Conservatives Made the GOP Toxic and Now They're Killing the Democratic Party
As I look back on the past year, I'm not sure if America progressives aren't better served by having a Democratic minority in Congress. And not the 41-59 minority they have now.
I always say that generalized griping about "the Democrats" is a waste of time. It seems to me that there are around 10 Democratic senators and maybe 50 members of the House who are far to the right of "moderate" by any stretch of the imagination. They are conservatives, and they've obstructed their own party's moderately progressive proposals -- the very same proposals they ran and won on -- at every turn, right from the beginning.
Let me be clear before continuing: there's buckets of blame to go around, and it would be oversimplifying to suggest that it's all on the conservadems. But I think they deserve the most responsibility for the Democrats' inability to pass the key pieces of "change" they promised.
The Nelson Twins, Evan Bayh, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, Kent Conrad, Claire McCaskill, Jim Webb and Blanche Lincoln in the Senate, and all but 4 or 5 of the Blue Dogs in the House have been horror shows, and the entire party has had to appease them by watering down its proposals at every turn, demoralizing the Democratic base in the process and leading of course to Scott Brown and the possible -- perhaps probable -- end of the road for health-care reform.
Max Baucus dragged out the process for months in his committee while entertaining all kinds of Republican amendments and flirting with pathetic futility with Olympia Snowe's vote. Reps like Joe Baca and Jim Marshall held pressers to spew forth Fox News-worthy talking points against "socialized medicine." Joe Lieberman not only went on Fox news to oppose anything even vaguely progressive, he also repeatedly, almost comically pulled the ball out from under Harry Reid's foot every time Reid thought he was going to finally kick that field-goal.
And they are wholly responsible for the Dems' almost unbelievable inability to overn with huge majorities in both chambers of Congress -- they are why real Democrats (actual moderates included) remain in the minority. Do the math -- 59 minus 10 equals 49, a Senate minority.
And there are a handful of Dems who are simply not good legislators. Harry Reid was way too accommodating to Baucus' dithering and has shown a distinct aversion to calling out members of his own caucus in any visible way. He needs to go.
Now here's the thing: that's around 60-70 Democrats out of
290 315 or so. I'm not saying that the rest are good progressives -- they number maybe another 70-80. But the remainder are more or less moderate -- they're centrists, or maybe they skew a bit right or a bit left. Now, I have no idea how those good progressives and those moderates would govern if they weren't trying to keep these conservative, corporate-friendly faux Dems in the fold -- again: all the time, from the very beginning, on significant issue after significant issue. And neither do you -- we just can't know.
(I want to drive this point home: this isn't a call for liberal litmus tests for Dems or the creation of a small, ideologically pure party. The most progressive of the Democratic proposals we've seen so far -- the ones conservative Dems never supported -- were the epitome of center-left legislation. If you oppose moderate bills from the right, and you parrot the far-right in doing so, then you're a conservative, not a "moderate." True moderates should of course remain welcome in the party.)
The conservadems' influence leads me to consider that perhaps a "movement progressive," if you will, might not be better off over the long haul if Democrats were to return to the minority. And we all know the very reasonable and customary response to that: these are Democrats who are as conservative as their districts and states require, if they weren't holding those seats they'd be in GOP hands, and any way you slice it Republicans are still the more regressive party.