Steve Benen gives us something to think about:
Put it this way: imagine there’s a big meeting with every member of the Democratic caucus in both chambers. You stand at the front of the room and make a presentation: “If health care reform falls apart after having come this far, tens of millions of Americans will suffer; costs will continue to soar; the public will perceive Democrats as too weak and incompetent to act on their own agenda; the party will lose a lot of seats in the midterms and possible forfeit its majority; and President Obama will have suffered a devastating defeat that will severely limit his presidency going forward. No one will even try to fix the dysfunctional system again for decades, and the existing problems will only get worse.”
For progressive Democrats, the response would be, “That’s an unacceptable outcome, which we have to avoid.”
For conservative Democrats, the response would be, “We can live with failure.”
But, it’s the conservative Democrats who are most likely to lose their jobs. So, is there something missing from this example?
Update [2009-11-23 12:43:9 by BooMan]: In answer to Duncan, I don’t mean that voting for health care is dangerous, but that failing to pass health care is dangerous. And the danger will fall on the most vulnerable Democrats, who tend to be the most conservative Democrats. So, why would they be so indifferent to massive electoral losses? See my point?
What’s missing is:
When the ConservaDems lose their seats, they get to slide right over to cushy lobbying jobs – their hirings helped all the more by their shilling for the industries while in office.
And they don’t give a crap about what it does to the American people.
Cha-ching!
Pessimistic, I know, but…
I think you nailed half of the problem.
Actually, it seems to me that those who are in battleground districts are the ones with the most to lose. If the flame is doused from those who were fired up for change, then they won’t come out to vote, leaving the member vulnerable.
I think members like Sen. Lincoln are just LAZY. She served in the House from what, ’92 or ’93 ’til 1996, and then later ran for Senate in ’98. It’s 2009…she knew she’d have tough races, so you’d think she’d do more to insulate herself: constituent “care and feeding,” attaching herself to a high profile issue, whatever. Pick a strategy, act on it–and move on.
I don’t think she has it that much harder than say, Sen. Hagans, and Hagans just got there.
Lincoln is not new. She did not just arrive to DC. All the commotion when she or some other alleged “centrist” has to vote on something…geeze, I’m just over it.
“But, it’s the conservative Democrats who are most likely to lose their jobs. So, is there something missing from this example?”
You’re assuming that intolerance for incompetency and inaction is limited to moderate and conservative districts. Why?
The reality is that not only will health care reform not be seriously addressed again in my lifetime nor my teenage son’s lifetime, I think it would take just as long for Democrats to regain a majority in Congress. I doesn’t matter where you stand on the ideaological spectrum; from any vantage point, it is becoming increasingly undeniable that Democrats can not govern.
Progressives can blame moderates and moderates can blame progressives, but it doesn’t matter because the American public will blame all Democrats in 2010. It is a kick in the ass to the entire country to have been dragged through this emotional battle for almost a year and come up with nothing. I actually think it will be healthy to see a lot of ineffective Democrats who have been holding their seats on name recognition to be primaried.
a blind Obama adorer. If you weren’t you’d probably remember that Obama hired huge war criminals to work for him in Afghanistan too.
this comment appears to be off topic.
They are not committed to being members of Congress forever. Maybe they survive long enough to vest their pension and get healthcare. Maybe not, but they have been paid to represent interests that want to block healthcare reform. And they might just have a follow-up career working or lobbying for those same interests.
It’s very simple. They.do.not.care.about.their.constituents.
It only takes a look at a map showing the number of uninsured per state to see that.
And then there’s Joe “the Maverick” Lieberman, who uses it for media attention.
while it might be they really don’t care about their constituents, it may also be that they have mistaken who their constituents really are…..
…counting contributions instead of actual votes (or instead of votes.
In that case, to whom would you see yourself as more beholden? Joe Sixpack who cast one vote only, or Merck, who financed your campaign and 1/5 of your staff?
Definitely a tough decision, no?
(need to read less ‘Onion’….yeah, I know)
Same difference
This is not something that is going on only in politics, or only in Washington.
The attitude of ‘We can live with failure’ is almost everywhere I look.
In their minds it’s ‘I want things to stay as they are’, but because the status quo is failing so thoroughly, Americans are now buying into failure.
It just seems to me that the America of only a few years ago is gone. There is not much ‘we can do that’ left in my generation. In the organizations I belong to in the fun side of my life it is just a fact that if you want to change directions or try something new, you have to go young for solutions. 55 years old and above? Forget it, they have no desire for anything that even gives the appearance of ….. sharing. Even when it does not effect them at all.
Throughout history people my age have insisted young people are spoiled and worse than they. I have no such illusions. Young people these days are so much better and nicer and inclusive of ‘different’ than the 55 and above.
I have always believed that for true progress to be made on race in America we have to wait until everyone born before 1960 is either dead or out of influence. Now I believe it’s not only race, but in order to achieve any progress at all, on anything. The next twenty years will be a holding pattern, trying to keep damage to a minimum.
nalbar
Just to add my $0.02 to your observation regarding the notion of sharing, I think that republicans and religious conservatives have been convinced that the poor and people otherwise down on their luck are that way because they somehow “deserve” it. As it relates to the issue of health care, in their view, people that don’t have access to decent health insurance obviously haven’t “earned” it.
