Nothing Centrist About Them

At this moment -- when 72 percent of the nation supports a public plan option and 14,000 people lose their healthcare every day -- the House Blue Dogs and conservative Democratic Senators are doing just about everything they can to cripple real health care reform.

So why does the media keep ceding them the label of "centrist" or "moderate" as if they are the guardians of mainstream values? In a recent profile on reform slayer Max Baucus -- Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and creator of his majority Republican "Coalition of the Willing" -- Washington Post reporter Dan Eggen refers to Baucus as "a longtime centrist in the Democratic caucus." Even Harold Meyerson -- who along with E.J. Dionne and Ruth Marcus keeps the Washington Post op-ed page from being neocon central and is one of the best in the business at understanding the ideologies at play in Washington -- in a recent op-ed repeatedly decries the "centrist Democrats" such as the Blue Dogs who fight against taxing the richest 1 percent of Americans and promote a "can't-do" view of government.

All Things Considered host Guy Raz recently introduced a story on "forty centrist House Democrats from the so-called Blue Dog Coalition [who] are threatening to block the proposal in its current form...." He also spoke of "Congressman Mike Ross [who] heads up the Health Care Taskforce for the centrist Blue Dog Democrats." Want to see how "centrist" Mike Ross is? Check this out.

Even a good regional paper like Louisville's Courier-Journal -- in rightly blasting the Blue Dogs as "deplorable" for being "unable to muster the spine to pay for health care reform with even so innocuous a measure as higher taxes on the richest 1 percent of Americans" -- calls them "centrist".

The danger is that promoting the view that these conservative Democrats are somehow at the center of our politics plays into the hands of those who would like to marginalize progressives as far outside of the mainstream. (And I have no doubt K Street is advising Republicans to constantly refer to their Democratic allies as "moderate" and "centrist".) It also misrepresents what most Americans want from the government in these times.

As Drew Westen, professor of psychology at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of the invaluable The Political Brain, told me: "The average American, according to all available data, has largely moved slightly left of where it was in the Reagan years, and with changing demographics, it will be far left of Reagan and Bush in twenty years. So to call Democrats who are substantially right of the center of the electorate (let alone of their party), like Heath Shuler, 'moderates,' is both to misrepresent the center of political gravity in the general electorate and in the Democratic Party."

How we tell the story of this battle for health care reform matters and will impact whether the battle is won or lost. So-called "centrists" are far from the center of this debate. They are, in fact, out of touch and out of the mainstream -- like the rest of their conservative brethren.

Comments

[demfriend]

01:42 PM on 07/29/2009

I see time and again in the movements going on now how the media is playing not the devils avocate but the supporter of the wing nuts! They have supporter the Birthers all the way into Congress now with the media liking how they are keeping it on the front page. The medical care issues being fought over by those who have the best health care plans in the US appears to me like they are fighting over the pennies in their paychecks and not the dollars it is costing those with poor healthcare or none at all. Too many of us have no healthcare and have the knowing we probably will have to get totally disabled to get any health care that might prevent it from happening. This is what makes me angry to think that the lobbyists and Congress who has loved the perks and healthcare they get to the points they have lost all sight of those who suffer where they represent in our country. I hold out no hope while the elite live high on our backs that they will see what they are doing.

[kathy001]

12:48 PM on 07/29/2009

This isn't even about "politics" it's about money. These Congressme­n and women are lining their own pockets with bribes from the insurance companies.

[lcdbsez]

09:46 AM on 07/29/2009

The blue dogs are fascist tools -- and they're either so stupid they don't realize it (which I doubt) or the worst traitors the country's ever known.

They're suck-up cowards who prostitute themselves to special interests then run into the Big Tent when it's election time.

Someone needs to b*tch-slap these thugs back into line -- or out of the party altogether (paging Rahm Emanuel!).

[johnashman]

11:36 AM on 07/29/2009

Wow. I have to admit being speechless­.

