"Six Arguments in Political Hell"

[kent_allard_jr]

Jonathan Chaits quotes a memo from the Democratic Strategist, which lists all the arguments folks are going to make about the election and tells us not to bother making them again, because we've heard them a thousand times before. This is particularly true for the Centrist vs. Leftist debates. Did the Democrats lose because they were too left-wing? Or because they didn't energize the base? I think the DCs are right that no one's about to change their minds.

There's one perspective they left out, however, which was expressed by Matthew Yglesias when he said, "The Point of Winning Elections is to Pass Laws." The whole point of electing Democrats is to get progressive legislation passed. Folks who say the Democrats shouldn't be liberals, because it will cost them elections, are implicitly treating politics as a racket, a jobs program for their buddies. From the standpoint of the voters that's the worst kind of attitude you can have.

Comments

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Have you been following the thread between elgorade (Doug) and myself in the same post that you and gwendaily were going at it?

[tmlforsyth.livejournal.com]

Well, for a lot of people, politics is exactly that, a racket. I am actually sorry to see Russ Feingold go. I may not agree with him, but I always liked him, and I thought he was a straight shooter. I imagine that is a reason peter King has stayed on, even as Long Island has shifted so much, though it looks like the NY legislature will have a major sea change as Crazy Tony defeated Frank Padavan, though no telling how the rest of the Senate did. Maybe Frank will start attending Legion meetings at my post now.

On a perverse note, passing progressive legislation that really works may be a political death knell as people will be happy with the progress, but if it is ironclad and GOP proof, then they won't need those progressives anymore.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Well, not so much a racket as a sporting event--go team blue!

But you can also view a national election as a chance to *stop bad laws from being passed* even if good laws won't come out of it. As the Republican pull harder and harder into the eliminationist, dominionist swamps, this becomes more and more important.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The whole point of electing Democrats is to get progressive legislation passed.

... and what happens to the Democrats when the set of goals they are currently defining as "progressive" becomes unpopular? Would it not make sense then for them to moderate their goals toward what the people actually support?

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Jordan, did you abandon conservatism after the Republicans were crushed in 2006? How about 2008? Liberals are no different. We support these things because we think they're good policies, not because we think they're popular.

[tmlforsyth.livejournal.com]

That depends on the politician. Not all Democrats are progressives, for one thing. Only a handful of progressives were defeated, like Alan Grayson, Tom Periello, and Carol Shea-Porter, who were elected in anti-Republican years like 2006 and 2008. A lot of blue dogs were defeated. Some were thrown by the wave, like Boyd, Edwards, and Taylor, while Kratovil and Bright were lucky enough to ride the Obama train. Kosmas like Republican Anh "Joseph" Cao were elected as a reaction to an incredibly corrupt incumbent, just like Lampson taking DeLay's seat in 2006 and Flanagan defeating Rostenkowski in 1994.

Illinois is the one case of uniqueness as the GOP swept it, though if the wave touched Chicago, that would be impressive. As for Kirk, he's not some arch-conservative, in fact he and Obama are in the same denomination, except Kirk's Sunday is probably a WASPy snoozefest with 10% of the members attending and more than half asleep. Kirk even voted for cap and trade. He is pro-choice, anti-gun, and is fairly pro-labor. His voting record should give Republicans a clue about cracking the blue state enigma. He is clearly of the party of Rockefeller and while more conservative than Charles Percy, he is one of those rare liberal Republicans.