A Few Words On Democratic 'Moderates'

[The Magistrate]

We here will not all agree on the best course for the Democratic Party. The idea that pressing from the left for more radical policies does the Democratic Party harm is, I think, sound as a long-term proposition, if for no other reason than that most who propose this course have a tin ear when it comes to mass marketing, and will generally come up with slogans and buzz-words that the enemy will gleefully weaponize against all Democrats, however 'centrist' or 'moderate' they may be.

Yet there can be no doubt that, in the present political moment, by far the greatest danger to the prospects of the Democratic Party, in both the long term and the short term, comes from 'moderate' Democrats in the House and Senate. These people seem more than willing to balk the efforts of Democratic Party leadership to meet the needs of our country, and secure its continued function as a 'small d' democracy. They give every appearance of being determined to disappoint, if not outright betray, the hopes of the Democrats who voted them into office.

Among the obstructionists in the House, there is not even a discernible political ground to their opposition. They simply want to favor donors who have banded together under the bogus 'No Labels' label. In many cases they cannot even state what in particular they want changed in the reconciliation bill. They just want the people who voted for them to be disappointed by the result of their votes.

That is certainly the predictable outcome, were they to hold course and torpedo the Democratic Party's efforts to do what Democrats were elected to do. If something is the most likely result of a course of action, a course of action you persist in, then you cannot insist that result isn't what you intend. If these 'moderate' shit-heels persist and succeed they will depress Democratic turn-out all across the country, and usher in Republican legislative majorities.

It will not even save their own sorry skins. I don't know how many times this lesson has to be taught before over-clever idjits of this sort get it through their heads --- this sort of 'moderate' is the low hanging fruit the enemy knocks down and eats for breakfast, every time. They are the first to go. They will be attacked as if they were the fiercest of female radicals, no matter what they do, even when what they do assists the Republicans, and having disappointed the people who voted for them, they will fall.

Democratic legislators farthest to the left generally seem amenable to negotiation. They recognize the danger of disappointing the bulk of Democratic voters. People who support them do not always hold this view, some thinking that defeat for the Democratic Party will allow them to rule the ruins, or open space for a new radical left party with genuine national prospects. This delusion does not seem to be held by legislators on the left themselves, and in fact their evident political pragmatism at times will get them assailed as 'sell-outs' or worse by their ostensible supporters. In the present situation, they can be relied on at the pinch to back the Democratic Party leadership.

This cannot honestly be said of obstreperous 'moderates' in either chamber of Congress.

[Tomconroy]

1. I don't agree with that at all. For one thing they are going

To do a deal.
For another, I see nothing wrong with passing the bipartisan bill immediately. What's wrong with taking an easy win? Refusing to pass it until the big infrastructure bill passes just seems like threatening to shoot yourself in the foot.
Most of the moderates live in districts which are actually contested (most of the more leftist memberss don't). They know what positions will appeal to their constituencies. Good luck hanging on to a majority in 2022 without them.

[The Magistrate]

4. Perhaps They Will 'Do A Deal', Sir

Whether it is a deal that will not disappoint most Democratic voters is a separate question.

Why the two bills should go simultaneously is obvious. It is quite likely that if these people have a chance to vote for the smaller bill first, they will simply bail on the larger bill, and secure its defeat.

Regarding their judgement of their constituents, put bluntly, I doubt their judgement. I have watched 'moderate' types try and trim and crawfish in the legislature, and go down to defeat by some Republican in short order. What these people do have a clear grasp of is what interested donors want, and their shenanigans are aimed at preserving a flow of money, not courting or responding to voters. People in their districts who vote for them do so because they want the person they elect to do things a Republican will not. If he or she does not, there is for many no pressing need to cast a vote for the same person next time around. If they press their course, their actions will not only doom them in their districts or states, but will depress Democratic turn-out across the board, all over the country.

[Tomconroy]

7. Who did you vote for in the Democratic primary in 2020?

Was it the moderate Joe Biden?
I cast my vote for the only Democrat who could be (and was) elected.

[The Magistrate]

11. Every Democrat On The Ballot, Sir, As Always

If you think you have just made a point, you may have to clarify it a bit.

I agree that, on any reasonable assessment, President Biden's proposals are pretty near what the great bulk of Democratic voters desire, and most of the country desires as well.