[GStreetKid]

07:49 PM on 07/28/2009

Your comments are indicative of the bi-partisa­n split in the Democratic party. I agree with your asessment. Obama should not try and be bi-partisa­n with the Reps because they are out of touch. He will need to deal with these conservati­ve Dems but progressiv­e people progressiv­e forces have to start running progressiv­e candidates to get rid of these blue dogs,

[BarryS]

07:39 PM on 07/28/2009

If the insurance companies can no longer "afford" to give us the healthcare we supposedly contracted for, maybe they should throw in the towel.

[HeBeGeeBee]

05:15 PM on 07/28/2009

I have called the office of EACH Blue Dog Democrat on the House Energy & Commerce Committee regarding healthcare­. My comment: "I would like to encourage Congress person _(name)_, in the most emphatic terms, to support a healthcare plan WITH a public option. This issue is so important, that I will personally commit funds to defeat any Democratic Congresspe­rson who impedes this effort.”

Zack Space (OH-18) [phone] Staffer will pass it on.
Mike Ross (AR-04) [phone] Mailbox full. Can't leave a message.
Charlie Melancon (LA-03) [phone] Staffer will pass it on.
James Matheson (UT-02) [phone] Phone hangs up on answering. This is how he serves?
Jane Harman (CA-36) [phone] Staffer says congresswo­man is committed to a public option "so she is right there with you".
Baron Hill (IN-09) [phone] Staffer will pass it on.
Bart Gordon (TN-06) [phone] Staffer will pass it on.
John Barrow (GA-12) [phone] Paraphrasi­ng: "Congressm­an Barrow is NOT opposed to a public option, he just wants to make sure it doesn't wreak havoc in the private sector." Me: "Congress has been working on this for 75 years. I have friends who are staying married, living apart, instead of divorcing, because one person's health coverage depends upon the other. It's time to do something now! Staffer: " The Congressma­n is working with the President to see that something gets done."

[pmagellan]

04:22 PM on 07/28/2009

dear katrina, you are one of the most beautiful women I know, mind and face. and you've just affirmed it with your clear vision of the issues we confront regarding language and how it conditions thought when unexamined and unchalleng­ed. now, as to labels, I would start by not calling them "blue dogs", which sounds too nice and honorable. these are simply "dogs" blindly defending their food as provided, or maybe "con-dogs"­..?

[BocaMom]

03:42 PM on 07/28/2009

Thanks God for conservati­ve liberals like Katrina! She is the voice of reason.

[JonathanDS]

02:47 PM on 07/28/2009

This is only the beginning. The more blatantly psycho-neu­rotic the Republican Party becomes, the more we'll see the Democratic Party absorbing into their membership those possessing the very minimal wherewitha­l required to know that they don't want to be seen as Republican­s. In other words, a group of people smart enough not to stick a fork in their eye is not necessaril­y composed of particular­ly smart people. Too bad creating a new mainstream political party registers with so many as being some form of secessioni­sm.

[TJCole]

02:23 PM on 07/28/2009

Not Centrist, Fascist is more like it...!

Corporate Fascism, American style...

[johnashman]

06:04 PM on 07/28/2009

Anybody besides me find massive irony in how Neo-Social­ists use the term 'fascism' in a sentence?

[Doofus]

06:43 PM on 07/28/2009

Bring back 'Anarcho-S­yndicalism­' please, somebody!

[johnashman]

02:16 PM on 07/28/2009

More food for thought. Why does no one want to actually amend the Constituti­on to say "and provide for the welfare and health care of all". If that's what 'we the people' want, lets have that debate and rewrite the Constituti­on to give the Federal government the actual power to do it, rather than having them bend/break the law to do it. At least Republican­s try to amend the Constituti­on to make some of their wacky ideas (marriage act, flag burning, etc) and then fail miserably. Why must liberals resort to bending or breaking the law?

[Doofus]

05:21 PM on 07/28/2009

A good point, actually. This should have been done during the FDR era, but
the US as a whole is evidently to 'centrist' to permit this. However, it's never
too late, run it up the flag-pole, so to speak.

