After the Republicans got thrashed in the 1964 elections, a GOP senator told columnist Joe Alsop, "That damn Lyndon Johnson hasn't just grabbed the middle of the road. He's a bit to the right of center, as well as a bit to the left of center. And with Johnson hogging the whole road -- right, left and center -- where the devil can we go except into the ditch?"
Well put. So they tried to steer clear of that ditch by claiming what little they could of the center. Republican Senate Whip Tom Kuchel, a moderate, had refused to endorse Barry Goldwater in the fall, and some more conservative members of the caucus called for his ouster. Alsop wrote that California's "Goldwaterites and John Birch Society members" were clamoring for his head, treating him "as though he were Chief Justice Earl Warren."
Yet when the Senate Republican caucus met in January, not a single member opposed Kuchel's reelection as whip. He was even renominated by a Goldwater stalwart, John Tower of Texas. The Republicans worked with President Johnson on his signature initiatives (much like Democrats did sixteen years later, when they gave President Reagan dozens of Senate votes in deference to his victory).
That was a different time, when Senate Republicans wanted to get out of the ditch, as opposed to wanting to drag everyone else down there with them. Together, the modern Senate GOP caucus represents 40 'no' votes -- 40 members, camping in a ditch until they have A) a Republican president or B) the ability to stop business in the Senate.
The latter is looking far more likely, and Vice President Biden is right when he says that GOP gains in 2010 could be the "end of the road" for the President's agenda. Biden is also right when he says, "It's not that Republicans are bad guys." In fact, most, if not all members of their caucus have done substantial things across party-lines before. It's just that, as Biden says, they've made a "bet" for the 2010 elections on the Obama administration looking like a failure. So they seek to diminish everything he does. And one of their best cudgels is denying him the ability to claim "bipartisanship" on any legislation he passes.
New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, elaborated on this point, calling the Republican strategy of all-out opposition as one that "buys them momentum in the short term," but will be a burden by next fall. "Does anyone think," Menendez said, "that a year from now, fourteen months from now, that we will not be in better shape than we are today? ... Republicans will have done absolutely nothing to have put us in better shape."
The Republicans sat out the vote on the economic stimulus, save for three members (one of whom is now a Democrat). The other two are so spooked by their base that one is completely unlikely to vote for a health care reform bill and the other will only do it under extreme duress. These are the critical actions of this Congress, and when things get better the Republicans will be able to claim absolutely no credit.
That's right, the GOP cannot even claim credit for bringing the bills to the middle of the road -- the Democrats are hogging all of it. And that is a good thing, despite what some may think. For example, Jonathan Chait wrote this about how President Obama approached health care reform in the same way he approached the economic-stimulus package:
Obama began with hopes of winning broad bipartisan consensus for a sweeping overhaul. But staunch GOP opposition and the fecklessness of moderate Democrats forced him to scale back both his political and policy ambitions. Ultimately, he eked out a partisan bill, which moderates scaled back for no coherent reason other than to burnish their own centrist credentials.
Chait makes a strong point, but the value of burnishing centrist credentials should not be discounted. Despite what Orrin Hatch is saying on Hardball, the Democrats have a sizable moderate contingent and it is important to keep them happy and influential.
And who's to say that Obama is hoping for broad bipartisan consensus anymore? Judging by Biden's comments, the White House is well aware of the GOP's bet on absolute obstruction. Sure, some Republicans might have flirted with the stimulus early on, but health care? Forget about it....
Now, you might be wondering, 'How do Democrats benefit from all this tempering, all this self-restraint?' After all, modern politics tends to reward the cynical and the greedy, doesn't it? Well, the GOP offers no variety, and where there is no variety, there is no depth. If the Democrats retain the left, the center, and a little bit of the right, they encompass the vast majority of Americans -- 'the new Silent Majority,' if you will -- who are sick of games and want results.
So when we scratch our heads and wonder why Democrats are taking so long and having these debates within their own party, think about it as if this were a debate among the entire Senate. Because right now, their 60-vote caucus is the United States Senate.
And let's hope that when 2011 rolls around, and the Republicans look around their ditch to see fewer members, they'll stop and say, 'Hey, uh, maybe we should get back on the road?'... America will be better for it, and hopefully no party -- Democrat or Republican -- will ever make this kind of bet again.
Follow John R. Bohrer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JRBwrites
Progressives and others rail that the Dems are not fully using their majority, forgetting that even if you have the majority, it's tough to carry as much deadweight as the Rethuglicans represent.
I had a large German shepherd die a couple of months ago. When he was just ill, I could move him along, even though he couldn't move much himself -- it was hard, but not impossible. When he was a corpse, however, it was as if his weight had increased exponentially. It was an enormous trial getting him to the vet for cremation.
