If you believe that the government can pass laws that make the country better, you are probably more likely to take public policy debates seriously than if you do not. In that sense, Democrats are probably more ‘serious’ than Republicans. This is a variation on the observation that if you are skeptical about any legitimate role for the federal government then you are probably going to be lousy at running the federal government.
But there is downside to taking the common wisdom of Washington DC groupthink about policy seriously. You can easily build a box that defines what is practical and possible, and then find your options constrained by the box. I do not get the sense that the Republicans are guilty of making this mistake. They constantly make the most outlandish statements and adopt the most radical talking points to refute the common wisdom in Washington. For example, they simply refuse to accept that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming. Their all-of-the-above energy policy is based on burning more fossil fuels.
They are going to use the recess to hold energy summits in their districts that will argue for the merits of drilling and burning our way out of our energy crisis. That strategy may be effective, but it bears no relationship to ‘serious’ debate about climate change. It’s easy to ignore real solutions if you are simply opposed to change of any type.
The Democrats often operate at a disadvantage because they seem to restrict themselves to debating policies that might actually become law. This avoids looking like a muttering loon, but it also lets the Republicans move the Overton Window way too far to the right.
If the Republicans were on the the USS Titantic they would:
(1) Deny that the ship was sinking.
(2) As a proof that their assessment was correct, they would open up all the port holes.
Result: the vessel would go down even faster, even before the band played the last chord of “Nearer MY God to Thee.” Who will play the last chord for planet Earth. Certainly, not the GOP.
Pretty much a logjam on substantive change, isn’t it ? After all, if you can make logical argument subject to psychological maniipulation – you can kiss any idea of popular government even farther away than it was by simple control by media owners.
What’s weird about this is that it means even those invested in controlling society will be screwed by those at the top of the power apex.
Gotta love that Dual Party Tyranny.
I hate to say it, but today Republicans are the ones who stand by their principles regardless of electoral consequences. Their principles may range from childishly irrational to batshit insane, but there is a certain admirable quality about their reckless indifference to results.
Of course they have a huge built-in advantage: they know Democrats will never go face to face at the very core of their ideas, will never point out that those ideas are radical attacks on the very foundations of America’s political tradition. Democrats will look for “consensus” and do whatever they think will deflect getting called “communists” or “socialists”. To avoid publicly discussing fundamental principles, they will natter around the edges. Instead of asking obvious questions about how Reagan/Bush subverted a fair and just tax system, they will murmer suggestions for more sin taxes and opaque special-interest adjustments to make it look like they, too, believe taxes are the devil’s playground.
So Dem long-range strategy has become waiting until the ship of fools periodically sinks of its own stupidity overload, when even the most believing TV news watcher sees that we can’t afford another Bush for a while.
Who knows what would happen if the Dems tried showing the passionate intensity that they’ve ceded to the wrong and the bad. Maybe they’d lose seats in Congress and have a close presidential race. But just maybe their newfound courage of their convictions would win a place in the hearts of Americans that would last long after their pragmatic advantage faded. It worked for FDR. At this point, only one thing seems certain: we’ll never know.
I don’t know what will happen to the ACES bill in the Senate, but I do know that it never could have passed the House without our huge margins and that the only way it will pass thru the Senate is because of our large margins. The same is true for the health care bill. Being ideologically pure can help build a mandate for change, but it also tends to diminish your majorities rapidly. That is why the only major progressive change we’ve seen from Congress since FDR died occurred in the brief 1964-1966 window, where Lyndon couldn’t be stopped.
“Ideologically pure” is a nonsense that’s beneath you. There’s no such thing.
yes, there is. You want to know who is ideologically pure? There are a few on both sides of the aisle. On the Democratic side, it’s Dennis Kucinich, Pete Stark, and maybe one or two others who consistently vote with the Republicans when bills are not progressive enough for their liking. On the GOP side it is Jeff Flake, Ron Paul, and a few others, who vote against their own caucus frequently when any bill, no matter how popular, expends additional federal funds or expands the power of the government in any way.
They never cut deals or co-sponsor bills that become law because they are not interested in legislating. They are only interested in consistency to their principles.
So they’re “ideologically pure” becaue they don’t always vote with the Dems? Why is there a special category for them and not all the rest of the Dems who don’t have a 100% Dem voting record? How come dinos like Landrieu and Tester who consistently vote with the Republicans when bills are too progressive for their liking?
You’re just buying into a straw man diversion that derails useful discussion.
You are getting hung up on a word and not paying attention to my point. My point is that the only time we’ve seen big progressive change in this country is when the Dems briefly have enormous margins. Those margins have never been ideologically pure because they have always included a large bloc of conservative Dems (e.g., segregationists). But, they get more done with big numbers than they do with smaller, more progressive majorities.
The Republicans are currently in a purging phase, where they invite moderates to leave the party and run those who stay out with primary challenges. That is the other extreme.
What the Dems are doing right now is moderating their positions on some key contentious issues like guns and agricultural policy in order to push other issues like health care reform and energy/climate policy. They are also trying to push the ball down the court without repeating the mistakes of 1966, 1968, 1972, 1980, or 1994, where they were severely punished at the polls for getting too far left of the electorate.
There are two schools of thought on this. One is that history teaches us to make the most of our power because it won’t last. That means we should go for maximum change and force vulnerable members to take highly risky votes.
The other school is that history teaches us that maximum change is causes our sojourns in power to be brief, and that means we should not push too far too fast, and we’ll get more done in the long-run by protecting our majorities.
Obama is clearly of the second opinion.
I am not sure.
What makes me somewhat sympathetic to Obama’s view is that I cannot accept the near-term risk of the GOP running anything.
The whole purpose of red herrings is to distract from the point, or cover up the fact that there isn’t one. It’s aggravating when you buy into the Beltway wisdom that the Dems are doing the best they can by creeping around taking progressive ideas off the table so they can scoop up the crumbs. I have no problem with them putting ag and guns aside to keep the focus on the big issues. My problem is that they’re bending over on those issues before there’s even a fight. When you start negotiating from the middle of the road there’s nowhere to move toward but the wrong side.
I think the Dems/progressives could have gotten better healthcare and environment/energy/climate legislation than we’re going to end up with because they were never willing to sell the progressive view. Your excusing their incompetence/cowardice as avoiding “ideological purity” only adds to the craven chorus. How you can look at the polls and claim they are in danger of being too far left of the people on health and environment is beyond me.
I hope I turn out dead wrong and we get the revolutionary change we need on both these issues. I’ll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, when I think “ideological purity” what comes to my mind is Baucus shutting down real debate on health legislation with an arrogance and rigidity that would have made Stalin proud.
I think your reading of history is 180 wrong. Progressives lost out due to incompetence/cowardice, not because they were “too far left”. Like the guy said about Christianity, American progressivism hasn’t failed, it hasn’t been tried yet. At least not for half a century or so.