Help me get a handle on the motivations of our Democratic majority

[jpgray]

It took a bit of thinking, but I can now understand (guess) what caused the bizarre behavior we all witnessed yesterday with regard to Kucinich's resolution.

We lack unity as a majority. This is caused in part by the preponderance of freshman Congresspeople from heretofore conservative areas. These people are by and large politicians and therefore ambitious and covetous of their newly won positions--it's no secret, all politicians are. This is also caused inevitably by the leadership being closely tied to big corporate donors. This is not as deplorable as it initially sounds, since to win elections in our system requires vast sums of money. It's the reason someone like Nader or Kucinich might hold very popular progressive views, but as a candidate dies at the ballot box--without money and without exposure, even the best platform will take you nowhere.

Then you have the people that really want to do what's right. I believe Conyers, Waxman, Kucinich and a strong minority of our delegation fall into this group. They are necessarily put at odds with the leadership (who must think to the election) and the minority of skittish Democrats, freshmen or otherwise.

This lack of unity is going to be exploited by the GOP with regard to impeachment. It's a perfect scheme--when the Democrats can't unite and hold Cheney to account, progressive voters get pissed off at the lack of a strong effort to impeach a very impeachable fellow. GOP voters (and the media) will exult in their party's triumphant crying of "all these investigations are a petty effort to impeach, they're not about the truth!" and "Congress examined the evidence, an saw no reason to impeach--therefore Cheney has not committed any wrongdoing."

This lack of unity helps explain some other disturbing actions of Congress--many actions that seem weak and vacillating or even collaborative with the GOP can be explained by this theory. It is in part a failure of leadership that we have these problems, but it's also caused by the skittishness of some Dems, the cancerous influence of money, and of course the tiny, infinitesimal size of our majority.

How do we fix this? To my mind a sustained GOP defeat, over a few election cycles, will do far more to solidify Democratic resolve than an internecine war that attempts to target and remove skittish Democrats. The GOP changed internally by gradually building power and winning elections, not by way of a Draconian purge of undesirable members. Promoting the best candidates in the primaries and defeating the worst candidates in the general elections is the road to building Democratic backbone. What do you think?

[MrCoffee]

1. Unless Congressional Democrats act like Democrats, there will be no sustained GOP defeat

The reason we took back Congress in 2006 is that the mysterious middle was fed up with repug rule. Unless we demonstrably show them (the vast majority of American voters who do not belong to DU or Freepville) that the Democratic party is, in fact, a viable alternative to the repugs, we will not maintain any kind of majority for long.

There are some things that have to happen right now:
1) Stop being afraid of the veto. Pass strong progressive legislation that will tangibly benefit middle America. When chimpy vetos it, scream from the highest towers that chimpy hates you and wants your children to die.

2) Use the veto to our advantage. Pass legislation that we can build bilateral support from moderate repugs on, and override the hell out of chimpy. turn that veto pen into a limp noodle, rather than the sword he's making it out to be.

3) Start slapping subpoenas on everything that breathes in the WH. Why are we dicking around with investigating Justice? I'm still baffled as to why that became the issue it did. Was Gonzo the biggest fish we could find?

[jpgray]

3. That's obvious--how do you -do- that with a divided, tiny majority?

How do you do that when a good 25% of your "majority" is so scared shitless of sticking out their necks that you can't get united on basically -anything-? If that's the real problem, how do we fix that?

[MrCoffee]

5. that requires strong Congressional leadership, which we sorely lack

i'm not trying to turn this into another "oh, MrCoffee hates Pelosi/Reid" pissing match, but those who you rightly describe as "scared shitless" will require special handling by the leadership. There will always be recalcitrant members, regardless of the size of your majority. Effective leadership can massage those members and shore up a divided majority.

If you run with a (D) behind your name, there should be certain bedrock issues that will always, always carry your vote. That's why we're in the majority, is to get those issues addressed.

No, it's not an easy task with a baboon in the WH. Yes, Congress will have to get their hands dirty. Tough. That's why we sent them there.

