The Flip Side Of Dem Victories: A Widening Ideological Divide

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 districts 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. It is a nice problem to have, but it is one that can bedevil party leaders. As their numbers expand, they have to juggle the competing interests of Travis Childers, the newly elected pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-tax representative from northern Mississippi and someone like, say, Nancy Pelosi, a pro-gun control, liberal abortion-rights advocate from San Francisco who sees government as a solution.

Ms. Pelosi, who as speaker will have the job of managing these increasingly divergent philosophies, said it was to the advantage of the party and the nation to mesh such differing views.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[Dap]

Senator Obama has great experience on this issue for his days in the Illinois Senate, it is His forte' so to say. No, problem, for President Obama.

[LoRiseAntlers]

These people aren't Democrats.They're Republicans taking advantage of the fact the GOP's in the shitter.They call themselves Democrats to get elected.

[MBryant]

It's interesting that Huff Post simeltaneously has two articles running about identity crises in both parties (see the "Dog Food" piece on the front page).

Republicans, at their core, are selling a "Leave it to Beaver" fantasy image of America and a "vote like a rich person and protect your opportunity to be a rich person" lie (reminds me of a casino). (here's the rub - the rich don't really want you to be rich - they just want your vote).

Democrats - who have emerged from ethnic and labor coalitions - have a "it's a tough world out there - we need someone like us to be really powerful" attitude - sort of a 'patron" thing going. The only way we play with the big dogs is to make one of our own big. Join our club and we'll protect you. The Dem message still struggles with an "us and them" thing..

Niether approach is particularly inclusive... niether recognizes America's true global cultural leadership and multiculturalism. Obama doesn't even know he is a symbol of millenial America. Even though American won't join Kyoto - could any other country produce an Al Gore? Why do artists and writers, thinkers and academics still flock here? It ain't because of our political parties.

America has such an opportunity to lead the world (in a good way) and yet it is still bogged down with these political parties trying to iron out their petty marketing schemes.

[smokepole]

If you think the Democrats will not take care of their rich friends as well you are mistaken. The Democrats like to tar Republicans for being sympathetic to the rich as much as Republicans like to tar Democrats for not being patriotic. Both accusations are, on the whole, not true.
I take the economist view of both liberals and conservatives. Liberals think in utopia terms, they envision a socialistic view of the world as it should be and use the government to compel reality to mirror their utopia. Conservatives tend to believe in reality as it is for the individual and view government as a necessary, but extremely limited in what it can do and is responsible for.
Simply put liberals and progressives would like to see society like an ant or bee colony, maximum social befits and little individual freedoms. No property rights, no classes, collective education, and collective healthcare. Think Star Trek Federation.
Conservatives tend to see society as a pack of wolves, maximum individual freedom with just enough social cooperation to meet basic needs of the pack. Property rights, status based on skill, and ability to move up and down the social ladder. Think combo of Ferengi and Klingon.

[DMHendrix]

This is not a new problem for the Democrats. We have been dealing with the Blue Dog Democrats for a while now. Sometimes they vote with the party and sometimes they don't. Last time I checked, there were about 18 of them....so if we pick up another 30 seats this time like we did in 2006, then it won't be that big of an issue.

[cubs325]

i beleive this is a good thing - Congress was more effective and less broken when coalitions were required and issues did not split specifically along party lines, there shoudl be democrats that may have conservative views on some issues and visa versa

I wish congress was filled with thinkers instead of passive sheep - better for all of us!!!

[readyforchange]

There are ideological divides in both parties. It is prime time for third and fourth parties to emerge. This archaic two-party system has not served us well. The perspectives and debate need to expand to include more inclusion and representation of the American people.

[bracken]

I'm of the opinion that Democrats and "Democrats" are being voted into office to provide a counterbalance for McCain as President. The idea is to weight the Congress with Democrats so as to provide some illusion of a veto-proof majority against McCain's crazier ideas, whatever they may be, while allowing them to vote for him as the pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-military President they've already demonstrated they feel much more comfortable with (does McCain drink beer?). Obama is too different--Congress is for differents. For a President, they'll choose the familiar brand. But they voted for a Democrat for Congress, so it's not like they're, you know, prejudiced.

[oldwiseone]

I thought that elected representatives were elected to represent me, how did it come about that I am electing a representative who is there to represent his views?