All political labels are relative. President Biden's proposals are far from moderate by the standards of Democratic leadership twenty or forty years ago. There are large portions of the democratic world where 'the squad' would seem just a bit left of center.

Were one to indulge, purely for sport, your 'moderate Joe Biden' line, what are we to call people for whom his moderation goes too far? I am sure we can all think of things they might be called, but I am curious what your description might be, for people who consider present Democratic Party leadership 'too liberal' or 'set on bankrupting the country', or whatever other mugwump's trimming they want to pretend is why they will to do only what their large donors want them to.

[Tomconroy]

13. You didn't answer the question, but that's OK.

The party needs all kinds of Democrats. There are no DINOs.

[The Magistrate]

15. Now That Makes It Obvious You Are Not Serious, Sir

If you do not manage to provide greater amusement, I expect our exchange is at an end.

[Tomconroy]

16. Was it Bernie?

[ibegurpard]

29. Lol

You're kinda new here aren't you?

[Tomconroy]

38. I've been around a nice March, long enough to become

Unpopular.

[The Magistrate]

17. Will Add This, However

I did overlook that you asked about a primary vote. I did, in fact, vote for Mr. Biden. I had considered a sort of 'protest vote' for Sen. Warren, who had retired from the contest before my state's primary, but decided not to trim by the least degree Mr. Biden's edge over Sanders, whose nomination would have spelt disaster.




"Get'cher scorecards here! Can't tell the players without a scorecard!"

[Tomconroy]

9. A deal was done this afternoon. It'll be fine.

[The Magistrate]

12. We Will See, Sir

The devil is in the details....

[Demsrule86]

32. The facts do not support these statements. It was moderates who gave us the house and without

them, we lose the house. Now, I want both bills. However the reconciliation bill may not pass. This is reality. We have to wait to pass it too because of reconciliation rules. The longer it taked, the more chances the GOP has to derail it. Both bills could go down which would be a disaster in the mid term...particularly for moderates. Thus, I believe we need to pass the bipartisan bill as soon as possible. Some in our party are in very safe districts, but they can't give us a majority, it is unfair for them to demand support for policies that could cost moderates their seats and ultimately the House. And then we get nothing. I think in the end we get both bills. But a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

[The Magistrate]

33. And Such Carryings On, Ma'am, Will Fritter It Away

These people cannot be relied to keep bargains made.

I am well aware there is a broad spectrum of views in the Democratic Party, and that a majority cannot be had without elements from both wings.

You will find here a good deal of criticism of leftist figures in the Party as not being 'team players', of saying things or advocating things that might harm our electoral prospects. Much of it is warranted. I have made some of it myself. But in the pinch, they can be counted on to vote right, and can be relied on not to send a major Democratic bill down to defeat by voting with the enemy.

This cannot be said of of such 'moderates' as these nine ultra-maroons active now under the 'No labels' label. They threaten to vote with the enemy against Democratic legislative priorities, and it is the one thing they can be relied on to do, if they are not bought off or placated somehow. The problem facing Democratic leadership is finding something that will let these shit-heels preen themselves on 'stopping the radical left' without so gutting legislation that it disappoints the great bulk of people who vote for Democrats. Facing shit-heels of this low caliber, whose appetites for the trim and slice and narrow are insatiable, it is a difficult balance to strike. And they have made it clear that even once they agree to a bargain, they will bring up new demands as the critical moment nears.

Further, their purpose of 'stopping the radical left' characterizes as left radicalism quite middle of the road policies that are extremely popular with Democratic voters, and widely popular with the country at large. It is a dishonest pretense. They don't want taxes raised on the upper crust, they don't want money spent on persons who need help. They are no more principled than they are honest about what they do and why they do it.

[DemocraticPatriot]

37. Polls show very strong support from the public for BOTH bills...

even among a large percentage of Republican voters. So how would the moderates voting for those policies cost them their seats?

I think the reverse is more likely. Those who bail on the party are likely to pay for it with their seats.

[Demsrule86]

39. Those generic polls show all sorts of non-voting

issues. But ask yourself this, then why don’t progressives who run on such issues win in red or purple states? And moderates fear in the push for reconciliation, we could lose both bills: not unreasonable. I say do both if possible but do not risk the bipartisan bill that is a sure thing having passed Congress. It could be signed tomorrow.

[The Magistrate]

42. The Only Danger To The Reconciliation Bill, Ma'am

Is posed by the 'moderates' themselves. If they fear it will not pass, all they have to do is commit to voting for it, and then stand by their given word.

