Democratic Inighting

David Sirota, commenting on a Wall Street Journal piece about Democratic infighting, notes the distinctive camps:

The Journal says there are three groups in the Democratic Congress – basically, progressives who want big changes, Blue Dogs who want to stop big changes in the name of deficit reduction, and those who haven’t taken a side, and are pushing Obama to go small-bore, split the difference, and move very slowly. That latter group is led by [House Majority Whip, Rep. James] Clyburn, and (big shocker!) Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) who “says Sen. Obama remains firmly behind his full agenda — but is flexible on timing and pacing.”

We tend to think of the Democratic congress in terms of its three main caucuses (the Progressives, the New Democrats, and the Blue Dogs). However, I am beginning to believe that that is the wrong way to look at things…or, at least, it will be. Let’s start with the Blue Dogs. If there is one distinctive feature of the Blue Dog coalition, it is their preference for balanced budgets (as expressed by the Pay-Go rule that says all tax cuts and new expenditures must be offset by new revenues). That’s a economic/political philosophy that is pretty ill-suited for the times. Pretty much everyone recognizes the need for some deficit spending right now, especially on infrastructure projects. But the Blue Dogs have other problems. Most Blue Dogs are from southern states that are more culturally conservative and more reflexively pro-military than the caucus as a whole (the ‘real’ pro-America Americans that Palin talks about). But southern Democrats are increasingly out of sync with the Blue Dogs’ pro-corporate leanings. The new Democrats coming out of the south, like Travis Childers of Mississippi and Dan Cazayoux of Louisiana, are anti-free trade, anti-Wall Street bailout, economic populists. They might agree with the Blue Dogs on most cultural issues, but they are more in line with the Progressive Caucus on most economic issues.

The New Democratic caucus is kind of an anachronism at this point. It came into existence at the height of the success of Clintonism, but it doesn’t really have a guiding ideology anymore. It’s basically a caucus for middle-of-the-road Democrats. If you’re a newly elected Democrat that doesn’t feel comfortable caucusing with Maxine Waters and John Conyers, but who wants to join some fraternity, the New Democratic caucus is a safe harbor.

As for the Progressive Caucus, while remaining the largest of the three caucuses, it is also the least effective. Almost all its members come from safe, urban seats. It doesn’t do outreach very well, and it is unlikely to attract more than a small handful of new members in the next Congress. This is a shame because a lot of the new members are much more ideologically aligned with progressives (on the war, on civil liberties, and on trade) than with either the Blue Dogs or the New Democrats.

The Progressive Caucus will be able to wield a lot of power in the next Congress through its control of key committee chairs (Rangel on Ways & Means, Conyers on Judiciary, Frank on Financial Services, Filner on Veteran’s Affairs, Velacruz on Small Business,