[YRM]

Just as college-educated voters have been duped into thinking Sen. Obama represents the anti-establishment, change platform, they think Nancy Pelosi is a liberal. Obama was fielded to run in this election by the oil companies and other Wall Street giants to make sure Clinton, the policy reincarnation of both F.D.R. and Eleanor Roosevelt, doesn't make it to the November ballot. Pelosi and Reid were placed in their leadership positions by the same folks. This It was Pelosi, if you recall, who protected the last speaker, Tom DeLay, by warning Democrats not to file complaints with the Ethics Comm. about his corruption. When Chris Bell defied her, she retaliated and he did not win reelection. Neither did Cynthia McKinney, another Pelosi detractor. "Off-the-table" Pelosi has also heavily lobbied congress people to support Obama, telling them that Clinton would be "a drag" on their reelection campaigns. The supers at this point are more interested in their own fortunes than whether or not there will be a Democrat elected in the fall. Only if Clinton takes on Reid and Pelosi directly - over Florida and Michigan, the recruiting of pro-life conservatives, etc. - will she be able to gain ground with those 796 votes at the convention. She needs to assume the mantle of leader of the party. In some ways, the media already treats her as such, and she can use that to good effect by refusing to step into a 48-state convention.

[vincie]

Pelosi and Reid are the worst leaders of the democratic party in history. they have no guttssss. they are afraid of this and that. The republican's weak as they are still win in congress. Please god give us two leaders that are able to fight for us, and not be afraid to fight for what they think is right no matter what the republicans say. I have my doubts this will come to pass. Did you see how the republicans could not stand Mcain, but went with him because the knew he could win. the democrats are going with Obama, and i believe he will never win the general election, time will tell. They have to know the best candidate agains Mcain in Hillary, but they still give their votes to obama because they are afraid of the black.

[TurnThePageGA]

So why was Reid's son Hillary's campaign chairman in Nevada? Reid has been assisting Hillary's campaign with the way he has scheduled certain votes. I live in the Metro Atlanta area. Nancy had nothing to do with Cynthia's demise.

[rollingdivision]

Republicans are getting their butts kicked, not conservatives. In fact, with Democrats putting up conservative Democrats who are pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-tax and "Davis has given no indication that
he'll stray far from the Bush administration ' s stand on important issues, including the war in Iraq". The three Democrats ran on the Republican positions on the issues that matter. So if to get more conservatives elected they have to run as Democrats that's fine. For it's more important to gain seats for people who are pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-tax and support success in Iraq then electing Republicans.

[TimmySlagle]

Great point. The Democrats are winning a majority in name only. It's what happened in 2006, they ran candidates that appeared more Conservative than the incumbents. It's also why none of Pelosi's agenda got passed, because despite the appearance of a Liberal victory, America is just as Conservative as it's ever been.

Just watch their surprise in November...

(and how they'll scream "stolen election" again)

[rollingdivision]

Unless the Democrats want to move their party to the right, many of these gains will turn out to be Pyrrhic victory. With the growing number of Blue Dog Democrats, party leadership will be naturally moved to the right by both the Republicans in the legislative process and within by their own growing numbers of conservative Democrats. Is it winning, when winning at any cost, means the candidates you elect do not support your party on the major issues that matter? Anti-tax, pro-gun, anti-abortion, no material differences with Bush about Iraq are hard pills to swallow for many principled Democrats.

[JJeff88]

Underlying premise of the article is a sound one that I've begun thinking about.

Even when the number of Dems in Congress was smaller and presumably held less power - trying to get them to coalesce around anything was like "trying to herd cats."

That said - this doesn't mean tough sledding should the party broaden its support. But what's important is that leadership understands this new emerging dynamic, the problems it might present and to reshape its management style accordingly.

Ironically, the Obama view - that "51/49 politics is obsolete" and that getting things done will require bipartisan alliances and coalitions - might be more prescient than even he intended. (i.e. the concept of "reaching across the aisle" might need to be extended to "reaching across various disparate nooks and crannies of the Democratic party).

Closing note - Interesting observation in the article about large majorities giving the party apparatus flexibility to give some members political cover by allowing them to vote "no" on controversial issues.

[hugs4u]

Travis Childers and others like him are not really democrats.. They only say they are democrats, because
right now it is the in thing to be to win an election.

[ntmessage]

Indeed, there is no better reflection of this split as it is with the candidates themselves. Without question, Obama is the establishment-supported candidate, and Clinton is the more centrist one. This has been the elephant in the room for some time, all spin and PR campaigning aside. Obvious to people that need evidence to backup what they read.

However, the trend with the Democrats running candidates that are more centrist started in 2006, and not with Obama. Obama taking the outsider position and over emphasizing the sliver of votes he received in pure Red states was politically savvy for the primary, but in reality, as we and the rest of the country now know, was like jamming a square peg in a round hole.

