My op-ed in the New York Times on Sunday, "Boot the Blue Dogs," which draws on the extensive reporting I did for my new book, Herding Donkeys: The Fight to Rebuild the Democratic Party and Reshape American Politics, has sparked quite a debate online (and in my inbox). The excellent progressive bloggers Digby and Howie Klein quoted it approvingly, while The Guardian's Michael Tomasky and Washington Post blogger/columnist Ezra Klein disagree with my argument that Democrats would be better off with a smaller and more ideologically cohesive majority. Today the New York Times reports that the centrist Democratic group Third Way is out with a new memo that accuses me of wanting to "purge" all "moderates" from the party.
I never argued such a thing in the op-ed, nor do I believe that! My book is all about how Democrats broadened their political coalition and won in unlikely states like Indiana, North Carolina and Colorado in 2006 and 2008. But it's also true that such a big-tent strategy had unintended consequences and has led to significant intraparty strife and legislative stalemate. That's why many of the activists who were so inspired by Howard Dean and Barack Obama, who I profile in the book, are experiencing some buyer's remorse in 2010.
I'm not advocating that the Democratic Party purge every conservative Democrat from its ranks, but I do think the party would be better off letting its most reactionary elements go. They bring the party nothing in terms of legislative votes and only seek to undermine the broader Democratic message and brand, which is exactly what the handful of Democrats who are publicly distancing themselves from Nancy Pelosi are doing. It's pretty confounding that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is spending $1.5 million on TV ads supporting Alabama Congressman Bobby Bright, who voted against the stimulus package, healthcare reform and energy bill. That is a totally counterproductive political and electoral strategy. Why not spend that money on behalf of a Democrat who's supported Obama's agenda and is locked in a tough race?
Secondly, I wrote the op-ed to bring attention to the increasingly dysfunctional nature of the US Senate. As I wrote on Sunday:
Having a majority of 52 rather than 59 or 60 would force Democrats to confront the Republicans' incessant misuse of the filibuster to require that any piece of legislation garner a minimum of 60 votes to become law. Since President Obama's election, more than 420 bills have cleared the House but have sat dormant in the Senate. It's easy to forget that George W. Bush passed his controversial 2003 tax cut legislation with only 50 votes, plus Vice President Dick Cheney's. Eternal gridlock is not inevitable unless Democrats allow it to be.
Republicans never controlled more than fifty-five seats during the Reagan or Bush II presidencies and yet were able to get a number of sweeping pieces of conservative legislation passed. They in fact did quite a lot with a relatively small tent, especially during the Bush years. But Democrats have allowed Republicans or a few renegade Democrats to water down or thwart nearly every progressive piece of legislative proposed in the Senate. This power imbalance must be addressed by the party post-November if it stands any chance of advancing the remaining parts of its legislative agenda. Obama expressed his frustration with the frequency of GOP filibusters in his interview with Jon Stewart last night, but thus far Democratic leaders have not yet unveiled a plan to change the Senate rules or pass more items through the reconciliation or recess process.
After the election, groups like Third Way will no doubt argue that Obama should move to the center and work with Republicans to forge a moderate consensus on issues like tax cuts, the deficit, free trade and education reform. But I'm skeptical that a Clintonian strategy of triangulation will work with a Tea Party-infused Congress. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has already outlined his top priority for the new Congress: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." So much for bipartisan cooperation! Democrats who consistently undermine Obama are only helping McConnell achieve his aims.
It's now painfully obvious that President Obama's election, far from hastening a post-partisan utopia, has led to near-absolute polarization. To deal with a re-energized right, Democrats must alter their political strategy accordingly. Moderates, independents and liberals want the same thing from this president: an economy that puts people back to work and an end to gridlock in Washington. The big-tent strategy did neither, so maybe it's time to try something new.
Follow Ari Berman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriBerman
Myriam Miedzian: Capitalism Uber Alles: How the American Working Class Got Brainwashed
Sigurd Neubauer: How President Obama Grew to Become Israel's Best Friend
I'm still shaking my head in amazement that any voters could want the Republucans who caused this financial failure to be in charge of either the House or Senate, especially since they're promising to follow already failed Bush policies. WAKE UP, people, since they're using your anger to float in as if they're angels coming to save you. Like hell. They're saving themselves to the tune of giving corporation all that they want in payment for the buyoff of Republicans. You need to ainm your anger at Republicans.
Ari, how about writing another article on this topic. I'll bet you see 20,000 plus entries. Plus it would bring together grievances from all sides, but in a loving and civil way of course.
Commission. I think he feels far more comfortable with them and the Rethugs than the Democratic base.
Two voices, one brain?
But this IS bipartisan. How many Democrats want to see Hillary run in 2012? How many Democrats want a candidate with some ^%#$s who will stand up to the Republicans? I bet a lot of people on this site want Obama to be a one-term president.
For those of you who reject this, I also see that the recount was completed and Bush was still declared the winner.
Given this, what exactly is your point?
That's why some Democrats are not fit to lead (or not capable).
Darn good thing, right? Democrats back then heeded Clint Eastwood's admonishment: "A man's gotta know his limitations."
How do we know President Obama isn't doing exactly what he intends to do? And in the process lays all the blame on others.
Why would we assume that a conservative would do anything but act like a conservative. When you look closely at his policies, some serious questions come up. Cap and Trade was handed over the conservatives to make it "bipartisan". The house passed this bill in June and they still haven't sent it to the senate. Now, not only are the conservatives going to rip it apart, it won't be voted on until after the elections. A sure fail. Same thing happened with health insurance reform.
Sure looks intentional to me.
But I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet. But then again, what other option do I have?
I respectfully disagree. He signed off on No Child Left Behind (2001), Medicare Part D (2003), and bailouts for banks and auto companies (2008). He went left, not right from where the party is/wants to be. I am not arguing he went very far to the left, but he certainly did not take the party right.
After a few moments, as we sat there doing everything that we could do to restart the car, horns kept blowing from behind. Clifford got out of the car and started walking down the line behind us telling the other drivers that if anyone wanted to come up and get his car started, he would sit in their car and blow their horn for them.
Whatever majorities the republicans may take from this election, I want you all to know that I'm sitting here with my hand on the horn ring as they re-inherit their own mess.
The true Democratic majority was a coalition of progressives, yes, but, also unions and other pro-labor groups, pro-choice, pro public education, strongly supportive of Social Security and Medicare (and NEVER consider privatization). The Democrats, were the party of Civil Rights for African Americans (or at the time of legislation referred to as Negroes or black). It currently supports gay rights, and health care for kids, and a strong Consumer Protection agecy led by Elizabeth Warren. It is against outsourcing jobs overseas. The Democrats may not have been able to pass comprehensive immigration legislation but it doesn't promote profiling people who look "different",. It is the party that supports seniors, and the disabled. It is the party that spoke out against the war in Viet Nam and is trying to wind down the wars in the middle east. It is the party of small business and small farms, and helping more young people to go to college. It is the party of (now hated) affirmative action.
No, it isn't Camelot and it isn't perfect. But, if you think that you will teach the Democrats a lesson by voting for the Republican/tea party, or not voting, you are incredibley naive.
Seriously Obama has a clear choice after these midterms. If he wants to win in 2012, he has to end this unilateral disarmament, purge the party of useless Blue Dogs, and fight the right wing, the tea party and the oligarchy that backs them. Otherwise he will lose his base, as there will be no reason for us to support him.