(cross-posted at Daily Kos)
Everyone remembers that the immediate spin by the mainstream media and the right wing following the 2006 midterm elections was that the results was a victory for conservatism and moderation. Of course, this was a joke; despite his occasional wankery, Stuart Rothenberg got it right when analyzing this ridiculous claim:
Well, I met dozens of Democrats running in 2006 – no, not everyone, but most of them – and I can’t find much more than a couple who merit the label “conservative.” That’s not meant to be either criticism or praise. It’s merely a statement of fact.
Nevertheless, it seems that the mainstream media just won’t stop trying to interpret the election results as a drastic change within the Democratic Party. Ryan Lizza, a senior editor at The New Republic, takes a bizarre angle in today’s New York Times:
Nancy Pelosi’s carefully crafted introduction to the American people last week seemed to reinforce some stereotypes of the so-called mommy party. On the day she made history as the first woman to be elected speaker, she appeared on the House floor, surrounded by children and bedecked in pearls.
But even as this nurturing image dominated the news, the swearing-in ceremony on Thursday was notable for another milestone in gender politics: the return of the Alpha Male Democrat.
Oh, crap. The Democratic Party’s master plan to become the Manly Party will fail because Nancy Pelosi invited a bunch of kids up to the speaker’s podium! What shall we do?
In all seriousness, what the hell is Lizza smoking? Let’s examine this line of wankery a little longer.
The return of Democratic manliness was no accident; it was a carefully planned strategy. But now that the Macho Dems are walking the halls of Congress, it remains to be seen whether they will create as many problems for Democrats as they solved. After all, these new Democrats have heterodox political views that could complicate Democratic caucus politics, and their success may raise uncomfortable questions for those Democrats who don’t pass the new macho test.
I’m curious if Lizza even paid any attention to the election results. Sure, there are some people that may fit Lizza’s ideal of manliness. In the article, he points out Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA-08), Rep. Chris Carney (PA-10), Rep. Joe Sestak (PA-07), Rep. Tim Walz (MN-01), Rep. Brad Ellsworth (IN-08), Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), and Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA). That’s…6 representatives of the 40 new Democratic representatives in the House, and 2 of the 9 new senators in the Senate. What about the fact that the Senate gained 2 more female senators in Amy Klobuchar and Claire McCaskill? How does Lizza’s logic stand up to cold, hard facts? (emphasis mine):
The 110 th Congress will have the largest number of women chairing committees: including Representatives Louise Slaughter, Nydia Velazquez, Juanita Millender MacDonald, and Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer will all head committees beginning in January 2007.
[…]
A record number of women were elected to Congress (90) and state legislative seats (1,731).
Oh yeah, there’s a real big wave of manliness sweeping over the Democratic Party and the nation.
Anyways, back to Lizza:
The architects of this strategy, Representative Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Lapp’s boss, as well as Senator Charles Schumer, are well-known political pit bulls. Mr. Emanuel won his Congressional seat by navigating the ward politics of Chicago’s old-fashioned political machine.
This is…well, bullshit. Let’s examine the representatives listed above. Patrick Murphy and Tim Walz are candidates who benefited initially from grassroots support, not because Rahm Emanuel recruited them into the race. As for the senators, both Tester and Webb were strongly supported by the grassroots. In the MT-Sen Democratic primary, Jon Tester wiped the floor with establishment candidate John Morrison. In Virginia, it was a grassroots effort to draft Jim Webb that got him into the race – not because Chuck Schumer specifically targeted him.
More Lizza:
But there may be serious risks for the Democrats’ embrace of an electoral philosophy based less on bold ideas than on bold biography. For one, the Macho Dem strategy is inherently pro-male. And Democrats have historically relied on a gender gap advantage — with women. If they tilt in the other direction, does that gap disappear?
[…]
Sure, some Macho Dems express support for, say, abortion rights but one gets the sense that ensuring Roe’s preservation may not be one of their highest priorities in coming to the Senate. It’s hard to imagine them at the next Emily’s List fund-raiser.
Here’s my problem with Lizza’s thesis. It is inherently flawed because he identifies the completely wrong reason why the Democratic Party prevailed in the 2006. We didn’t win because we ran manly men who weren’t afraid to be manly men. We won because we weren’t afraid to speak truth to power and call bullshit on the GOP. We weren’t afraid to stand up for what we believed in. Even more ludicrous is the assertion that the election of these candidates will cause a split in the party. What a joke! I volunteered on Patrick Murphy’s campaign, and never did I hear a complaint from women about his beliefs. I doubt that even single-issue groups that can give the grassroots headaches with their myopia would take issue with the election of most of these representatives.
Memo to Ryan Lizza: crawl back to TNR and dwell in your irrelevance. Crap like this just serves to discredit any credentials you have as a political analyst.
