desh | (no subject)

(no subject)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this. If Webb (D-VA) and Tester (D-MT) hold their leads, then the senate will consist of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, an independent who will definitely vote with the Democrats on basically everything (Sanders, I-VT), and Joe Lieberman. Therefore, Joe Lieberman will essentially be the second most powerful person in America. Lots of bills, leadership of committees, and so on will depend entirely on his swing vote.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Jeff, I have to disagree.

One of the serious ideological problems of the Democratic party over the last couple of years has been its attempt to be the "Big Tent Party", as you put it. By attempting to appeal to everything from the historic left of labor unions (at this stage, economically protectionist, socially conservative), the "new" left of post 1960s environmentalists and social liberals, and still appeal to potential corporate sponsors, the Democratic Party has been attempting to articulate widely disparate views under one umbrella. They have, obviously, failed to do so. This is partially because, until recently, there has been no one unifying concept around which to coalesce the momentum of people from the left to center-right (Bush has nicely provided them with this in 2006 after not quite managing to in 2004).

This is partially a structural problem within the American political landscape. Because the "center" in the US is so far to the right, any party attempting to bridge both the center and the left has to compass a huge ideological spectrum, where as a "center-right" party has a much more compact range. Socialdemocratic parties have been vastly more successful in continental Europe because the moderate center was more to the left to start with, inherently buying into ideas such as the welfare state and a relatively pacifist stance on foreign policy.

In summary, what I see as having happened is that, in many areas, the Democratic party won not because it reached out to moderates and forged a working coalition but because it intentionally took up significantly more conservative positions, ignoring everything to the left of those positions because it could count on those people voting against Bush. As

evr1bugsme points out, this has led to a dissonance between the rhetoric of some parts of the Democratic leadership (Pelosi, for instance) and the majority of the Democrats who will take their new seats in the House and Senate. As she also alludes to, one of the other effects of this policy was to cull many of the moderate Republicans (Santorum is a notable exception), something which will make passing more liberal legislation in both Houses of Congress more difficult, not less.

Jeff, in short, I am happy about the fact that the Democrats gained ground on Tuesday. I am not, however, under any illusion that this will result in policies all that much more liberal.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic! I actually agree that the Ds being successful at being an ideological big tent party is GOOD. The Rs have been enormously successful with that approach, they have libertarians to crazy christians, neo cons and social conservatives, poor rural farmers and rich urbanites. I think the Ds can be successful too and the problem is not with the political landscape, but with the scaredy-cat D leadership.

Rs being REALLY good at their job doesn't mean the country is more conservative. When people are polled on individual issues they trend to the D side. The country didn't undergo a revolution in the past few decades, the Ds just kind of conceded to the public relations prowess of the Rs. BUT! I truly believe that the Ds can turn this around not by being more conservative, more centerist (at the leadership level), but by leaning more to the left, aiming high for what they really want and compromising down to what they'll accept, and by having well articulated stances that are not just "well....we're not them, we're better!" I think people respect that, and that the conservative Ds, as Webb himself has said, believe in the heat of the D Party and that the leadership using lefty banners won't scare them away. Sure, they might not vote for it, but they'll vote for something like it (if the Ds can be effective at messaging, coalition building, and getting their fucking party in line that is).

I agree the policies won't be much more liberal, but I think that's just cause the leadership sucks. I fully believe that if the Ds wanted they could have extremist leadership like the Rs and formulate legislation from that standpoint (that would be watered down. but my point is TO water down from like a $12/hr living wage rather than from $7.25 min wage to $6.15 or whatever. This compromise is key. It is what is usually missing from the Bush administration. Also compromise != bad, wishy washy, etc. It = effective bipartisan politics.)...and maybe in two years that will escape a veto :o)

Oh, and I don't think this extremist model is the only one that can work, but I would just like to see the Ds with confidence about their lefty stances, not scared about pissing everyone off because well, I agree with the lefty stances, and, more importantly, people clearly respond to that confidence! (I'm under no illusions this will happen either, but I think it's one way to look at things optimistically?)

I would just like to see the Ds with confidence about their lefty stances, not scared about pissing everyone off because well, I agree with the lefty stances, and, more importantly, people clearly respond to that confidence!

Not just to the confidence, but to the actual issues! I truly believe that this country, on the whole, is pro-choice. And not by a razor-thin margin, but more like a 55/45 or 60/40 split. But those 55% or 60% think they're in the minority! Governing confidently is one step toward getting the national debate and the framing of the issues onto more realistic territory and out of the hands of the Religious Right.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only