In my last blog post, I tried to lay out an argument about why it is critical that my progressive friends in the Democratic Party take steps to help the more conservative members of Congress. I was pleased to have over 100 reader comments, but sadly, many of those comments seemed to misunderstand me.
My point was simple: progressives and moderates need each other to retain political power in Congress. And if you truly care about progressive principles, then you need moderate Democrats like the Blue Dogs in Congress because they ensure that key progressives control the power levers on Capitol Hill. For example, consider Domestic Policy Subcommittee Chairman Dennis Kucinich -- a true leader in the progressive movement. If Republicans were in control of Congress, the chairman of this Subcommittee (with jurisdiction over issues like labor, education and criminal justice) would likely be one of the most conservative Republicans in Congress.
I also stated in my last blog post that progressives should reconsider advancing legislation that requires Blue Dogs to take unpopular stances, especially when there are viable legislative alternatives that Blue Dogs could vote for. One example that hits close to home for me is the call by some progressives to eliminate offshore drilling in the energy bill because of the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico. Rather than insert a ban on offshore drilling and force Blue Dogs from states like Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana to take a vote that would mean thousands of lost jobs back in their districts, Congress and the White House should seek to reduce the dangers of oil exploration through increased government oversight and safety measures. As a native of the Gulf Coast, I am deeply upset by the devastating environmental impacts of the oil spill. But I am also keenly aware of the economic benefits of oil exploration in the region.
Another piece of legislation which could be bad news for Blue Dogs is the food safety bill. It already passed the House, and many Blue Dogs voted for it because it is a good bill that protects Americans. But now, in the Senate, some progressive Senators are trying to add a provision to that legislation to ban a chemical known as BPA. The FDA has not banned BPA for being unsafe or told people to stop using products that contain it. But if Congress does impose a ban, it will result in thousands of lost jobs in the canning and food preparation industry. Many of those jobs are critical lifelines for Americans living in economically depressed Congressional districts represented by Blue Dogs.
If the Senate inserts this ban, it means that Blue Dogs may be forced to oppose the food safety legislation in its final form or vote for it and suffer the political consequences. Either way, their Republican challengers will surely hammer them. If the Senate leaves out this provision, Blue Dogs could vote for the food safety bill. When the control of Congress is so closely tied to the fate of Blue Dogs in November, it only makes sense to leave this provision out.
Lastly, the reader comments from my previous column that caused me the most concern were the assertions that a Democrat who isn't a progressive isn't really a Democrat. I strongly object to that belief. Conservative Democrats have stood with progressives on countless issues, and when they don't, it simply means they are voting to reflect the beliefs of their constituents. For Democrats, requiring strict adherence to party principles means being in the minority and not controlling Congress or the White House.
Shows was a member of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition when he served in Congress.
good point
Retaining political power is not a worthwhile goal if that power is used badly. It seems pretty obvious that Blue Dogs are not pragmatists but corporatist insurgents.
if you believe that, you need no enemies -- you are your own enemy
I might be able to sympathize with Blue Dogs on some issues but where are they on progressive issues that have the support of the public? The Public Option, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Employment Non Discrimination Act.....Blue Dogs oppose these initiative while the public at large is for them. Until we start getting Blue Dog support on progressive issues where they will see little to no fallout from I see no need to support them on the issues where they will.
That's just the kind of Blue Dog nonsense that drives a lot of us crazy. BPA encourages obesity, may be a factor in memory loss, is an underlying cause of breast cancer and increases prostate gland susceptibility to precancerous lesions and hormonal carcinogensis, increases hyperactivity, attention deficits and heightened sensitivity of drugs of abuse, and promotes invasion & metastasis of neuroblastoma cells.
Rather than walk and chew gum at the same time (ban BPA and sponsor a job-saving alternative), your choice is simply to shelter corporations that use it.
Were you paying attention last night?
Retaining them in the party confuses voters as to what the Democratic party line actually is and that erodes confidence in the Democratic Party by sending mixed signals.
The Progressives need to go form their own party.
As this article suggests the reason they don't is that even THEY don't think they have enough substance to stand on their own in an election.
.
1. pragmatists (ie corporatists) both blue dogs, and a lot of repubs fit here IMO
2. libertarian
3. progressive
until this is the case, we will always have a two party system that represents corporate interests over voters all day every day
There are already at least 27 active parties in the US but most politicians opt for safety in numbers over GOOD THINKING and unique ideas.
Another problem with too few parties is that many [most?] people 'self identify' as something they aren't. [Voters and Politicians alike.]
We have Obama who doesn't 'look like' a Democrat and McCain who doesn't 'look like' a Republican.
- They don't 'look like' because they AREN'T.
Two parties is also part of why it's so painful and slow to get anything done at the Capitol.
Should note that a -true- Progressive isn't a traditional Liberal anymore than they are a traditional Democrat.
[-True- meaning an actual Progressive vice someone labeled incorrectly as one.]
Based on looking at what they -DO- calling them Social Democrats makes more sense than anything else.
~~
I think that each State should have 3 Senators that are REQUIRED to be of 3 different Parties. They vote amongst themselves on each issue and then [as now with one Senator] are allowed one vote in the name of their State on the Bill [or whatever] in question.
-
If an empty seat [for the 3 of one given State] ever results in a tie [a hung internal vote] then that State abstains from voting at all.
-
Changing Parties during their term is prohibited unless they step down first.
Something similar for the House but without expanding their population three-fold.
.
But they aren't actually Democrats.
Self defeating for the Democrats and suicidal for the progressives.
How about no. The "Blue dogs" need replacing with people capable of cracking down against irresponsible corporate activity, just as much as all the Republicans do.
There is no "moderate" in our congress right now. There is only "Effective" and "Failure". Guess where the blue dog democrats are?
The issues you select as examples seem to support your points. Unfortunately, they're fairly insignificant compared with the damage Blue Dogs have done as a result not of their constitutency, but of their conservatism - a lack of support for a public option for health insurance, and lukewarm support at best for proper financial regulation, are just two things that each, by themselves, render each and every one of them unfit for continued office.
"Another piece of legislation which could be bad news for Blue Dogs is the food safety bill. If Congress does impose a ban (on BPA), it will result in thousands of lost jobs in the canning and food preparation industry." Really?? Says who? Blue Dogs and Republicans oppose government oversight because it "will cost thousands of jobs." That is why the disaster in the Gulf occurred. No oversight. You are fear mongering just like your Republican brothers. Why don't you join them?
Sorry, but your attempt to clarify your already crystal clear position is what my kids would call an "epic fail". You found little support here the first time. I respectfully suggest you cease trying to win us over - last night's primaries are just the beginning. And I for one will not lose any sleep if Lincoln and the other Republicrats end up going down. If push came to shove, I would rather see a Republican in a Blue Dog's seat - at least then we don't have to worry about watching our backs.
If Blue Dogs are unwilling to be part of the solution, doesn't that make them part of the problem?
PS: I have no problem with the Blue Dogs preventing government participation in healthcare, however I can not understand why they would stand in the way of regulating abusive insurance company behaviour.