A Dark Lining in Every Silver Cloud

This is really just too much. As you'll recall, after the 2004 election we were greeted to an endless series of articles about the how the problem with the Democrats was that, stuck in the iron clutches of out-of-touch left-wing interest groups, they refused to nominate candidates who veered from the liberal orthodoxy on cultural issues, even in culturally conservative districts. This wasn't especially accurate, but never mind. Certainly, in the 2006 cycle, Democrats have tended to nominate candidates who are relatively culturally conservative in constituencies that are culturally conservative. That's how the game is played. But along comes The New York Times with the dire warning that "if candidates like Mr. Shuler do help the Democrats gain majority control of Congress, it could come at a political price, which may include tensions in the party between its new centrists and its more liberal political base."

Uh, okay.

A few things to note. One is that while this trend certainly is present -- ironically, much more pronouncedly so in Senate races than in the House ones that are the focus of the article -- a countertrend is also under way. Lots and lots of the endangered Republican seats involve center-left districts in the Northeast where voters are getting sick of the fraud caucus sham. Ask Chris Shays, or any umber of other endangered Republicans in Connecticut, New York, or Pennsylvania how they're feeling. The other point is that agenda control matters, especially in the House. A Hastert-run House gets to try and gin up votes on issues that are going to be awkward for marginal Democrats. A Pelosi-run House won't do that -- issues that are going to create problems for the Democrats just won't go to the floor. Instead, issues where Democrats are united but that put Republicans in awkward spots are going to be highlighted. That's a big part of the reason why control of the House matters.

Comments

It's worth noting that neo-Blue Dogs like Schuler are different from paleo-Blue Dogs like John Breaux in their relative economic progressivism.

Getting the Big Government Conservatives in our tent rather than the GOP's tent is a crucial part of creating a Democratic governing majority.

Posted by Petey | October 29, 2006 11:58 PM

Getting the Big Government Conservatives in our tent rather than the GOP's tent is a crucial part of creating a Democratic governing majority.

Quite so. This, in turn, is a big part of what makes agenda control important. A smart and in control Democratic Party can just promote a few years of culture war detente -- don't try to launch any big new progressive cultural schemes, but also prevent the right from launching any new reactionary cultural schemes. That opens up the space for individual candidates to be as conservative as they need to be on these issues while the Democrats try to wrack up some record of action on economic topics.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | October 30, 2006 12:39 AM

Matt:

What makes you think the GOP would agree to a culture war detente? If the GOP loses control of one or both chambers, why wouldn't they go to some of the most trusted plays in their playbook?

Posted by blah | October 30, 2006 12:54 AM

I think one strategy is that for issues with significant disagreement among Democratic representatives and their respective constituencies, the party should not attempt to legislate where a federal solution is not necessary. This would give cover to everyone on gay marriage, but wouldn't account for the disputes over immigration. Democrats could overcome those disputes by more actively courting moderate Republicans on divisive cultural issues, allowing social conservative Democrats to vote with their constituencies.

Of course it's a delicate balance and they won't always avoid political damage from a divided party. But under Bush, the Republicans governed with a slim majority and a unified voice, and refused to seek out moderate Dems. This required the votes of all party members, including those from moderate to left districts, and so people like Shays are finally held to account.

Posted by Tim | October 30, 2006 1:54 AM

Why should every Democrat be on the same page? If there's one lesson to be learned from the ferocious success of global jihadism, it is that independent cells of activists linked only by a loose agenda can be exceptionally effective in a networked world. The requirement for explicit coherence of old-fashioned membership-based parties is only a disadvantage in a world where priorities, viewpoints and self-images are diverse and multiplicitous. Let the GOP try to hold its rigid, lumbering alliance together, and watch it crack under the weight of its incoherencies. The Democrats should be like the insurgency -- a bewildering array of disparate groups with independent agendas, protean, flexible, united only by an implacable hatred of the enemy. Allahu akbar!

Well, maybe focusing too explicitly on the "insurgency" metaphor isn't the popular way to go. But you know what I mean.

Posted by brooksfoe | October 30, 2006 4:20 AM

What makes you think the GOP would agree to a culture war detente? If the GOP loses control of one or both chambers, why wouldn't they go to some of the most trusted plays in their playbook?

But they won't be able to bring bills to the floor. They can rant and rave about the gay abortofascists all they want, but the Dems can kill their culture war bills in committee before they become news, way before they become votes.

