On not being obliged to vote Democrat, parts four and five
Hmm, reminds me I need to get this tidied up and put it on CT to get the outraged attention of some Americans. Two short and related points, because I'm in a hurry.
4: Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
Empirically, as a matter of observable fact, the Democratic Party does not require very much in the way of party discipline. Things like "voting against key manifesto commitments of a very popular Democratic President" do not cost you your committee chairmanship. "Voting Republican and encouraging others to do so" (Lieberman) is not inconsistent with being allowed to caucus with the Senate Democrats and kee your seniority in doing so. And this isn't a matter of political pragmatism; plenty of Congressional Democrats voted against the reform of derivatives regulation, an issue with basically no cultural or populist relevance at all. It's simply a matter of the governing philosophy of the Democratic Party - that anything goes on the right. Party discipline and outrage is reserved for anyone who deviates to the left.
But the simple matter that the Democrats would like to say that you can have a sauce for geese that isn't a sauce for ganders, doesn't make it so. If sitting Democrat Congressmen are allowed to campaign actively against Democratic party policy, then anything goes.
5. Ineffectuality is a political issue
And this follows on from the preceding. Because the Democratic Party has no party discipline, it is extremely ineffective in getting anything done. It's a coalition of incumbent politicians and their hired consultants, united by their commitment to keeping their own extremely lucrative jobs. Which is why it's unsurprising that non-core, peripheral activities like politics aren't done very well.
But why pour any time and effort at all into an organisation that isn't fit for purpose? Nobody is suggesting that there is any real likelihood in these midterm elections that the Democrats will be pushed below a 40-Senate-seat blocking minority, so they have basically exactly as much power to achieve stasis (which is their goal) whether you vote for them or not. And "fewer, but better" is a principle that applies here, as the marginal Congressmen are for the most part the least politically useful; under Bush, the Congressional Democrats were a comparatively highly effective organisation in blocking things like Social Security reform.
So the strategy of lifting a finger and enabling this shower to keep going seems to me to be dominated by an alternative strategy of letting it dwindle to a blocking minority, and then concentrating your effort on influencing that minority's blocking. Again with the bait and switch - the sales proposition of the Democrats is that they can't achieve anything much at all in the way of useful legislation, because of the archaic and obstructionist rules of Congress, but that if the Republicans get in, they will immediately be able to force through the most radical and hostile agenda conceivable. Seriously - Congressional Democrats couldn't get their own way on the end-user exemption for swaps clearing; why on earth would one think that Republicans can ban abortion?
Seriously - Congressional Democrats couldn't get their own way on the end-user exemption for swaps clearing; why on earth would one think that Republicans can ban abortion?
ReplyDeleteBecause the Republicans are highly disciplined, whereas half the Democrats would probably try and aid them if they did. I think that's the argument. Which does rather weaken the argument for voting Democrat if you follow it to its logical conclusion.
"Vote for us or the rump that remain will support laws you despise."
ReplyDeleteThing is, the Blue Dog caucus is about 50 members. Dems are projected to lose about 50 House seats. The odds are overwhelming that the Blue Dog Caucus will be devastated. Some of them, like Jane Harman, are at no risk, but the bottom line is that the Dems most likely to aid and abet the Rs are going to be gone come 2011.
Sadly, because of the Senate's rolling elections, we won't see a similar situation there: anti-Dems like Ben Nelson, who could never win an election this year, don't have to face the angry populace they deserve. But it's very unlikely that the GOP take over the Senate, so the dynamic is different. If a series of elections decimated the Senate Blue Dog types, the Dems would surely be in the minority, but a pretty progressive one. What they need to do, however, is to get rid of those damn Maine Senators who vote like Inhofe when it counts, but have evidently convinced their constituents that they're really just to the right of John Kerry. A couple blue Senators from deep blue Maine would be a nice replacement for, say, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu.
Thing is, if you look at the Gore and Kerry electoral maps, you get ~20 blue states - most of them deep blue. If Dems were to hold both Senate seats in all those, then they merely need to split the Senate seats in another 10 states to reach parity. A few of those would be wankers, but not necessarily the large number you see right now. I can see 5 red states that would happily elect a reasonably progressive Dem, if he had the right background.
ReplyDeletePoint being that, even though the Senate is stacked against the Dems (2 Senators for 37M Californians, 4 for 1.4M Dakotans), there are enough deep blue states plus purple states to get them a working, reasonably progressive majority. Then they just need the guts to kill the filibuster. If they don't do it, it's just a matter of time until the GOP does it with 50 Senators plus Vice President Mary Cheney.
...why on earth would one think that Republicans can ban abortion?
ReplyDeleteBecause one has been told to think that, of course. Abortion is not a policy issue.
Americans on the whole don't like abortion, but do want it to be legal. What America wants is abortion that is available, inconvenient, and perhaps expensive, and this exactly what America has got. The present policy is a perfect match to the preference of the body politic.
Starting from this statement of the obvious, we quickly reach the inevitable conclusion that in America, Abortion is a simply a rhetorical device to be used in campaign speeches and fundraising efforts. You should pay about as much attention to it as you do to the bunting and balloons.
Point being that, even though the Senate is stacked against the Dems (2 Senators for 37M Californians, 4 for 1.4M Dakotans), there are enough deep blue states plus purple states to get them a working, reasonably progressive majority.
ReplyDeleteBut even then, you'll have senators from deep blue states who'll gladly vote serve the dominant interests of their particular states, whether it's Delaware or New York on business/finance regulation or midwestern Dems on farm subsidies or west-coasters on de facto permanent copyright for media conglomerates or shoddy data protection laws for internet giants.
So it's not just the Blue Dogs, who are fuckers across the board: given the various fiefdoms that concentrate in particular states, you can guarantee that a few otherwise-reliable votes can be withheld on most issues to dilute or stymie legislation.
I think you misspelled "Here is a nice video of Brian Eno singing 'In the jungle'?"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5RYptkzbjY
What they need to do, however, is to get rid of those damn Maine Senators who vote like Inhofe when it counts, but have evidently convinced their constituents that they're really just to the right of John Kerry.
ReplyDeleteI agree and don't understand why the party hasn't focussed on this and poured in real resources.
"I need to get this tidied up and put it on CT to get the outraged attention of some Americans"
ReplyDeleteYou mean to say, we're just getting the off-cuts and out-takes here? I'm shocked and apalled.
You got the outraged attention of some Americans yesterday. You can go back to bed now.
ReplyDelete