[jpgray]

8. I don't have the ability to improve our party leadership, not directly

I do however have the ability to provide a larger, sustained majority. Part of this to my mind is the influence of the media and of the big money donors--as the GOP continues to lose elections, they will have fewer and fewer advantages with these groups because they will have less and less influence. This influence, in my view, is what so many Democratic congresspeople including the leadership rightly or wrongly fear. The way to get the media to recognize the left as becoming victorious is to hand the GOP defeat after defeat. The media don't -recognize- true "left/right" or "liberal/conservative" labels anymore. To them, -Nancy Pelosi- is a San Francisco crazy liberal. Nancy Pelosi! Someone like Kucinich, whose actual progressive views are widely popular in isolation, is derided as a delusional lawn gnome. These Democrats are weak, and the party needs a lot of fixing up. But the moment our circular firing squad hands the GOP more victories I start to have a big problem with it.

[MrCoffee]

12. We have the same media/big money donors we had in 2006

Personally, i don't buy the "M$M won't let us" argument. i think it's defeatist and futile. we won a majority of both chambers in 2006 with the same media, the same big money donors, the same DLC...and we won it because the majority of American voters (the same voters most susceptible to the MSM/big money donors) wanted a change. We won it because Democratic ideas of government are better.

We are rapidly losing that advantage. The MCA, the PAA, sCHIP...we are beginning to look like incompetent bumblers who can't do anything right. Unless we get out the paddles and shock the Democratic heart back to life, there will be no ongoing GOP defeats, because they can kick our asses when it comes to electioneering.

[jpgray]

13. Ah, but note we won in 2006 without mounting any effective opposition

Our delegation had the excuse of being the minority, which in part excused a lack of strong opposition to the administration. Now that we are in the majority, the same skittish behavior is going on. Your point is actually well taken, but in the sense that both our skittish behavior -and- our donors have remained constant. Might one influence the other? I don't have any direct evidence of this, but there seems at times a completely illogical flight from confrontation on certain issues, and the only reasonable cause I can figure would be money. I'm not trying to say "the M$M won't let us!" but I am certain that our donor structure has a lot to do with our lack of sufficient unity on progressive policy. The money system we have is -designed- to reward stances that are not progressive.

[MrCoffee]

17. that's a fair point

i don't really know enough about financing a campaign to give even a halfway educated response, but you are making a truckload of sense.

[jpgray]

19. I can't give an educated response either on the real cause and effect of money in politics

There's simply too much I don't know, or can't know. But I'm having a hard time finding an alternate explanation that fits. I suppose it could be a number of things all working together, or it could be much simpler than I'm making it, but I really can't figure out the motivation of the leadership sometimes.

[MrCoffee]

20. CYA? sometimes it seems like that's the only possible reason.

[Truth2Tell]

2. How do we fix this?

We have it out. Progressives need to re-establish control of the party even if it means a bloody battle. We need to prove to the rest of the caucus, and to the voters, and to the world, that an agenda of actual accountability is the real winner.

We need to Impeach, and wishy washy Dems can either get on the train or stay at the station all winter.

[jpgray]

4. A bloody battle that results in 8 more years of GOP dominated gov't would be disastrous

They are extremely dangerous. I don't agree at all with those like Ralph Nader who say Republican control is often good for progressive causes. Yeah, Reagan's reign grew environmental groups by many orders of magnitude, but it also irrevocably destroyed much of our systems of regulation and protection. So there comes a time where the "people need disaster to wake up" starts to become less than palatable--namely when the disaster is so horrific that the time needed for more gradual change ceases to become a drawback.

[Truth2Tell]

15. I don't mean a third party

just a palace coup in the current Congressional Dem caucus. I believe that once progressives were in control and driving the agenda, the triangulating weasels of the DLC would be forced to get on board. It would be their only choice in the face of congressional popularity buoyed by a display of actual leadership.

[2rth2pwr]

6. Well, 100% Dems in Congress and Senate plus

the Presidency might solidify Democratic resolve. Is that your point?

[MrCoffee]

7. no, that wasn't the point at all. but why be constructive when you can be snarky?

[jpgray]

9. Sustained defeat of the GOP can only serve to embolden progressives

Or do you disagree?

