Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Shortly after the Delaware primary, we at Ricochet hotly debated the desirability of ideological purity within the Republican Party. But this election season, talk of party purges isn't limited to conservative Tea Partiers. The New York Times has run an op-ed this weekend calling for Democratic Party Purity and the need for Blue Dog purges:
Democrats would be in better shape, and would accomplish more, with a smaller and more ideologically cohesive caucus. It’s a sentiment that even Mr. Dean now echoes. “Having a big, open-tent Democratic Party is great, but not at the cost of getting nothing done,” he said. Since the passage of health care reform, few major bills have passed the Senate. Although the Democrats have a 59-vote majority, party leaders can barely find the votes for something as benign as extending unemployment benefits.
A smaller majority, minus the intraparty feuding, could benefit Democrats in two ways: first, it could enable them to devise cleaner pieces of legislation, without blatantly trading pork for votes as they did with the deals that helped sour the public on the health care bill...
Second, in the Senate, having a majority of 52 rather than 59 or 60 would force Democrats to confront the Republicans’ incessant misuse of the filibuster to require that any piece of legislation garner a minimum of 60 votes to become law.
A smaller, more fringe left Democratic Party? That may indeed be the outcome of November's election. But how, exactly, will it affect the political scene?
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
The problem that the Democrats face is not that there are genuine moderates in their midst. Barack Obama unmasked the "Blue Dogs." Nearly all of them voted for the so-called stimulus; nearly all lined up behind Obamacare. They are liberals who pretend to be moderates for the purpose of getting elected. When needed by the party leader, they can usually be relied on.
The problem that the Democrats face is that there are a lot of constituencies out there in which the Democrats can be competitive only if they pretend to be moderates. If they purge the fake moderates and run out-and-out liberals, Republicans will be elected in their place, and there will be no Democratic majority in the House or Senate.
Edited on Oct 24, 2010 at 10:12amJul '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Paul A. Rahe: The problem that the Democrats face is that there are a lot of constituencies out there in which the Democrats can be competitive only if they pretend to be moderates. If they purge the fake moderates and run out-and-out liberals, Republicans will be elected in their place, and there will be no Democratic majority in the House or Senate. · Oct 24 at 10:10am
Edited on Oct 24 at 10:12 am
I've thought about this a lot: how can anyone believe there is such a thing as a moderate Democrat?
I'm coming to believe those voters didn't think they were voting for moderate Democrats; they were voting against Republicans who had become demonstrably out of touch.
This election, in those districts, may come down to which candidate is more out of touch with the mood of the electorate, not who is more liberal or more conservative.
Which should be good news for the right.
Aug '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Remember Zell Miller of Georgia? How about Joe Lieberman of Connecticut? The Dems are seriously harmed by the absence of authentic moderates like them, and clearly they have a death wish.
While I 'm pleased by seeing them self-destruct, it's also disturbing that they apparently don't mind cultivating more Alan Graysons, Alvin Greenes, and Charlie Crists. When the stakes are so high, and the nation's survival is hanging in the balance, there's no moral obligation to stop one's opponent if they start putting the noose around their own neck. Is there?
Kenneth, you're right about the concept of Democrat 'moderates'. In one sense they don't exist.
Edited on Oct 24, 2010 at 11:11amJul '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Off-topic, Diane, but since you've used a 1970's cover photo from National Lampoon, I was just thinking about that magazine's heyday recently and realized that most of its content from that era would be impossible to publish under today's PC standards. I remember in particular a joke about what not to say to a black youth on a New York City subway: the entire blogosphere would go up in flames.
Jul '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
I would like to know if George Soros using Carlos Slim as a cutout is shaping editorial policy at the NYTimes just as as he is preparing to do with his underwriting of a hundred new journalists for NPR.
Jul '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Zell Miller? Be still, my heart.
But Lieberman has never been a moderate.
I date the demise of independent thought within the Democrat Party to the 1992 refusal to let Pennsylvania Governor Robert P. Casey speak at the party convention.
May '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
I really do hope more Democrats embrace this smaller, more ideologically pure liberal caucus. The 20% of Americans calling themselves liberal will be thrilled.
May '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Yes: "John Kerry's foreign policy is a yes-no-maybe bowl of mush that emboldens our enemies and confuses our friends." Nice.
The downside of ideological purity in the two parties is the inability to execute a long-term war strategy in conflicts that extend beyond a single administration. Truman's "containment" was embraced (more-or-less) across parties. Now, with hawkish Democrats having become neo-conservative Republicans, such a long-war strategy is tougher to pull off.
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Kenneth
I'm coming to believe those voters didn't think they were voting for moderate Democrats; they were voting against Republicans who had become demonstrably out of touch. · Oct 24 at 11:04am
I believe it wasn't even an anti-Republican vote. I believe it was an anti-Bush vote.
Jul '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Denise Moss
Kenneth
I'm coming to believe those voters didn't think they were voting for moderate Democrats; they were voting against Republicans who had become demonstrably out of touch. · Oct 24 at 11:04am
I believe it wasn't even an anti-Republican vote. I believe it was an anti-Bush vote. · Oct 24 at 1:02pm
Yeah, come to think of it.
