Fear Itself

Chris Bowers:

Blue Dogs actually seem like the most scared people in all of Washington, D.C. as a result of this article. They are afraid of Republican attacks. They are afraid of conservative pundits. They are afraid of their constituents. They are afraid of motions to recommit that are meaningless in terms of actual policy. And they are protected by Emanuel and Hoyer, who seem petrified of all the same things. They seem to all operate in a perpetual state of fear, despite their surface machismo. And yes, it does seem like fear, rather than simply conservative beliefs in this case, because otherwise why would they be in favor of a meaningless procedural motion that has nothing to do with policy? The widespread fear in the tough guy wing of the Democratic Party is one of the great ironies of modern American politics.

There's much truth to this, but I wouldn't entirely discount the idea that many elected Democrats actually have fairly conservative views on a few issues and prefer to be seen as "afraid" by liberals than as simply on the other side.

Comments

Life isn't that simple. I mean who cares if Ling Ling returns the wallet and keeps the money? It has nothing to do with either fear or love.

Posted by southpaw | November 1, 2007 7:46 AM

You are what you do which is why it's stupid to keep talking about Guiliani as being pro-choice when he is going to nominate the same judges as Tancredo and Brownback. In this case, it doesn't matter whether the Blue Dogs secretly are neocons or are just simpering cowards. What matters is how they vote.

Posted by Ron | November 1, 2007 9:10 AM

My own feeling is that many if not most Democrats simply have no interest in foreign policy and defense issues. They will fight on domestic issues, which have meaning for them and for the constituencies and special interest groups they work with. But when it comes to foreign policy and defense, they simply duck and run for cover. I also suspect that their focus groups (I'm sure they have them) say that Americans are "split" on Iraq (they want the war to end but they don't want to lose it) and that they don't object too much to torture as long as it's happening to people who are "bad."

Posted by Alan Vanneman | November 1, 2007 10:35 AM

Sorry, but I don't care what your ideology is, there is simply no excuse for not forthrightly standing up to a rogue, extremist administration that

1) starts an illegal war of aggression
2) based on a despicable WMD hoax
3) that led to 1,000,000 dead Iraqis and 2,000,000 refugees,
4) while desecrating the Constitution and
5) practicing torture, thus destroying our international reputation and harming our national security

These are extraordinary circumstances. Under these circumstances, you either stand up for what's right or you take responsibility for the evil being done in our name.

Posted by Junius Brutus | November 1, 2007 10:49 AM

Face it: the President and the Vice-President are war criminals.

Nothing else matters compared to that. You either do everything you can to rectify that situation or you share responsibility for what they are doing.

Posted by Junius Brutus | November 1, 2007 10:58 AM

Why would you pretend that Bowers is a disinterested observer on centrist Democrats' "fear" when his whole current agenda is to set up primary challenges and drive them out of Congress?

Posted by Campesino | November 1, 2007 12:13 PM

Campesino said, "Why would you pretend that Bowers is a disinterested observer"

There are no "disinterested" observers. Do you have a substantive objection to Bowers' claims, disinterested or otherwise? Or are you just throwing up flak?

Posted by Junius Brutus | November 1, 2007 12:17 PM

There are no "disinterested" observers. Do you have a substantive objection to Bowers' claims, disinterested or otherwise? Or are you just throwing up flak?

Posted by Junius Brutus | November 1, 2007 12:17 PM
=================================================

I'm talking about disclosure. I think it's somewhat dishonest to quote Bowers and not even mention that his opinion is likely shaded by his anti- "Bush Dog" campaign. It would be like quoting Harold Ford on how resolute centrist Democrats are in their beliefs and just sorta forget to mention he's head of the DLC

Posted by Campesino | November 1, 2007 12:28 PM

They are just realistic and risk-averse, as most of them know that they will never face a credible challenger from the left, but they face a credible challenger from the right almost every single election cycle.

I think they may also vote to keep their percentages down in the various scorecards.

Posted by bob | November 1, 2007 1:08 PM

Don't the Blue Dogs usually have fairly conservative constituents, whatever their personal views are? If I had to go before the voters in some of those districts, I'd be scared too.

Posted by AlanC9 | November 2, 2007 3:48 AM