How many culture war plays did the GOP make between 92 and 94? Other than Clinton's hideous tactical screwup on gays in the military, where Democratic defections effectively made him a minority president on that issue, the Republicans had to play within the Democratic agenda. With the discipline of Pelosi and her subordinates, I would expect even greater marginalization of Republican issues in a Dem house - in particular if it goes along with the Dem senate.

Posted by DivGuy | October 30, 2006 7:30 AM

DivGuy has it right -- it's not that I expect Republicans to agree to a detente, it's simply that without the ability to bring bills to the floor, Democrats would have the opportunity -- were they to be smart and seize it -- to sharply reduce the salience of these topics, leaving the GOP on the outside screaming but without the ability to force tough votes.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | October 30, 2006 9:34 AM

while the Democrats try to wrack up some record of action on economic topics

OK, the typo is mildly humorous.

But, more importantly, what sort of "record of action on economic topics" do you think the Democrats are going to be able to "wrack [heee] up" over the next couple of years? Surely you don't mean a moderate increase in the minimum wage? Do you mean some kind of tax increases? Repeal the bankruptcy bill? Repeal the Medicare prescription drug plan? Do you even think you can get the "let the government negotiate prices" item into law?

A big part of the Democrat rhetoric over the past couple of years is the ballooning deficit. Do you see Democrats abandoning deficit control? I heard a lot about Pay-Go rules over the past few years. Do you think Democrats will re-implement them?

I'm genuinely curious what "record of action" on economic items you think you can accomplish.

(Personally, I don't think you'll be able to accomplish much, if anything, legislatively over the next couple of years. It will pretty much be all-Iraq, all-investigation, all the time.)

Posted by Al | October 30, 2006 10:08 AM

why wouldn't they go to some of the most trusted plays in their playbook?

And ...

The NY Times abetted the Republicans in their days of the Arkansas Project. They were the fustest and the loudest of the bang-the-Whitewater-drum crowd. And if they've ever apologized or noted that Clinton wasn't charged with spit regarding Whitewater, I've never heard of it.

Why on earth would anyone care what the NY Times thinks about the way that Dems should manage whatever power they might eke out?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 30, 2006 10:11 AM

Jon Chait perfectly summarizes the main Democratic agenda items in his new column:

• Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and legislation.

• Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission.
• Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.
• Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half.
• Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
• Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds.
• Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax hikes.

The last two items on the list already have the votes needed to pass the Senate, so we can expect them to happen in a Democratic House. The Medicare item I assume the GOP can kill in the Senate, since it's very important to them and a little bit obscure. Student loans and minimum wage will be interesting fights -- the Democrats will almost certainly be able to squeeze a somewhat smaller wage increase through the senate, I could see student loans going either way. On the first two items, you'll probably see token changes.

But, yes, I'm pretty sure PayGo will go through, along with a few other modest steps. The things on this list have been very, very sharply vetted for Democratic unanamity and widespread public popularity, so they'll be hard for the White House to veto and I ultimately don't see Bush sticking to his guns on this stuff since he's pretty veto-averse and unprincipled.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | October 30, 2006 10:52 AM

I'm genuinely curious what "record of action" on economic items you think you can accomplish.

(Personally, I don't think you'll be able to accomplish much, if anything, legislatively over the next couple of years. It will pretty much be all-Iraq, all-investigation, all the time.)

Recovering the missing $8.8Billion missing CPA funds would cover both.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 30, 2006 10:53 AM

# Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and legislation.

Congress does this all of the time, and it never works. I'm curious as to whether there has ever been a sustained period over which the number of lobbyists (by whatever the "best" measure is) in and around DC has dropped. Money spent on lobbying would be another proxy, I suppose.

# Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half.

The focus on college by the Dems strikes me as mildly bizarre. As Atrios has pointed out in the past, there are a great number of jobs for which a college degree acts only as the ante, but offers little benefit beyond that. I worry a bit that focusing on college makes it more of a requirement for any job, and therefore imposes greater unnecessary costs on people at the lower end of the income scale.

I'm willing to be argued out of this, but I sincerely don't get it. Maybe we're too far along in the process of turning a college degree into a necessary piece of accreditation. Maybe we cannot tell anything about a person's best and most valuable fit in the work world until they go through college. Maybe I am relatively blind to the really significant effects a college education can have in someone's life, irrespective of its income effects.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 30, 2006 11:16 AM

Thanks.

I've got to say, if THAT'S really going to be the Democrat agenda for the next two years, I couldn't care less if the Republicans lose the House.