[gab13by13]

2. I only read the first paragraph.

The real slogans will come from the right if Democrats fail to pass those bills.

I bet moderate Democrats said the same thing about FDR's New Deal. How many times was he reelected?

[The Magistrate]

5. I Gather You Soldiered On Through the Rest Then, Sir

[Carlitos Brigante]

6. Agreed! nt

[leftstreet]

8. I don't think I've ever seen you write 'shit-heels' here

DURec

[Hortensis]

10. Democratic "moderates" are MODERATE LIBERALS.

Republican "moderates" are MODERATE (TO STRONG) CONSERVATIVES.

NOT to be mistaken for each other.

The Democratic Party does have a small faction of BLUE DOG CONSERVATIVES. A few are Republican in all but name, but most are overall MODERATE CONSERVATIVES with relatively liberal social leanings, like Sinema and Manchin. Again, though, not to be confused with MODERATE LIBERALS.

[The Magistrate]

14. I Agree, Ma'am

You lay out an excellent taxonomy.

The 'moderate conservatives', your last group, needs to get it through their heads that the party must vote as a bloc for success.

Our politics are not what they were, and their earlier condition is not going to be restored. Our system is not parliamentary, in which the leader of the party with a legislative majority becomes the executive. In such systems, party cohesion is the first necessity. Our problem is that for some while, the enemy has been acting like a parliamentary party, as a disciplined whole. A cohesive body, even if smaller in number, will generally defeat a force without discipline and cohesion in conflict. We need to learn this. If we cannot break them up, we must be a bloc as solid as they, or even more so.

[eTXwLA]

18. Your constant repeating of "sir" and "ma'am" is annoying as hell. FYI.

[The Magistrate]

19. My Goodness, Sir

You know, no one has ever said that before....

[Hortensis]

25. :) Welcome to DU, eT. We like gentlemen around here,

most of us, anyway.

Ez fix for those who don't, though. Just go to "My Account" and put everyone who annoys you on "Ignore."

[Hekate]

28. LOL. The Magistrate is a gentleman of the old school (very old school). As with all posters here...

…if you don’t care for the discourse, engage on substance or pass by.

Welcome to DU.

[Hortensis]

20. I sure wish they would! I'm sick worrying about these issues.

I'm especially sick realizing that Republicans at all levels and branches of government across the nation have started acting as a unified political force committed to destroying our western liberal democracy -- and currently obeying a wannbe dictator -- when government of, by and for the people depends on them all serving their many independent citizen constituencies and constitutional roles.

But, let's face it, U.S. senators are very powerful and independent. They can define their own success and don't have to conform.

The answer is to elect working LIBERAL majorities who come together behind common principles and goals. We should have had that in 2016, but the craziness hit the fan.

Deep breath.

[The Magistrate]

21. I Hope So As Well, Ma'am

[meadowlander]

22. The Democratic middle has expanded since Reagan

and includes both traditionally moderate liberals and people who would have been card-carrying republicans before that party bought a one way ticket to Christo-fascism Land (e.g. Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Michael Steele, Joe Scarborough, George Will, Richard Painter, Jennifer Rubin, Bill Kristol, Colin Powell)

As these displaced republicans try to carve a place for themselves in the Democratic party they've spent their entire careers trying to undermine as "moderate" voices, I think it's natural that that will cause some tension with people who have been here all along and form the traditional base of the Democratic party - people who advocate for civil rights, labor rights, womens' health rights, etc.

Having spent my entire life on the boundary between progressive and moderate Dem, *and having been right the whole goddam time*, it's a bit rich to now be lectured at about the future of *my* party by Johnny-come-latelies calling themselves moderates who think they have the whole thing figured out and claim that the actual problem is the "radical lefties" - i.e. anyone who isn't a Reagan democrat/moderate 1980s-style conservative.

So I think we need to recognize that "moderate" is not a terribly descriptive label when we're talking about everyone who doesn't want to be associated with the Republican party anymore and doesn't identify as Progressive. And "moderate Dem" does not represent either the middle or the majority of the Democratic party. So rather than spending a lot of time and energy labeling ourselves and others, it would be more useful to focus on the facts of the issues at hand and discuss them on their merits.

[bluewater]

23. +10000

Well said.