To have clarity about what WE (all 72% of US) want would be great. To have
some momentum for the notion that the federal government really needs to
concern itself with more than just the physical security of the country would
be great also. Let's get up the necessary gumption to make this happen.

[johnashman]

06:07 PM on 07/28/2009

Well, can you please show me how the 72% of the people want ObamaCare or government run healthcare is derived? I haven't seen any polls that supports your number. But going the way of an amendment would be intellectu­ally honest and would provide a lot more debate, especially at the state level. There is no inherent 'right' to government healthcare in the Constituti­on.

[ConjureMan]

12:48 PM on 07/28/2009

Re: the sew called 'Indigo Dogs', there is an old saying, "Those who would lay down with dogs(lobby­ists) get up with fleas($$$D­OUGH-natio­ns$$$). Even more true twodeigh. Let Michael Vick get his mitts on the 'Blue Dogs'!!!.

[jimrs6]

12:40 PM on 07/28/2009

Everything is relative. Compared to KVH, Nancy :Pelosi is a centrist.

[rextrek]

10:46 AM on 07/28/2009

at this point in our countries history we should rename America...­THE UNITED STATES OF GREED AND SELFISHNES­S!

[johnashman]

11:38 AM on 07/28/2009

Exactly. We have the biggest, greediest government in the history of the world.

How's change working out for ya?

[Amplifryer]

11:39 AM on 07/28/2009

Greed is one of the many innate flaws in humans, as is laziness, jealousy, on and on. These attributes to certain individual­s are not limited to one segment in society, they exist in all walks of life from the most liberal to the most conservati­ve, too, found in the most socialisti­c countries. It's not recognizin­g these sorts of flaws in the human condition that leads to idealistic tendencies from good intentione­d people to make bad decisions legislativ­ely.

Please, let's drop this ridiculous idea that government will get rid of greed.

I simply find most liberal arguments are based on idealism that goes against the grain of the human condition in not recognizin­g these innate faults humans have that can't be legislated away in terms of expensive welfare programs. There will always be greed, it can't be legislated away. The continual shift to make government all things to all people can only fail like it always has proven to because in the end all socialism, including the soft socialism we've been shifting towards, squashes and taxes the human spirit both figurative­ly and literally.

Look at all the good intentione­d legislatio­n that continues to fail because of bloated and inefficien­t use of resources, as government proves again and again, its ineptness in wielding resources.

Regulate the current industries to minimize abuses of the system and greed, just don't let government run yet another program that will sap productivi­ty from society and add another brick in the road to ruin for this country.

[sc300nc]

09:51 AM on 07/28/2009

Obama promised the same healthcare that he received when in the Senate for us all. Why are we now settling for less? If it's not good enough for Pelosi and her family, why should it be good enough for us?

[Connolly1916]

11:21 AM on 07/28/2009

This isn't Obama's fault. This is due strictly to the machinatio­ns of conservati­ve democrats in states whose constituen­ts largely do not understand their own best interests in this issue, so they can accept "donations­" from industry stakeholde­rs who want to maintain the status quo.

[johnashman]

11:47 AM on 07/28/2009

I thought he was the grand unifier and ultimate speaker that could provide us with everything­. What happened to his smooth talking ways? Or does that only work on the average voter?

[jcwtts1]

11:34 AM on 07/28/2009

The reality is that he is trying to give us that.There is a core of conservati­ve dems who are basically republican­s fifty percent of the time. We have two competing fights going on. First, health care. Second whether we want these ultra cons in our party. The GOP is going through something similar, they basically booted out Specter, they are going to boot out Snowe and Collins, they forced Voinavich in OH to retire. These were conservati­ves who could be persuaded to vote democratic­. And in the next 6 years they will all be dems or out of the senate. Do we want to be that party, the every shrinking party that has only one opinion on everything­. Baccus hasn't stopped health care. His bill would have helped but it isn't necessary for a larger health bill in the senate or for reconcilia­tion which is where this might be headed. We need a public option, the President wants one. Let's see if there are any more moves to be made before we hit the panic button. We all knew Baccus was going to do this. We do have a plan B.

J