Either way, it wasn't a vote for moderate Democrats.
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Like all NYTimes op-eds, this one made me laugh out loud.
Ludicrous! The problem with the Democrats is that they're too ideologically diverse? That they need to "get pure?" Please. The American people don't like the health care reform bill because it was tainted by pork? Ridiculous! That's why they hate the stimulus bill. They hate Obamacare because -- and I know this escapes the left -- Americans do not like socialized medicine.
The Democrats are in trouble because they've lost the center and the middle class. Because they are perceived (rightly) as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the big labor unions, especially the public employee unions.
The drubbing they're facing in ten days should force them to rethink, move to the center, and shed some of the crackpot left that's running the show right now. What they need is another Democratic Leadership Council to source some non-insane Democratic governors.
Only in the pages of the NYTimes could such blathering, such straw-grasping, cocooning, delusional vanity be considered for publication.
Aug '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Rob Long: Like all NYTimes op-eds, this one made me laugh out loud.
Ludicrous! The problem with the Democrats is that they're too ideologically diverse? That they need to "get pure?" Please.
Only in the pages of the NYTimes could such blathering, such straw-grasping, cocooning, delusional vanity be considered for publication. · Oct 24 at 1:56pm
I have several hardcore Democrat friends and acquaintances who do believe -- with their entire beings -- that the Democrats are the big-tent party: so diverse -- unbelievably, almost unimaginably diverse -- embracing everything from environmentalists, to dark-skinned people, to blue-collar, white union members.
And obviously, Republicans are all the same.
We see the opposite.
I suspect that "every sheep looks the same when you're not in the flock" phenomenon is at work here. If we were in the flock, we would only see the beautiful diversity of the flock -- how different its members are! -- and not the fact that the flock is a fairly uniform mass of bleating wads of wool and mutton.
Jun '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Americans like medicine they can afford. I don't particularly like going to the VA hospital but when it's that or do without treatment, I go. Political ideology doesn't do much to stop bleeding or alleviate pain, which is probably the reason you don't hear the poor bashing Obamacare, as disastrous as it is, with the same enthusiasm as those who can afford a choice.
Aug '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Robert E. Lee
Americans like medicine they can afford. I don't particularly like going to the VA hospital but when it's that or do without treatment, I go. Political ideology doesn't do much to stop bleeding or alleviate pain, which is probably the reason you don't hear the poor bashing Obamacare, as disastrous as it is, with the same enthusiasm as those who can afford a choice. · Oct 24 at 2:32pm
We do like medicine we can afford, but when you are facing an impending medical crisis, time is what you can afford the least of, whether you are rich or poor.
If you don't have the money for your medical bills, you can go into debt and settle later -- something I've had to do BTW -- or file for bankruptcy.
But no one can lend you time.
The poor are not exempt from the wait under socialized medicine. No one is -- except for those rich enough to afford bribes, etc.
Oct '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
The concept of a large enough tent reveals the limitations of a two party system. I agree with George Washington, the evils of a party system outweigh the benefits. A parlimentary system with multiple parties representing narrower segments of the electorate , while inferior to our system in many ways, is more representative of electoral realities.
Oct '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
We do like medicine we can afford, but when you are facing an impending medical crisis, time is what you can afford the least of, whether you are rich or poor.
If you don't have the money for your medical bills, you can go into debt and settle later -- something I've had to do BTW -- or file for bankruptcy.
But no one can lend you time.
The poor are not exempt from the wait under socialized medicine. No one is -- except for those rich enough to afford bribes, etc. · Oct 24 at 3:01pm
Absolutely. It is the waiting lists that kill you, literally. Waiting for a by-pass is fatal, and there is no choice in government health care.
Jul '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
How will it affect the political scene? Easy. More Republicans if we want 'em. After all, our party used to be loaded with people of Blue Dog ilk. Just make sure they aren't part of Charles Murray's New Elite.
Jul '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Love the game "Othello"? Then you gotta love American politics.
There will be some Blue Dogs who survive. The ones Czarina Nancy deigned to allow to vote against Obamacare, for example. They will come back to a House with their party in the minority, and their ears still ringing from town halls and squeaker elections. Then the Republicans will get a bill through to repeal Obamacare, and the President will veto it. Back to Congress for override.
You're a "moderate" Democrat from a red state. How much would you ask for?
May '10
Re: Ideological Purity and Blue Dog Purges
Scott Reusser Yes: "John Kerry's foreign policy is a yes-no-maybe bowl of mush that emboldens our enemies and confuses our friends." Nice.
The downside of ideological purity in the two parties is the inability to execute a long-term war strategy in conflicts that extend beyond a single administration. Truman's "containment" was embraced (more-or-less) across parties. Now, with hawkish Democrats having become neo-conservative Republicans, such a long-war strategy is tougher to pull off. · Oct 24 at 11:42am
Scott, it's even worse, I think, because there is a new isolationist Right (see Radosh column at the link) that agrees with the head-in-the-sand Left that we should abandon any military element of international relations.
Gehenna will drop to 0 degrees Kelvin before CATO ever sees a nickel from me, after I heard David Boaz on the radio saying that Cheney had made uo the threat of Sadam to get money for Halliburton blah blah.
"With friends like these....."