[Hortensis]

26. Thing is that "liberal" and "conservative" are very real and important.

They're not just labels or political orientations but basic personality types with some very important differences. Within those two personality types, people range anywhere from mildly so to moderate to strong.

The single biggest difference is attitude toward equality of all; liberals tend to believe in it right down in their bones. Conservatives tend to know it's obvious, potentially dangerous nonsense. Libs and cons even think about morality differently. At least when cons bothered themselves with morality, they did.

All anyone has to do to realize the differences are very real, though, is to compare what moderate conservatives Manchin and Sinema are doing with what moderate liberals like Biden, Duckworth, Schumer, Warren (yes, check her senate record) are as they work to pass landmark progressive liberal legislation.

Or take a quick glance at the senators on this interactive graph and note the blue dots of moderate conservatives Manchin and Sinema waaay off to the right of the moderate liberal senators in the middle of the blue cluster. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/tammy_duckworth/412533

And when pernicious Kool-Aid purveyors in the MSM suggest "moderates" is where Democrats and Republicans overlap and agree, just remember the battles between Manchin and Schumer or Pelosi. And the great things our liberals are working to accomplish.

[meadowlander]

31. Joe Manchin doesn't represent a political ideology. He represents Big Coal and the other lobbying

interests that keep him in power.

I think it's naive not to recognise that his position on voting rights, infrastructure, etc. doesn't come from a genuine dewey-eyed belief in bipartisanship but from the fact that everyone paying his bills wants the brakes put on the Democratic party until the Republicans can sort themselves back into a sustainable conservative party.

Most people are a mix of "liberal" and "conservative" views. Many people are socially liberal and fiscally conservative and vice versa. Given that the GOP is now completely post-policy and just a Trump cult at this point, it's not that simple to define what is a liberal or conservative (and therefore "moderate" ) point of view.

The right-wing in Congress aren't taking principled or reasoned policy stances that can be dropped into classic poli-sci boxes. They are throwing red meat at their base and trying to do everything they can to make Biden look bad so that they can claw back power in 2022. And Manchin and Sinema are helping them because that's what their donors ultimately want - the GOP back in power with someone slightly smarter and more stable than Trump in charge of it.

[Hortensis]

46. :) Yes, basically as you say. Regarding that "mix," research reveals

most of us are a goulash of views. Pew even found that most people hold at least one rather extreme view from the opposite side of the spectrum. I wasn't able to pick any out from my mess of goulash ("Oh, that." ), so I'm left waiting for some insight to pop up.

I do wish everyone here realized that that socially liberal/leaning fiscally conservative mix is very common, particularly among women; it's not betrayal or corruption and yes does tend to average out moderate liberal or moderate conservative depending on the mix. But in any case, research reveals that almost everyone averages and orients politically toward either the liberal OR what was once the conservative party because of deep-seated ideological differences.

Guessing you're probably right about Manchin's applying the brakes until a functional conservative party puts itself back together, as at least a partial explanation of his actions. There is a big vacuum of people working to protect conservative values in congress these days. He also seems likely to be a conservative version of that common mix you mention, with a stronger fiscal component appropriate to moderate conservatives. And perhaps some of the conservative belief in at least a somewhat naturally hierarchical social order?

For sure the Republican leadership and business want something more stable and less likely to eat them than trumpism; but they have been working for a long time to replace our liberal democracy with some form of authoritarian state run by them, tRump their own electoral revolution gotten away from them. It is all about winning for those leading this traitorous movement now, of course.

Notably, speaking about moderates and conservatives, etc, they've purged from office traditional conservatives who tried to block them, and they've smothered political conservatism itself as a national force by inflaming and harnessing factionalism and religious and culture wars passions. Turning the entire party RW extremist. They're riding the tiger these days, but it's rampaging the direction they want.

(I have the coffee, want a doughnut.)

[bullwinkle428]

24. Any "moderate Democrat" that votes against the upcoming voting rights bills is essentially

signing their own political death warrant. The Republican wet-dream restrictions currently being enacted in state legislatures all across this country will absolutely shave enough voters away to take away those slim margins they rely on to allow them to win their races, 99 times out of 100.

[The Magistrate]

27. That Is True, Sir

[ibegurpard]

30. A well-reasoned and balanced opinion

That digs a bit deeper than the meaningless moderate vs progressive labels.
Thank you.

