good. But now, let's say that, while I am making $250,000 a year (unlikely with 5 guys, but it's a good, round number), the guys are making $15 bucks an hour, and have no health insurance. The typical teabagger or Republican doesn't see the problem here. From my standpoint, this is wrong. To me, basic common decency says that I should buy them the benefits they need.

[Greyhound]

34. Not without capital, no. Without capitalism (again, as we practice it here), certainly.

We have this problem of clarifying terminology, and that is a large factor in our dysfunction. We've conflated banking with the 'financial industry' and therefore people think they are both the same and both necessary. Lack of understanding that difference leads us to the situation we have today. To use your scenario; 'Pharma' will not only not produce the vaccine because it is necessary, but they will go to great lengths to prevent anybody else from doing so because they own the patent. Now the price is not $500M, but $5B and there's not a thing we can do about it.

I'm almost sure your instructor didn't emphasize (or probably even touch on) the foundation of commonality of Smith's theory builds on. Capitalism flourishes and makes things better for everybody only when everybody* is free of need. When people do not fear homelessness, starvation, and illness in ignorance, they strive, they risk, they pursue, and that is the environment that Smith envisioned. Cooperation out of mutual desire and equitable dealing out of necessity.

The Socialist Democracies in Scandinavia are the best examples we have today of Adam Smith's theory put into practice. However, even they are prevented from achieving all they can by global pressures to remain in the 19th century.

In your last reply you've exposed yourself as a fake blue-dog valuing "common decency" above profits and power. Is there something about Omaha that makes reasonableness more common than the surrounding areas? Warren Buffet is one of the very few billionaires that a.) made his own money by, b.) making things better (although his infatuation with Gates is a mystery to me).

[OmahaBlueDog]

38. I was very saddened to see a tea party rally drew 1,000 here

...because you are correct. There must be something in the water here in Omaha. The rich seem to do an above-average job of giving back to the community. Warren & Susan Buffet, Peter Kiewit, and a host of others all have given lots of money to support arts, culture, and education here.

Recently, the City was going to close the library in Florence (a North Omaha neighborhood) and cut Sunday library hours. Did they close? Nope -- an anonymous donor stepped forward and came up with what had to be, at least, a six figure donation.

Also kind of a throwback -- although BOA and Bank of the West are here, and Mutual of Omaha Bank is growing, the area is dominated by small to medium sized banks. Many of these came through the recent misfortunes unscathed.

[patrice]

37. NOBODY ever says that about Business, as though all businesses are just

exactly the best businesses they could be so we should never impede them with taxes that pay for the resources that they use, because "the marketplace yada, yada", when in fact there ARE handicaps and advantages (many created by favoritism in tax policy), so the businesses are NOT necessarily what we want or need!

Thanks!

[patrice]

36. It solves some problems, but not necessarily those which need solving the most and not

necessarily with the best answers for the problems it does solve.

[mmonk]

25. Blue Dogs are ideologically Republican. Are you sure you are one?

You don't sound like you are quite there.

[OmahaBlueDog]

31. In the days before Reagan, maybe

..back when they had people in the GOP like Mac Mathias (of course, they also had Reagan and Nixon).

Today, there is no way I could be a Republican

[Union Yes]

28. Pro-War, Anti-union, Pro-"Free" Trade, Pro-HC for profit, Pro-Dereg.

That's my own litmus test of what a DLC'er is. And they don't have to be all of the above.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. It's not black and white for me and I differentiate the terms DINO and blue dog

First of all, it depends on the district one represents. Congressman Gene Taylor (from Mississippi) probably votes with the Republicans just about more than any Democrat. Of course, when you consider the fact that his constituents voted for Bush by about 7 to 3 you understand that if he didn't do that he wouldn't be a congressman. Additionally if you look at the way he stood up to the Bush Administration after Katrina you would be hard pressed to call him a DINO. The guy certainly isn't a liberal, but he isn't a Republican either.

On the other hand, people who represent moderate to liberal constituencies and use their power to stick up for corporate interests are people who IMO don't really represent the party's values. Take Montana, for example. It's a red state on the presidential level, although it is trending blue. Their junior senator Jon Tester has a voting record that's pretty progressive. Their senior senator Max Baucus, on the other hand, uses his chairmanship of the Finance Committee to help corporate interests as was pretty clearly demonstrated during the health care process. People like Max Baucus who have the political leeway to be progressive and get re-elected but choose not to are the ones who really bother me.

Another example of what bothers me is Bart Stupak. I don't have a huge problem with the fact that he's anti-choice or even that he casts anti-choice votes considering the fact that he has a pretty good voting record otherwise, but I do have a problem with the fact that he would hold the centerpiece of the Democratic agenda hostage.