Yes, it is an issue, and no it is not related to Obama, one bit. Indeed the party"s challenge is to truly become a big tent as it was in 1992. The political correctness and power hungry at all costs to the party old grey beards that pre-date to the Clinton Presidency will only realize a big tent, if they truly let go of real power.

This is both the blessing and the curse of the Democrats. The real reason they continue to pull defeat from the jaws of victory time and time again. Keep the old time grey beard liberals in power, and fumble away an advantage gained in the next cycle or win the Presidency.

[Trueheart]

Thank you for making such a clear-headed, insightful comment. It really got me thinking.

One of the tragic consequences of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush period is that both parties lost the ability to provide that "big tent" for its liberal, moderate and conservative wings. Diversity of opinion within a political party makes it better prepared to make good compromise deals with the opposition. The Art of Compromise, so to speak, begins at home.

[Liberal2]

Ahhhh, "compromise"..... Pray tell how one "compromises: with a David Vitter on defense of marriage; with McCain on Iraq or Iran; with a Dobson follower on church and state...? You see, on key policy issues there is no compromise.

When you identify a policy on which both have morally acceptable yet different positions I'll begin to think in terms of compromise. In today's world, compromise is limited to settling for an unworkable middle ground. A "federal healthcare system" that works through for-profit insurance companies is exactly that unworkable middle ground.

[Ides]

Didn't Democrats keep all of their seats last election and take a majority in the Senate and House? Yeah, thought so. By the way, only FIVE of the seats won in 2006 were by conservative Democrats, the dozens of others were all liberals.

Hillary got her butt kicked. That "sliver" doesn't count actual caucus votes, just county delegate votes. The pledged delegate margin is about 7%, more than the electoral vote margin in the last two elections.

Finally, Hillary and Obama's "base" is moderate and liberal Democratic voters. Hillary gets more conservatives, but they aren't an overwhelming group. Furthermore, her proportion of the Republican vote went from 17% to 70% at the exact same time when John McCain secured the Republican nomination. Not a coincidence. Her votes are artificially inflated.

The grey beard liberals have power because the Democrats give them power and they win elections. We LOST seats in Congress when Bill Clinton, after winning as a liberal, adopted conservative policies. The losing game is the same game we played in 2004 -- centrism. John Edwards has always been a centrist despite his recent 2008 adoption of populism. John Kerry voted as a centrist. Joe Lieberman was a HUGE centrist on the ticket.

Besides, when the Republican method of securing an election is getting the Supreme Court to give it to you and you start a war because no wartime president has ever lost a reelection, policy positions have little to do with it.

[Midnightrain]

Glad you made the necessary corrections, thanks.

[mamacat]

What choice do Americans have?
The Rs have proven themselves to be incompetent and corrupt, without giving any indication that they want to change. If anything, they are becoming more right-wing. No moderates are allowed in the GOP, the lunatic fringe hounds them out of the party in the primaries.
Really, the American people have no choice at this point in time. Vote for a Democrat, or vote for more of the same.

[sparkandy]

Exactly. The last thing we need in our legislature is Republicans. In the long run, this is a lot more important than who wins the Presidency. It makes voting easier in Senate and Congressional elections, as well as State and local elections - just vote straight party Democrat.

[Troubledwawa]

The article is right when it pointed out that it could be worse for the Democrats when facing the widening ideological divide within their party. It sounds like a nice problem to have have right now, really...

Look at the Republicans. They acted like 6 year old spoilt brats when they made the choice to sit out on the vote to fund the Iraq war. A war they claim to feel passionate about for National Security. A war that they have also allowed and defended an incompetent administration to wage.

Is it any wonder their party is breaking up?

Today's Republicans have shown absolutely NO evidence of self control within that entity they call a political party. At least back in the early 1970's they did when they faced a member of their party who lost control of themselves, by sending Senator Goldwater to see President Nixon on behalf of the country and the party, to deliver a message - "it's time for you to go".

I respected the Republicans back then for that. The country came first when the rubber met the road.

By contrast, a week or two ago, the today's Democrats sent Senator Feinstein to see Senator Clinton when faced with a similar issue. I have respect for that as well - not because it was against Senator Clinton, but because the party demonstrated an element of self control, when the rubber met the road.

Like the article said, it could be worse. Look at today's Republicans.

[egal]

Well, if our gov is going to represent us remotely accurately in a 2-party system, chances are the R's will have to dissolve or be overtaken by Democrats who are actually conservative rather than the oppressively, willfully ignorant R's so worried about their party-- and themselves--staying in power that they have cultivated differences where none exist, used buzzwords rather than effective tactics, and become a new Aristocracy determined to put Big Business in charge.