[mike_c]

10. I agree partly, and disagree partly....

I agree that a sustained GOP defeat will certainly stiffen the spines of the democratic party leadership to some degree, but I think there is still an important issue regarding the nature of those spines in the first place. Many of the current dem leaders learned their institutional skills-- especially in the House-- during the long republican majority and they seem to utterly lack the skills necessary to exploit their own majority power for the good of the nation. They are terminal appeasers, avoiding confrontation and seeking consensus with republicans who, while now a minority, were their bosses for nearly twenty years. I think many of our current dem congress persons DO need to be replaced.

[jpgray]

11. Replacement in several cases would be ideal. Is now the time for replacement, though?

It can't happen soon enough, -if- it can happen. To my mind if a conservative Democrat is replaced with a Republican as a result of such an attempted replacement, that's a net loss as far as moving the country or Congress in a progressive direction. Now that's a generalization--there could well be specific cases where it'd be worth the effort in the grand scheme of things (Liberman!) and people certainly have the right to try it, but I just wonder if it's good strategy. And certainly I have some moral problems with voting for a party I know has disappointing, flawed, oft-corrupt leadership in the hopes that with a more sustained majority they will return to their ostensible values. That's risky too, but at least it keeps the GOP out of power.

[mike_c]

16. holding on to power for its own sake is the antithesis of American political values....

I'm not so naive as to think that's not the real mission of most political parties, but damn, I simply won't acknowledge it as desirable or good. If the political equation comes down to having to accept poor democratic leadership because we fear the risk of losing when we challenge that poor leadership then we have already lost and have nothing worth defending anyway. That's the politics of fearful mediocrity.

[jpgray]

21. I guess I expected this to be an anemic majority

The GOP has built up such inertia in the media and in public debate that I feel it needs sustained defeat to really be in effect a minority party. Until that happens, I am resolved to have some patience for ineffective, scared Democrats--once the GOP has been consistently rejected at the polls, then it's time to demand accountability, in my view. This majority to my mind is just too caught up in fear of the GOP and fear of defeat to live up to expectations.

[mike_c]

22. yes but....

Rejecting the GOP requires that voters be offered ALTERNATIVES to GOP positions. Weak dem leadership cannot or will not develop or fight for those alternatives. We see that today as dems parroting the republican line on topics such as the war against Iraq, national security and the bogus WOT, foreign policy, and executive accountability, i.e. impeachment, rather than advancing strong alternative proposals on those issues or shifting the political discourse to other topics. The dem leadership has largely co-opted the republican message, but from a position of seemingly permanent weakness.

Sure, dissatisfaction with the GOP will continue to produce some republican loses in the near term, I'm sure, but the sort of sustained defeat you're envisioning requires that dems advance alternative directions that are fundamentally different from the GOP. That requires strong leadership FIRST, not as an after effect of the fall of the GOP.

I just don't think that "anemic majority" will achieve the permanence needed to strengthen it under the scenario you propose. Folks might be dissatisfied with the GOP, but if the dems don't offer much more than simply not being republicans, they are not going to last long either, IMO.

[jpgray]

24. All very true, the problem is I don't know how to effect those kinds of changes

I can, however, cast my vote in such a way as it promotes the best candidates in the primary and defeats the worst in the general. I'm not saying it will work, but it has a chance of doing some good (harming the GOP) whether it works or no.

[Perry Logan]

14. It's not true that we "lack unity as a majority." The stats prove otherwise.

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

Don't let the media rhetoric fool you. The Democrats have acquitted themselves quite well--especially given their bare majority in both houses, and a relentlessly obstructionist Republican minority.

[jpgray]

18. True, but in search of generating that unity, the leadership is forced to take soft stances

Notably on the Iraq war, on Lieberman-Kyl, etc. So while they may vote together, what they are voting -for- is often indicative of a divided party which needs to avoid strong stances to have any hope of wrangling all its members.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. The motivation is to hold on to their seats and gain more power.

However, given their track record, the power gained would only be used to hold on to their seats.

Rinse and repeat.