When the Rushpublicans don't move a paw, they're as heavy to move as a dead dog.
After the previous 8 years in which they've demonstrated their capabilities for doing nothing but harm to the nation and the entire world, the whole GOP can dissolve back into the centuries-worth of uncleaned sewage pipes from which they first materialized, for all I care.
Obama should abandon the republicans.
The republicans will not let anyone help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own mind, but they are in that prison, and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.
Obama has other work to do.
(With apologies to CS Lewis)
For one thing, at the time of Johnson's Inaugural, the Dems were divided on only one major issue, Civil Rights. Secondly, Johnson was not only able to twist Dem congressional arms, but Republican arms as well. These conditions allowed Johnson to present a unified program with a surprisingly unified support behind it.
The bickering Democratic congress of today is not holding the middle - it is fracturing it. and the fallout, both immediate and long term, is the revelation that the Blue Dogs represent a wierd third party that nobody knew was there; there will probably be a couple of them changing parties by re-election time.
Which is the isolation of the progressives from the White House is so discouraging; Obama is really a centrist, but still desn't understand that this will not win over any of his opponents on the right; he needs progressives more than he needs "moderate" Dems.
Yes they are.
Maybe they had bad childhoods, I don't know. But these jerks want to destroy democracy and replace it with corporatism, always have always will. Modern conservatism was a reaction against the Enlightenment!
It's time we realized there are two side: The conservatives, and everybody else.
Obama and democrats needs to stand up and defend our side, from the conservatives. Letting Van Jones go, agreeing to the unconstitutional ACORN "bill of attainder" (look it up) make our "team" weaker. We need to defend our own. We need to counter attack conservatives, so strongly, they hurt, so they think twice about doing it again.
All of the Blue Dogs (and Snowe) are not "moderate" in any way, shape or form. They only look moderate because you've just had eight years of the most right-fringe administration in US history (and one of the most active in modern times). The Bush admin was SO far to the right and SO active in it's malevolence that, if we place the pre-Bush centre at 0 (with communism at -10 and fasism at +10), the current political centre is being percieved at somewhere around a +7. Obama (who I actually like) is to the right of Poppy Bush, to the right of Reagan, to the right of NIXON! I don't blame him, he knows how the game is played and he wants to keep playing it, but it does indicate how warped the political dialogue has become in the last decade. People actively and directly voting to let others die to preserve corporate profits are not remotely moderate. You're drawing a line between Hitler and Stalin and placing the midpoint at Glenn Beck.
Added to which, the Republicans are not remotely interested in compromise. their view of bipartisanship for the last six months (and probably the next 90) has been not to move an inch, force Democrats to come to them, vote against the bill anyway and call the result bipartisan.
The "conservative" base gets loads of red meat. Why the he// can't we get an ounce for once?
The GOP will be in the ditch as long as its leaders are at war with all but a tiny fraction of its base. Not everyone lives in the South.
Last I saw, 65% of Americans wanted the public option--as Rachel Maddow pointed out, "that's an awfully big wing"--therefore that group includes the center, therefore anyone not in that group is not a centrist. Or a moderate.
Democrat center = far right
Republicans = wing nuts
think that sums it up
What do you think is the difference between a progressive and a liberal?
I would self identify as the former but not the latter and I wonder what most people consider the difference?
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/08/blue-dogs-insurance/
Insurance Industry Is Targeting Blue Dogs To Shape Health Reform In Its Favor BusinessWeek claims that the “health insurers have already won” the battle over health care reform. Their strategy has been to “quietly” focus on “shaping the views” of more conservative Democrats. The health insurers’ strategy is to target the Blue Dog Coalition.
So at this point if the Democrats win who does that benefit besides the same corporations and the same demographics that won when the GOP was winning?
Granted, it's not much but right now, we're down to the choice between "well-meaning but compromised to hell" (Democrats) and "actively malevolent" (Republicans) so I guess a miniscule improvement is still some improvement, right?
Right?
Obama needs to make major triumphs happen or the left is certainly doomed. BTW, that would mean the country too. And sadly no, I don't think that is an exaggeration.
Yeah. The Senate moderates in the GOP, which now seem to be only two women from Maine, are "spooked by their base." But the Democrats can become the "silent majority" by ignoring their base, still expecting us to be "retained."
I don't see why something that was in the party platform and is supported by 65% of the population should be sacrificed to please the "moderates" who represent about 3% of the country in order to win the center.
WE WON THE CENTER LAST YEAR WITH A PROGRESSIVE AGENDA. Wake up. This "moderate" compromise is a giant subsidy to the big corporations.