Posted by Al | October 30, 2006 11:31 AM

SCMT, we've dealt with so many kids who are absolutely up a stump in college-related debt. We've been able to help our own kids, but their friends are drowning in it. Someone somewhere has to focus on that.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 30, 2006 11:31 AM

The focus on college by the Dems strikes me as mildly bizarre.

I agree and disagree with this. For roughly SCMT reasons, I don't think any real solutions to major problems actually lie in this direction. On the other hand, the current state of play with regard to student loans is a huge scandal -- for essentially no reason the federal money is laundered through some private sector lenders who take a slice off the top even though taxpayers are fronting all the money and bearing all the risk. So while I don't think changing the system in the way the House Dems are proposing is much of a silver bullet, it is a great example of an achievable, mildly helpful, widely popular small-bore policy idea, so I'm glad they're pushing it.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | October 30, 2006 11:47 AM

divguy wrote: "Clinton's hideous tactical screwup on gays in the military"

I'm all for investigating the dickens out of the administration, because there's been so much dishonesty, lawbreaking, and secrecy.

But in terms of legislation, wouldn't it be nice to try to actually get something done, rather than having the alpha and omega of our agenda being making Republicans angry/look awkward? I mean, there's debt and war and proliferation to deal with.

It's and inarguable fact that Republicans have been sons of bitches in the procedure and substance of their management of Congress, especially the House. But we just can't retaliate in kind, if for no other reason than that the country just has too many serious problems-- problems caused, to some degree, by treating every line of every bill, every word of every discussion, as a means for distorting facts and tweaking Democrats.

We have to be the bigger man.

Posted by Tom Tomberg | October 30, 2006 12:27 PM

Tom -

As Ed Kilgore says, you can't take the politics out of politics. The most likely outcome in November will be that the Democrats control one house of Congress with occasional opportunities to make common cause with moderates in the Senate. The Democrats won't have control of the institutions that would enable them to "be the bigger man", as you put it. They have to play politics to get the Senate to sign on, and they have to play politics to make it embarrassing for Bush to veto or shelve the bill. Politics is how things get done.

Unless you're proposing that the Democrats write and pass legislation that can't actually be enacted - and in that case, I don't see how "being hte bigger man" has anything to do with anything - that's pure theater.

Posted by DivGuy | October 30, 2006 1:14 PM

divguy-- I meant to be agreeing with you. Clinton took on a highly contentious issue as job #1. Bad politics, bad policy.

Maybe a Dem-led House could start by working on some non-contentious, anti-crime, pro-family, anti-terrorist stuff that does good and builds some kind of trust and good will without pulling a GOP and loading bills up with poison pills and interest group giveaways.

Just, we meed more of the spirit of Lincoln and less of the spirit of Gingrich in governance right now, even though all elected Republicans have benefitted from the DeLay/Cheney/McConnell et al method of campaigning, debate, legislating, and governance.

Posted by Tom Tomberg | October 30, 2006 1:30 PM

Who were you disagreeing with, then?

The Democratic agenda outlined above is precisely a set of items that can get passed through the House and Senate, and have a good shot at being signed into law by the president. and they're all good policy and good for America.

Are you suggesting that the Democrats should work with the president on the agenda? I don't mean to be rude to someone who's so nice as to agree with me, but doesn't that strike you as slightly crazy? When has Bush ever showed a willingness to work with and compromise with his opponents, particularly his opponents in the Democratic party?

Posted by DivGuy | October 30, 2006 2:23 PM

When has Bush ever showed a willingness to work with and compromise with his opponents, particularly his opponents in the Democratic party?

Immediately after being elected. He went all Peaceful Co-existence on us to give him nominal cover for the rest of his appointed term: The No Child Left Behind Act. Which he promptly ignored and refused to fund. But it gave him a "legacy" of compromise.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 30, 2006 4:17 PM

"...the fraud caucus sham."

Is this redundant, or do I just not understand what it means?

I understood the original article to be calling the "liberal Republicans" in the Senate a "fraud" (although there is no actual literal caucus, as I understand it, but good enough). But now it's a sham of a fraud? Are we in a Woody Allen joke now?

Posted by Gary Farber | November 1, 2006 12:44 PM

WASHINGTON Stung by reports of widespread problems with Medicares new prescription-drug program, the nations top health care official WBR LeoP

Posted by Pharmacy | March 9, 2007 6:42 PM