The American labor movement seems to have taken a page right out of Al Sharpton’s 2003-4 presidential campaign. Remember Al’s rallying call?
“Now you know the symbol of our party is the donkey. And my Momma always told me the donkey is a stubborn animal. You just can’t get him to do things easily. You can’t coax him and you can’t cajole him. Instead what you have to do to get that donkey to move is to slap him.
“Well I intend to slap this donkey all the way from New Hampshire to Iowa. I’m gonna slap this donkey all across the United States. I will keep slappin’ this donkey until this donkey gets up the courage to kick George Bush right out of office!”
Well, that didn’t work out as planned, but Bush did eventually leave the White House and the Democrats did take over both houses of Congress. And then a lot of progressives discovered that items on their agenda were either dropped, given a low priority, or stalled. And that is when you have to make some transition from slapping the elephant to slapping the donkey. In my opinion, the progressive movement as a whole has not been very discriminating or strategic or precise in their choice of slap targets, but some of them are obvious. Unions have gone all-in against Blanche Lincoln, who has benefited from labor’s help in her campaigns but who dropped her prior support for the Employee Free Choice Act once it actually had a chance to pass the filibuster hurdle. That behavior completely dictates support for a primary challenge. There is no way to look the other way on a betrayal of that magnitude, and no other way to discipline other members who might be thinking of doing the same thing on other issues. It looks like the labor movement will be getting involved in contested Democratic primaries in Colorado, Ohio, Kentucky, and elsewhere. This will be very controversial, as many see it is a waste of money that weakens the Democrats in a tough election cycle. That is why efforts like this must be done intelligently with a careful eye on what is realistic. Otherwise, we just eat our own.
Nate Silver has examined the Arkansas race and found the challenge to be a poor investment. His reasoning is sound. But sometimes you have to make a statement. Sometimes a statement is worth more than the money it costs to promulgate. Sometimes, you have to slap the donkey to move the donkey.
Though I agree with your post in some respects, it brought up an issue for me: How to reconcile financial and energy support for a candidate and then their voting record on issues. We are critical of elected representatives who are “owned” by banks or insurance companies … but then criticize Blanche Lincoln for not being faithful to or loyal to the labor unions. Isn’t this a hypocritical (or perhaps just convenient) distinction, between being owned and being faithful, depending on whether someone votes the way we like on any particular issue?
Good point.
I think, first of all, that one of the biggest betrayals a politician can make is to vote for something when they know it won’t pass and then vote against it when their vote would be decisive in making it pass. That’s what Lincoln did on the EFCA. They call it a free vote. You make the Unions happy by giving them the first vote when the legislation won’t pass, and they go out and knock doors for you. Wal*Mart winks at the whole thing because they know when it counts, you’ll be voting with them.
That’s a whole lot different than being bought and owned by labor unions. It’s about keeping promises.
and ultimately these things to sometimes just reduce to your values. We often try to reason these things out, but sometimes its just OK to say that you support labor and think corporations are doing just fine without your support. but you make a good point- if Lincoln had voted for EFCA, conservatives would say she’s a labor stooge.
But what Lincoln did was play both sides and when the tough choices needed to be made she voted for big business. Whether you were happy about that because you like big business or pissed because you like Labor, it doesn’t change the fact that that was a sleazy double cross.
I love his numbers approach, but like a lot of people he gets caught in the trap of thinking that ideology and party loyalty are the same thing. I wish Kos and the unions alike (btw, watch for an article in the atlantic monthly or maybe even TNR about this new netroots/labor alliance coming out in a couple months…) would clarify this more often so it doesn’t look they are trying to purge the party of conservatives. What irks progressives is not that we have conservatives in our caucus- I think the more thoughtful amongst us agree that typically the party with the bigger tent in american history has been the dominant party- but that they lack party discipline.
This can’t be stressed enough- Lincoln and a few other senators in our caucus were threatening to obstruct through joining a GOP filibuster, the president and the party’s key issue that they had just won a mandate in 2008 to enact. Anybody who says that by early fall the bill that Lieberman, Nelson and Lincoln were still threatening to filibuster was liberal, doesn’t understand what these ideologies mean.
Since the GOP has made the strategic decision that its better for them to obstruct and not give the president any votes, then our caucus needs to be 100% disciplined as well. Members like Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson and Bayh, refuse to adapt to this dynamic, so either they go (willingly or not) or the country is ungovernable.
This has always been about party discipline, not ideology (witness Kos’s posturing on a primary for Kucinich). Looking at progressive scorecards and things like that are useless.
I wish Kos and the unions alike would clarify this more often so it doesn’t look they are trying to purge the party of conservatives.
