The DLC v. Populism arguments on DU remind me of the Texas v. Texas A&M rivalry

[Writer]

Okay. I'm sure there are plenty of you Texas-exes and Aggies out there who will scoff at this. But hear me out, a'right?

I am a graduate of The University of Texas. During my four years in Austin, most of which were spent while Texas and A&M were part of the old Southwest Conference, the weight of the Texas/Texas A&M rivalry was palpable. A&M students would hiss and call Texas students "t-sips"; Texas students would sit in late night coffee shops concocting various A&M sheep jokes. We would meet around Thanksgiving every year where A&M would kick our ass in football (you'd never believe it today) and A&M would run off to the Cotton Bowl while we returned to fitting in our studies in between drinking binges (I'm sure you'd believe that today).

Anyway, I recall well a Daily Texan (UT's school newspaper) opinion column from those days - one that I never will forget, because it summed up this entire "rivalry" this way: it's bullshit. At least, it's based on bullshit, really. It was nothing more than a healthy school rivalry heightened to the point of an irrational culture war, where Texas was the Zsa Zsa Gabor to A&M's Green Acres. The column continued, in a remarkably mature fashion, to state that UT students understand well that A&M also is a good school, especially in engineering. We generally were cool with that, and although A&M at that time beat us at football, we generally were cool with that, too. Believe me, on a campus of 50,000 students there was plenty more to keep us occupied than simply football. And although A&M notoriously is a conformist campus (my roommate's Aggie boyfriend told me that it was not good to be a "two-percenter") I'm sure that there were plenty of reasonable students in College Station that would have concluded that Texas was an excellent school as well, and that there was indeed a time pre-Mack Brown when Texas kicked A&M's ass every Thanksgiving.

So when I read these voluminous posts regarding the DLC, blue dogs, yellow dogs, and populism, I can't help but see the internecine ridiculousness of it all. We are all smaller factions of a larger party - but all of which are smaller than the moderates encompassing the majority of the Democratic Party. Now, if any one faction is in control of the party (as appears to be the topic du jour in GD) it is those in the middle of the party. We humans possess this deep need to categorize individuals. I suppose it makes dealing with the complexities of politics a lot easier, but rationally speaking, it's a factually ingenuous way to assess a politician. Any politician's voting record - especially House voting records - will reveal a unique mindset that, if we really step back and analyze this, reflects the political dynamic in the single congressional district the politician represents. Is a Democrat always a "t-sip elitist?" Of course not. Is a Republican always a "sheep loving yoekel?" Are you kidding?

For the first time in decades, Democrats picked up seats in Indiana. The candidates in those districts achieved victory by running on a platform reflecting the nature of their constituents. Were those voters pro-choice but anti-war? Check! Were they anti-choice but pro-stem cell research? Check! That is the complexity that this entire ongoing DLC v. populism debate fails to afford us: the ability to see shades of grey. While the fringes of the party war on, the rest of us sit on the sidelines completely exhausted by it all.

I don't see an end to this philosophical - no, IDEOLOGICAL - battle. In much of this, belief has transcended any possibility of rational debate; and when beliefs battle there is no avoiding calamity. For me, I simply hope that neither win, as that will decimate the party structure. If you want to see a good example of this, look no farther than the Republican Party. An ideology took control in 1994 and we all can see the results of that. We should do all we can to avoid the same mistake.

And one more thing... