Harold Ford and the Problem With Blue-Doggism

Via DougJ at Balloon Juice, Jonathan Martin of Politico has a profile of Harold Ford's "conversion on the road to Zabar's."  (I love good snark like that.  I just can't help myself.) 

Martin points out that "Ford has turned in a head-dizzying political pirouette, clarifying his positions on abortion, gay rights, gun rights and immigration in such a way that they now neatly line up with his new state’s party line."  (Martin also notes that Ford's old stances weren't needed to please the constituency of his old House district, which was solidly liberal, but were all about setting himself up for an eventual statewide run in Tennessee.  I can't say I have much patience for that, but be that as it may.)

But as DougJ says, "a Congressman from a poor district voting for the bankruptcy bill..that seems the unkindest cut of all."  Exactly.

I can completely understand that Democrats from more conservative parts of the country might have different views on 'God, guns, and gays' issues than I do.  That's life.  But far too often, "Blue Dog" positions seem to be about helping big corporations screw the little guy.

I'm all for a Democratic big tent, but I think there's a limit. First of all, I doubt that Blue Dogs need to take 'screw the little guy' positions to win, simply because they represent conservative areas of the country.  It's not like rural or Southern folks without a lot of clout enjoy being screwed more than the rest of us.  They ought to be able to be conservatives on social issues, while doing what they can to keep their constituents from getting screwed over.

But even if I'm wrong, like I said, there's a limit to this 'big tent' stuff.  If there's a reason that we need to have a Democratic Party to begin with, it's to keep big corporations from screwing the little guy. 

We've already got one party that's focused on screwing the little guy, and if too many Dems join in, it becomes practically a matter of party branding: if the Republicans are going to screw the little guy, and the Dems are fighting hard to keep that from happening, then the little guy knows who to vote for.  But the more the Dems look like they're into screwing the little guy too, the less likely the little guy is going to vote Dem.  If he's on the conservative side on social issues, he'll vote Republican; otherwise, he'll stay home.

There hasn't been any good time lately to insist that Democrats be Democrats.  When there were only 45 Dem Senators, that wasn't exactly a good time to fight for party purity.  When there were exactly 51, but Cheney was still veep, that was a pretty poor time too.  And of course now, when we've got exactly 60 votes in the Senate if we keep Nelson and Lieberman and Conrad and Lincoln and Bayh and Landrieu happy, that's a really piss-poor time to insist that Dems be Dems.

But if we're going to have a working Senate supermajority (which is what takes, for the foreseeable future, to pass legislation that matters) anytime soon by anything besides dumb luck, we need a coherent message about whose side we're on, without pseudo-Dems muddling things up all the time.  Sometime, dammit, we need to make it abundantly clear that we're on the side of the people - and, no, corporations aren't people too.

There probably won't be 60 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus a year from now.  Hopefully, we'll have more.  We may well have fewer.  If more, we may finally be able to get some good stuff through Congress simply because Reid (or whoever is Majority Leader) can afford to ignore the demands of at least one faux-centrist Dem, and the doing of that will, in and of itself, help redefine the Democratic Party more progressively.  But if fewer, it may be time to insist on a bit of coherence on economic issues, so that we have some hope of getting to 60 again sometime.

Comments

[Corvus9]

Right you are, l-t c.

One thing I think that might be useful is to deify FDR, like how Republicans deify Reagan. You know, not even the issues he actually supported, just make him some kind of figurehead, make it obvious that we are the Party of FDR, of the New Deal, and that is the standard we are advancing. Yeah, it's simplistic, and a white wash, and that sort of stuff really shouldn't be encouraged, but we need some kind of branding and mission statement, if only to define the acceptable limits of what the party is. At this point, it seems we are simply, people who aren't Republicans, and you can't really run a party that way, especially since it is the Democratic Party that represents the forward march of history. How can you get anywhere if you don't know where you are going?

[Jamelle]

I'm inclined to think that Blue Dogs actually do represent the median political positions of their constituents, even if they aren't actually representing their material interests. And if that's the case, the real problem is that their constituents have identified themselves with the very people trying to screw them.

[oddjob]

While New York has sometimes embraced out of state candidates for senator, I doubt that's going to happen with Ford. Responding to a softball New York Times question about Jets or Giants with an answer about how you've jet-setted around with both owners is about the worst possible way to come across as a 100% carpet bagger as I can think of!

[low-tech cyclist]

Jamelle - Stockholm Syndrome lives!

Having spent a baker's dozen years living in places that are culturally part of the South, I think there's a certain amount of truth to that: a lot of people down there believe that whatever's good for business must be good for them. But I'd say a Democrat's job is to offer a bit of pushback to that notion, rather than to go along with it.

When Republicans represent a D-leaning or tossup district, they aren't afraid to take conservative positions. They'll throw the occasional sop to the moderate nature of their electorate, but on the whole, they'll unapologetically vote like Republicans.

I don't expect Dems to be willing to take it to the same extreme as Republicans usually do, but a bit of a "hey, I'm a Democrat, you knew that when you elected me" attitude from our Blue Dogs would be a big step forward.

[oddjob]

"If [Mr. Ford] thinks that it's an appealing argument to position yourself as being somebody who will stand up to Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, well I don't think we need another Joe Lieberman,"

- Rep. Anthony Weiner

[Jamelle]

You know, my comment inspired me to write a post elaborating on that idea. So here it is, if you're interested (also, thanks for this post, it was really good!): http://usjamerica.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/the-problem-with-blue-doggism-hint-it-isnt-the-blue-dogs/

[Sir Charles]

Harold Ford is really the whole pakcage -- shallow, cynical, narcissistic, ethically dubious, a panderer to people's worst tendencies, and completely lacking in political courage.

What's not to like?

[oddjob]

What's not to like?

LOL!

[low-tech cyclist]

Yes, your average Blue Dog is a corporate lackey, but he also represents a conservative district and in all likelihood, is reflecting the preferences of his constituents.

When it comes down to it, the problem isn’t that Blue Dogs are spineless, it’s that a large swath of rural America — disproportionately poor and disadvantaged — has decided that its interests are best served by conservative policies. Which, at the moment, amount to little more than giveaways to the wealthiest and most privileged Americans.

But how did rural America reach that conclusion? With respect to social issues, it's pretty clear: they like guns because they're a natural part of rural life, and they're in a bible-thumping cultural milieu.

But when it comes to stuff like health care or bankruptcy deform or card check or stuff like that, they believe what they believe because that's what almost everyone in their world has told them is right.

I expect even rural and Southern Dems to be part of the pushback to that, to educate their voters that a lot of that stuff they've heard is wrong. Raising the minimum wage will fatten their paychecks, and hardly anyone will lose a job because of it. If bankruptcy isn't a punitive process, then if they should go bust, they won't become the indentured servants of their creditors. And if health care reform passes, they'll never have to worry again about losing their health insurance when they need it because their insurer dug through the records and found out that they failed to mention their acne or gingivitis as a pre-existing condition.

Yeah, I expect anyone who holds elective office and has a (D) after their name to point out stuff like this, rather than defending the corporate view of the world. Representing a conservative district is no excuse.

[low-tech cyclist]

Shoulda pointed out that the italicized quote that I responded to just now, was part of what Jamelle posted at his blog (and at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen too).

[Insinciag]

test
http://gooogle.com