You can be conservative all you want, but given the rules of the Senate, and the fact that you call yourself a Democrat(like Bayh, Lincoln, Ben Nelson … ) voting with the GOP to filibuster anything the Democrats want to do should be the death knell. It is simply inexcusable. But what it also tells me is that there are a lot of stupid people in the Senate Democratic caucus. Why? Because someone like Blanche Lincoln would have been better served to let the bill come up for a vote and vote against final passage, knowing we had votes elsewhere to pass it.
I think part of what is so frustrating of the Lincoln dynamic is just watching her make stupid decisions FOR HER, let alone how much they hurt everyone else in her caucus, state and country. None of her decisions even appeal to the Machiavellian in me. I think we all understand what her gambit is, but the polling just doesn’t support the thesis that bashing your fellow dems is the way to victory. The only plausible defense of her actions is that she’s out of place, a dinosaur, who rose to power during the late 90’s when the parties and the country were in very different places. She’s not savvy enough to adapt, so she’ll be extinct soon enough.
But to the larger point, the best way to think about the primary against Lincoln and the coming primaries against Nelson and Lieberman and others in 2012 is that Kos and the unions are just doing the heavy lifting that Reid himself can’t. McConnell is able to control his caucus for the most part- he lets a few of them vote how they want, but for the most part he makes them stick to the game plan. I’m not sure how McConnell is able to yield so much power (perhaps he has dirt on them or more likely he has lots of sway over primaries from outside groups as well as control of the party funding apparatus) but Reid has nothing like it. If Reid could keep his caucus in order, we wouldn’t have to throw scarce resources at a primary against Lincoln.
This isn’t to pick on Harry Reid. McConnell is extremely good at his job and if Reid can’t match him then he looks like a stooge. We need a majority leader who can achieve the caucus discipline of McConnell.
Don’t forget .. when was the last time we had a Majority/Minority Leader from a blue state? Nevada isn’t solidly blue yet .. Daschle wasn’t from a blue state .. Byrd? .. George Mitchell? .. Mike Mansfield? LBJ?
It may turn out in hindsight (im not of this view, but i could be convinced) that Reid was a good minority/majority leader when we had a republican president. But he’s proving ill suited to the current dynamic where we must “all hang together or assuredly hang separately.”
At the same time though, I’m not sure we have someone in our caucus who could be the equal of McConnell. As many point out, the GOP does have a natural inclination to fall in line, while every Dem Senator is a unique snowflake. I like the idea of a big city pol like Durbin or Schumer running things in the Senate. They may be more suited to the nature of the times than Reid.
Donkeys are more intelligent than horses and don’t flee when frightened… so not a good comparison for Congress. 🙂
“Donkeys are more intelligent than horses ”
Thanks for the info. Until now, I thought it is just the opposite, LOL. 🙂
Silver does a service by laying out the numbers, but his methods and viewpoint are essentially the stuff of a conservative mind. Today’s quote of the day on some webpage went something like “a conservative is someone who believes nothing should be done for the first time.” In this analysis Silver comes off as a kind of astrologer, running the numbers as if they reflected the inevitabilities of a deterministic universe.
He makes assumptions about who the voters are, whether they can be won over, and the fixed meaning of “liberal” and “conservative”. By his kind of analysis, the upset in MA could never have happened because the demographics wouldn’t allow it. But creation and destruction and mood and competence and emotion had their say and blew all the numbers away.
In AR, Halter might or might not appeal to disaffected Dems and indies enough to win the primary and go on to win the general. It will depend on his campaign style, events between now and November, his opponents’ competence, the fortunes of the Dem Party once the economy is better and HRC is a reality, and Halter’s willingness and ability to stand up as a breath of fresh air amid the stale platitudes of the pols and the press. In the end, MBA-style analyses like this one do some damage by dispiriting those who seek real change, and all on the basis of assumptions that have little more relevance than is provided by the books of winning lottery numbers. They should be taken as interesting artifacts, but not as guides to action.
Like all of us, I think Nate Silver has the limitations of his strengths. He’s a numbers guy, a rare talent in this world. But he lacks the political instincts and insight into which politicians may catch fire at a given time and place.
There are lots of other journalists out there attempting to make that analysis, and only one Nate Silver. If Nate ever paired up with a good political journalist he’d have a firebomb of a site.
sometimes, you just get tired of folks slapping you around. and you have to stand up for yourself.
I want Lincoln GONE. and I want this guy to beat her in the primary. I don’t even care if he actually wins the general – I just want her GONE.
That’s how I feel about Stupak. The rational part of me recognizes it may be counterproductive, but the irrational part just wants him out of there.
Yeah, I already sent a contribution his way. It could be completely wasted, but at least it made me feel better.