Matt Bai's False Choices

[ProSense]

Matt Bai's False Choices

Ed Kilgore

<...>

Bai's main conceit is to suggest that the Blue Dogs are either prime perpetrators or innocent victims of the losses Democrats suffered last Tuesday. In his account, if you accept the former premise, you agree with Ari Berman's recent NYT assault on the Blue Dogs, favor Nancy Pelosi's retention as Democratic House Leader, and reject the manifest message of the midterm electorate. If you accept the latter premise, then you agree with Bai that Nancy Pelosi must give way to Steny Hoyer as House Leader and the Democratic Party must bend its knee and renounce its "liberal agenda."

As it happens, I don't agree with Berman's blame-the-Blue-Dogs theory; nor do most Democrats. But the idea that Democrats must now "move to the center" in a way that repudiates much of the Obama agenda of 2009-2010 commands even less support. The Blue Dogs who lost last week were by and large outliers in Republican districts whose electoral demise was inevitable once the long-term trend against ticket-splitting converged with a pro-Republican wave spiced by anti-incumbent sentiment. You can argue all day long about whether the pro-Republican wave was caused by structural factors (including the economy) or Democratic policies, but in the end, it had little or nothing to do with liberal leaders like Nancy Pelosi, who did far more than anyone considered previously possible to accomodate "big tent" dissension in the House Caucus while getting legislation passed. Dumping Pelosi, not that it's going to happen, would be a purely symbolic measure only satisfying to those whose analysis of the election is as mechanical--you must announce you are moving to the left or moving to the center!--as Matt Bai's.

Am I being unfair to Matt Bai? You decide, after reading this passage:

(W)hile House Republicans have now managed to cobble together a majority that is more or less ideologically cohesive, history would suggest that the same feat isn't so easy for Democrats, who have actually never succeeded in pulling it off. Even during the great heyday of Democratic government in the 20th century, when the party enacted Social Security and Medicare and civil rights legislation, its dominance was possible only because Democrats had shaped a majority coalition made up of Northern liberals and Southern conservatives.

You don't have to be a historian to grasp that the coalitions which enacted Social Security, Medicare, and the major Civil Rights legislation were not the same, and were wildly different from any coalition that is possible today. The New Deal coalition that passed Social Security was mainly composed of northern and southern Democrats who were liberal on economic issues, and who diverged dramatically on racial issues; iconic racists like Theodore Bilbo were rabid supporters of the New Deal. The Great Society coalition that passed Medicare was similar, but included some northern Republicans. The Civil Rights coalition included virtually no southern conservatives in either party.

more

Kilgore makes some good points, but what blue dogs don't seem to understand is that it's not always about them. Sometime Democratic unity on core issues is needed, especially in the interest of the common good. Some of today's big-tent Democrats voted against unemployment and would likely have voted against the New Deal using the same arguments. That is why someone like Pelosi, and not a blue dog is best suited for the leadership.

Interesting chart that shows Republicans careless who they vote for and a lot more about supporting whatever it the Republican Party is selling.



PDF

[Bluenorthwest]

1. Blue Dogs, Purple Unicorns, such a menagerie

Truth in politics is there are winners and losers. The Loser Dog Democrats lost, and they are worthless because of that, they are out of office, they failed us. The Winner Dogs held their seats.
The Loser Dogs have a weak set of 'supporters' who often vote Republican, or whatever. The Loser Dogs all lost seats they had previously won, although now they whine that the districts are 'too conservtive to win'. Fact is they had won those districts, and then lost them. Fact is those Loser Dogs were unable to inspire their right leaning 'base' to vote for them, instead they voted for the real Republican, as they always, always do when presented with the real deal and an imitation.

[ProSense]

2. Exactly,

a convincing argument wins.