Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
More Democrats versus Better Democrats
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Also in Election 2008
Dems' Godly God-Fest Ends with Prayer by Former Christian Coalition Leader
Joshua Holland AlterNet
John McCain is Older Than Alaska
Isaac Fitzgerald AlterNet
Palin Thinks Hillary is a Whiner
Melissa McEwan Shakesville
I'm curious as to what you might think about this:
While much of the Congressional political focus has been on the declining fortunes and numbers of House Republicans, House Democrats have their own problem – they are winning too many elections.
By prevailing in conservative locales where they ordinarily would not have a chance, Democrats are widening the ideological divide in their own ranks and complicating their ability to find internal consensus.
This will be an interesting challenge. In the blogosphere we've been in the business of trying to elect more and better Democrats, by which we mean progressive. This raises the question: is more, without the better, a good idea?
The article asserts that the Democrats need to win much more in order to have a real working majority and there may be a chance this year to do it. But it still presents an interesting conundrum. What if you end up with a bigger majority of people with (D) after their names, but most of the new ones are conservative? It's not an unexpected outcome in a country that has, until recently, been very evenly divided.
The Republicans kept their "moderates" on a very short chain and consciously governed with as few cross over votes as possible in order to keep the other side frustrated and the caucus "pure." They got things done for a while, and protected their president with the loyalty of feral pit bulls, but ended up destroying themselves.
On the other hand, if the Democratic "moderates," the Blue Dogs, become the deciding factor in legislation, the change we will see will be incremental at best. Having the majority means that the most heinous right wing legislation never sees the light of day, so that's worth it, no matter what. But it's going to be very difficult to enact sweeping changes in policy unless these new Representatives are running explicitly on that agenda. Otherwise, they may very well vote with the Republicans, even if their president can raise lots of money for them. Money can't guarantee that Democrats in conservative districts can win.
I'm a big believer in padding the progressive caucus, so a new group of conservative Democrats seems like a mixed bag to me(although it's great to see Republicans reeling.) But it's happening and it is something for which we should prepare ourselves.
Tagged as: 2008 elections, democrats, progressives
| Also in Election 2008 | |||
| Dems' Godly God-Fest Ends with Prayer by Former Christian Coalition Leader A leader among the "New Evangelicals." Post by Joshua Holland. August 29, 2008. |
John McCain is Older Than Alaska 23 years older. Post by Isaac Fitzgerald. August 29, 2008. |
Palin Thinks Hillary is a Whiner These days Palin is all about praising Hillary's efforts, but she used to sing a different tune. Post by Melissa McEwan. August 29, 2008. |
|