Of course, the D's obliging their illusionary demonization by advancing Big Government in a day when that's not what Democratic citizens want have played their part in advancing this disastrous state of the government and ugly, destructive and useless (based on lies and manufactured issues as much as viable differences) partisan politics. It's not surprising that today's adherents to the R show up in studies as the most rigid, least openminded, most credulous, least educated, most superior, and least observant among us, not conservative but overbearing, domineering, and out of touch with reality.

[troykendal]

sustainable - what don't you get?

[Byzantium]

The Democratic leadership is thrlled about the "widening ideological divide".

It gives them yet another reason to do nothing.

[izAriver]

Much of what they've tried to do has been blocked by repugnicans. They do not have the required majority to pass anything or override a veto. At most they're guilty of thinking they could convince enough repugnicans to work with them for the good of the country. That indeed was foolish. repugnicans only work for themselves and those who bought them.

[GAvoter]

How can it not be a good thing to have all opinions represented at the table? Seems to me that what got us into our present predicament- in particular Iraq- was one group of people with the same agenda not willing to listen to any other opinions making bad decisions. The purpose of Congress is not to allow one group to run roughshod over other groups. Its purpose was SUPPOSED to be to allow differeing views to be debated which would inevitably lead to compromises reflecting the will of the majority with the rights of the minority guarded. Its not about one group or one person being "the Decider."

[AMJordan]

This actually started way back in the dawning of our country. The Federalists divided between regular Federalists like John Adams and High Federalists like Alexander Hamilton. Of course, back then, Democrats were called Republicans because they were for more power to the states and individuals than the Federalists who (the High Federalists) were trying to re-create the British system of government.

[MidwestMomma]

Hence evolved our cornerstone of democracy...Majority rules!

[ipitombi]

A "conservative Democratic" is actually a smart Republican who has recognized that it's difficult to run successfully as a Republican this year. They'll sign up as Democrats just to destroy the Democratic Party. Watch out, Dems!!!

[CheGuevara]

Yeah, these are the ones that, as soon as the political wind shifts even a micron, will bail out and slap an (R) next to their name. Most of these cowards and traitors are Boll Weevils, of course.

See Also:

Shelby, Richard (D-AL, switched 1994 in office)
Campbell, Ben RunningDog (D-CO, switched 1995 in office)
Tauzin, Billy (D-LA, switched 1995 in office)
Jones, Walter (D-NC, switched 1994, mid-campaign for Congress)
Hayes, Jimmy (D-LA, switched 1995 in office)
Laughlin, Greg (D-TX, switched 1995 in office)
Deal, Nathan (D-GA, switched 1995 in office)
Parker, Mike (D-MS, switched 1995 in office)
Coleman, Norm (D-MN, switched 1996 in office)
Perdue, Sonny (D-GA, switched 1998 in office)
Martinez, Matthew (D-CA, switched 2000 in office)
Bloomberg, Michael (D-NY, switched 2001)
Goode, Virgil (D-VA, switched 2000 in office, then I-VA, switched 2002 in office)
Hall, Ralph (D-TX, switched 2004 in office)
Alexander, Rodney (D-LA, switched 2004 in office [and wrecked an election in the process])

[WASanford]

And this is worse than having a Republican in that seat? How? He'll be caucusing with the Democrats. If he dosen't want to be a member of the "take out the trash" committee, he'll go along.

[drolleen]

One more reason to get rid of Pelosi in November. She has been an absolute disaster. She is the anti-Obama: Rather than bringing people together she splits them apart. She is not a leader, but rather a divider. Her trip to Syria, her refusal to try to block the surge, her inability to fight the Bush spin machine. She is a light weight with no persona. Think Hillary in that job, and you would see what I mean. Hillary would have been perfect (too bad she is in the Senate, but then, she would be wayyyy better than Harry Reid too.)

[Liberal2]

Pelosi, the anti-Obama??? I'd call her the "Un-Obama". Or the "Non-Obama."

But I agree on Clinton for Senate Majority leader. (At least I do today, she might also be a total failure there. Ya never know 'til ya's tries.)

[DemocraticRN]

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.
"to promote the general welfare" is to work for the good of the country as a whole, not just one part of the country"

The Right Wing of the Republican Party promotes Corporate Welfare. The Left Wing of the Democratic Party promotes Social Welfare. These are polar opposites. The only way we can get back to the General Welfare that our Constitution promotes is to elect a Moderate Judicial Branch, a Moderate Executive Branch, and a Moderate Legislative Branch of Government.

The pendulum is swinging from one extreme to the other. Moderates in the Democratic and Republican Parties must resist these extremes and decide between the Moderates in both Parties.

These candidates are Hillary Clinton and John McCain. They should be our choices in the 2008 general election and Hilla