[jpgray]

26. That's the dilemma--once successful, why risk angering the system that gave you success?

My hope is that the best members of Congress, the true progressives, will be empowered by a larger Democratic majority to the point that they can mitigate some of the corruption.

[mike_c]

27. define success....

If "success" is defined narrowly as electing democrats to do more-or-less the same job that republicans did, then perhaps you're right. On the other hand, if we understand success to mean CHANGING the status quo and undoing the damage the GOP has done, then we NEED strong, determined leadership ASAP to steer the congress into new directions, not fearful going-along-to-get-along mediocrity. I'm afraid we can't have the latter without taking some risks.

[jpgray]

28. The problem is, losing elections hasn't taught them anything

Part of the reason is that in our two party system, when the Democrat loses too often the Republican wins. The nature of politicians, in my view, is to chase after success, and when they see success for the GOP they seek to emulate that success. When that success is based on financial backing that is tied to some very right-wing economic policies in a quid pro quo relationship, the DLC mindset of being conservative on economic issues becomes understandable--they are chasing the success of the GOP, but are crippled on the outset because the GOP has staked out the preeminent sellout position. As many have said, the DLC can offer only a watered down, halfway selling out that doesn't please the big money players -or- the average voter. That this scheme was tied to a charismatic politician like Clinton, well-suited to success with almost any platform, artificially inflated the benefits of that "third way" nonsense, which is why we are saddled with many Clinton folks as spokespeople and party strategists.

Democrats -don't- move left when they lose to Republicans. The information as to why progressive voters (which by poll data would include most of the population) reject a Democratic candidate either can't be gathered or isn't gathered, and it certainly isn't given much thought or attention. The politicians mostly think "what wins?" and "how can I emulate that win?"

So unless there's a way to change the strategic thinking of the party strategists or to get the media to cover issues effectively and discern the motivations of non-voters and progressive voters that abandon the Democratic Party, there is no push left from that direction. The Democrats emulate the successful Republicans and the base gets further alienated.

[burythehatchet]

25. Sadly, there is no cure with the party system as it stands.

The division is not between Repub and Dem, its between the owner class and labor. The verty existance of the current two party system is the greatest deceit we have to overcome. As long as the corporatocracy control both parties, this is all a moot point.

[jpgray]

29. Well, how do you subvert that control?

[burythehatchet]

30. regulation, legislation and a reordering of priorities

My profession is risk management. Without going into a philosophical discussion of risk and its impact upon our lives, let me state that people are motivated to accept some risk in exchange for a reward. The higher the risk, the higher the expected reward. What has occurred over the past 50 years is a gradual but unabated shifting of risk from the owner class to the labor class. I'll give you a trite example: You sign up with Verizon for a cellphone for two years. Their service sucks and they've been giving my phone records to the NSA and I lose my job. I want out of the contract. I get to pay a $200 penalty. Why? Because my contract says so. Is the risk that Verizon took worth $200? No, it was a minimal risk but Verizon gets a handsome reward. There is a mismatch of risk and reward. Where did the risk go? To the consumer, who is least able to afford it. Therein lies the basic truth, we live in a society where the risk is shifted to the weakest party. Economic darwinism. So if a class of people are enjoying high rewards with minimal risk, the system evolves geometrically and the division between the have's and have not's grows out of control.

[ulysses]

31. jp, here's the rub:

Promoting the best candidates in the primaries and defeating the worst candidates in the general elections is the road to building Democratic backbone.

Minus the backbone, there likely isn't going to be any sustained defeat of the GOP over several cycles. Chicken meet egg, Catch-22, it's the same story. Voters said - quite loudly - in 2006 that they wanted change, and it hasn't been forthcoming. We might have one more cycle at best to start producing the goods, and that's if we're lucky.

[jpgray]

33. Yeah, but unless someone on DU is in with the leadership, there's little we can do short-term

Other than vote a certain way. There's no question strategic voting in the GE leaves a bad taste, but what else can be done?

[MoonRiver]

32. Gotta play to the (mythical) middle,

even if it takes the Democratic Party, not to mention this country, down the tube.
:crazy: