Someone asked Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) if he planned on switching parties or becoming an independent like Joe Lieberman.
Nelson rejected such a move, saying he still feels very comfortable within the Senate Democratic Caucus.
“I’ll put it this way: I don’t think you leave your party, your party leaves you. And my party hasn’t left me,” he said. “My party gives me a great deal of latitude to do what I think is right on the basis of policy and interests, rather than just what party philosophy seems to be. So I’m very comfortable where I am.”
And, as if it needed to be said, he added:
The GOP, Nelson said, “doesn’t seem to be” a party with a very large ideological tent.
“Certainly, if you look at the partisan votes recently,” he said, “it’s been pretty much lockstep, and I’m not one who’s comfortable being that way.
It’s a kind of interesting set of quotes. At face value, Nelson is saying that he doesn’t believe that he would be allowed to exercise any real independence if he were to caucus with the Republicans. And I think that is an observation that touches on a recurring criticism that progressives have with the Democratic leadership. They don’t demand the same kind of loyalty that the Republicans do.
I guess the discussion should be on two topics. How do the Republicans manage to exercise this discipline? And is it worth it? Or, conversely, why don’t the Democrats exercise this kind of discipline? And what do they get out of their leniency?
Given his record, it seems he’s a lot more comfortable with lockstep (Republican) voting than he may realize. Or willing to admit to.
yeah, fair enough. But he voted for the stimulus, he voted for Sotomayor, he voted for the first health care bill (but not the reconciliation part that stripped out his goodies), and he voted for the Wall Street reforms.
It’s the difference between having very strong leadership in your caucus and having strong ideological running dogs in your caucus.
We saw this with Tom “the Hammer” Delay who as much as anyone made the Republican caucus – house and even the senate – what it is today. Now the GOP is bearing the fruits of that labor. They were not that cohesive – remember when there were moderate Republicans?
Earlier there was Tip O’neill who could do that for the Democrats – keep the cats in line and actually lead a party in opposition. Now as strong as Nancy Pelosi is she is not Tip who can lead the party (hello Mr President?) and she has no whip like Delay.
I don’t know what Reid is but he is none of them. Even given the confines of the Senate’s arcane rules.
Tip O’Neill was Speaker for one day short of a decade, from January 4th, 1977 to January 3rd, 1987, and he never once was in the minority during that time because he was the SPEAKER of the House. Now, maybe you meant that he acted as an opposition to Reagan during his first six years in office, but I don’t know that he was especially effective at that chore.
He was also the Majority Leader of the House during the Nixon/Ford term.
In any case, he was never in the minority in his entire career in Congress.
A bit more about Tip: After Reagan won and the Republicans took the Senate in 1980, O’Neill saw himself, while still Speaker, as effectively the opposition leader. His #1 concern was keeping the Democratic House majority intact so as to have a check on Reagan’s agenda.
Because of that, he made the strategic decision to let Reagan’s agenda move in the House, rather than adopt a “scorched earth” strategy. (This is one way he differed from Gingrich, DeLay, etc.) In the first six months of 1981, much of Reagan’s agenda passed the House (with a coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats) and the Senate.
O’Neill was, in effect, keeping his army together while in retreat and suffering losses (think: Washington retreating across New Jersey).
Then, when Reagan’s aides let slip that they were going to go after Social Security, O’Neill counterattacked (think: Washington crossing the Delaware to attack at Trenton). Reagan’s plan went nowhere, the Democrats gained 26 House seats in 1982, and the “Reagan Revolution” was blunted.
(Based on my recollection of John A. Farrell’s “Tip O’Neill and the Democratic Century”, which is a fine biography.)
A good number of O’Neil’s Southern Democrats were, for all intents and purposes, Republicans in all but name. (Phil Gramm (D-TX) , remember, was one of O’Neil’s caucus members). Bob Stump (AZ), Andy Ireland (FL), also flipped. The realignment was going on the whole time
There were enough Reps predisposed to go down the line with Reagan’s agenda anyways. Tip had a narrow line to walk.
Very interesting. I agree with him about parties – don’t think it should be about lockstep. I think the problem is he is lacking in self awareness, i.e. how much corporate donors determine his votes. But I agree with his observation about the party, and I think toleration of diversity is a strength, even in a political party.
Movement is relative; the Democratic Party is moving away from Ben Nelson because he is standing still.
Not the same loyalty, but at least some loyalty. You can vote against a party measure, but you don’t filibuster your party’s platform.