Well, polling does seem to support your observation in many respects, but your experience is different than mine. When I did GOTV phoning for MoveOn in the last election, for example, I’d say well over half the participants were over 55, and were among the most vocally “liberal” (whatever that means these days). The other largest group were probably under 30. That same pattern seems somewhat consistent where I hang around: the old ones and the young ones are the drivers, while the 30-50s are MIA and indifferent when they do show up. So to me, the graphic would be a big donut with 30-50 being the hole. Of course this is in a highly urban setting. Probably looks way different in rural/suburb areas.
Dave, that is interesting, and heartening. But what you describe is volunteerism for an organization with an obviously liberal bent, so it may be a reflection of available bodies.
What I am describing is people who get together to preform non-political actions. Put on a car racing event, for instance, but it could be history buffs also. You get all types helping, not just a certain leaning demographic.
nalbar
It is a different crowd, but the intensity seemed strikingly different to me, as described. I’m surprised the kind of groups you describe talk politics enough for you to map their leanings. Again, maybe urban/other difference?
We studiously avoid politics (at least as much as they can with me around). My post is mainly about how a certain demographic is just against change on general princibles.
It just seems to me American’s have become afraid. We are a country of whiny ass titty babies. Not many go ‘Ya, we can do that EASY’. It’s more like ‘Why in the world would we want to do THAT?’.
nalbar
Interesting observation about the 30-50 age group – Reagan-Bush I era, the marketing of “drown gov in a bathtub”. That idea is marketed by marketing cynicism and apathy about participating in public life. OT perhaps: is it just me or does there seem to be more fake-left-trolling these days (i.e. concern trolls who appear to to take an extreme left criticism of Obama and the dems).
Ya, that group has now gotten older. And the normal stagnation that hits that age group has become an ugly self centeredness. ‘I got mine, screw you’, even when what the ‘got’, ain’t much.
And no, it is not just you. They are here, and they don’t like Booman.
nalbar
The answer? Identity politics. The conservative democrats think that people in their home state won’t reward them for doing the right thing if its identified as a liberal/Obama bill. They love the public option in polls but they dislike Obama and liberals. This really is just one part of the larger problem that people in the south generally like progressive reforms but vehemently dislike the people identified with such reforms. The actions of the conservative dems don’t make sense rationally, but then again, southern voters aren’t rational. I agree that the conservative dems are playing their political hand poorly, but there is a method to their madness. They are playing to the irrational/emotional aspect of their constituent. They know that the public option is popular in their homestate, but they don’t think they are going to be rewarded for supporting it.
But there’s a difference between supporting it and opposing it. They might not be rewarded for supporting, but standing out as the ones that killed it is certain political poison. The progressive side of the party has failed miserably, IMO, to exploit the difference because they don’t want to put any Dem on the spot.
Benen seems to be talking about issue-orientation, not electoral politics. The DINOs can live with failure because they don’t care that much about the social consequences, which they don’t expect to be blamed for. The progressives do care, so they can’t live with failure. Many of the Lincolns and Nelsons probably felt threatened by Obama’s image as a change-bringer, and so are at some level willing to see him go down in flames.
I suspect one reason for their seeming inability to read their constituents is the weird inability to factor intensity into their calculations. They assume that whatever happens, Dem voters will remain in the fold no matter what happens. They apparently can’t imagine that any sellout on their part will affect turnout enough to endanger their reelection. They are frightened by loud crazies on the other side, and thus far out side has not managed to produce much in the way of passionate public anger to counterbalance that.
They listen to precisely the wrong people because that’s where their “friends” are — the ones who give them the big bucks and the ersatz deference. And those “friends”, of course, would be happy to see them replaced by a Republican. They fall for Iago every damn time.
the conservative Dems could care less about their constituents, and believe that folks are dumb and will believe their lies. I want a nice chunk of them gone.
I call this the Al Wynn/Clinton/Daschle problem. They sell out the dems in order to pave the way for more lucrative lobbying careers. You didn’t really “punish” Al Wynn by voting him out of office. Al makes more money in the private sector which is why he quit early…
It’s one reason why I think we should start a new party and install a plank that bars employment with industry lobbying groups after public service.
What job do you think former insurance lobbyist Jason Altmire will do once his “public service” has ended? The conservadems will make money in the private sector and that’s why we can’t put pressure on them. We need to put in our own people that we can trust. I’ll repeat my wild eyed 5/25 plan: shoot for 5 senate seats (looks pretty big now doesn’t it?) and 25 house seats. Our goal should be to keep congressional majorities once the conservadems are gone…
The Grayson moneybombs show that we can run real campaigns. You need 300000 grand for a credible house run and 2 million for credible senate runs…
I say the answer is fear. It is appalling to witness the number of Democratic professionals on both the legislative and political sides who believe that what the Washington Post, Politico, various TV pundits constantly say – “move right; you’ll be punished if you are seen as a liberal” etc. – is revealed Truth. All of the arguments that have been used to change minds – a ‘no’ vote will depress your base turnout, Republicans won’t spare you if you vote against reform, strong legislation becomes more popular once it gets passed, you may get primaried, etc. – fall on deaf ears. Too many Democrats are just credulous fraidy cats, and believe – with two huge Democratic victories as contrary evidence – that this is a ‘conservative’ country.