[DFW]

34. Tip O'Neill is still right: All politics is local

This is why the "better-late-than-never" low key (but intense) efforts of the (Howard) Dean-(Hillary) Clinton team to organize and recruit young Democrats to run for local office and work their way up (Rob Sand in Iowa would be an excellent role model) need to be crowned with success if we are to have any follow-through. The fact that they are not making a lot of noise is very encouraging. It means they are keeping below Republican radar (i.e. this can be posted, because Republicans don't know their targets). It is the only way to resurrect Howard's 15 year old "50 State Strategy," which WAS so successful. I have talked with Jaime Harrison recently, and he seems open to suggestions, which I found lacking in his immediate predecessors.

But the "local" aspect also means that we must swallow the presence of some bedfellows we would prefer sleeping elsewhere. Manchin is about the best we can expect in 2021 from a Democrat from West Virginia. He is definitely preferable to his WV Republican counterpart from WV. And for sure, the grandstanding by the senior Senator from Arizona often makes Kyrsten Sinema seem like her last name should be spelled with a "C" instead of an "S."

The House is worse. There are many so-called "districts" that are so gerrymandered on the map that even an amœba would consider their shape to be the result of a professional contortionist. I only differ with your original premise in that the representatives from some of the "difficult" districts have a thinner tightrope to walk than the so-called "Squad," in that those who tend toward the far fringe have little to fear in their primaries, and less in the general, where the opposite holds true for the so-called moderates. The more cynical side of me asks, "who knows what the hell ANY of them really think?" What remains incontrovertible is that a House member who was elected/re-elected with a 51% margin needs to keep a much closer pulse watch on their constituency than the one that won with a 62% margin. If they have to do a little play acting to ensure that the 51% stays that way instead of slipping to 49% next time, so be it, as long as they vote the right way when it counts.

Pelosi knows how to play her faction like a Stradivarius. Like Merkel in my adopted home, I fear the ability of her successor to step into those big shoes. Unlike any of Merkel's potential likely successors, however, I think we have a few qualified people waiting in the wings. It remains to be seen if: A. one of the truly qualified (Jeffries, maybe?) does indeed succeed her, and B. said person manages to rise to the task at hand. It could still happen, where I fear that Germany's luck runs out next month. "Leider."

[The Magistrate]

36. I Agree Madame Speaker Is Mistress Of Her Craft, Sir

Nor do I mind posturing, so long as the person posturing can be counted on to vote right in the pinch. I am not sure this 'unbreakable nine' can be counted on.

Mr. Dean did an excellent job as Chairman, and a good deal was thrown away by abandonment of his fifty state strategy.

I am not sure these people in the narrow margin districts have such a sure touch with their constituents. They are as likely to go down to defeat because their votes dampen the ardor of the Democrats who support them as because they have roused more Republicans up against them, and it often seems they take more care to avoid the latter than the former.

I have always liked the axiom that good government is good politics. If your policies are good, people will reward you for putting them into place. It seems to me President Biden is guided by this view. Democrats who shy away from supporting the legislative agenda of a Democratic administration are in effect saying that the policies of their own party won't do good for the people who have voted for them, and that their outcomes cannot sway more voters to their side. This is confessing defeat before the fight starts, and people who expect to be defeated usually are. When people in these narrow districts do elect a Democrat rather than a Republican, this must reflect some desire for the Democrat to do things the Republican would not.

[Bettie]

40. When the "moderates" lose their races

they always blame their losses, not on any votes they made or didn't make, they (and others) blame it 100% on progressives far from their districts or protestors who wrote something on a sign.

It is never, ever their own doing in any way, or so I'm told. It is always 100% someone else's fault, usually AOC's, because she dares to exist. And yes, that is sarcasm to a point, but it is also a narrative pushed regularly.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

35. I agree with your analysls

[Bettie]

41. I agree with all of this

but, I often do agree with your points.

[pecosbob]

43. You must have a thick hide, sir.

The defenders of all things moderate here at DU don't take shots across the bow lightly.

[The Magistrate]

44. Well, Sir, It Seemed To Me One Was Needed

'Moderate' types do a good deal of damage.

People who will not support the Party whole-hog are a problem, and when they do not, I do not care in which direction they deviate.

[Wounded Bear]

45. The country is long overdue for a decided yank to the left...

to counter the general and accelertating drift to the right we've been seeing since Reagan, and perhaps Nixon.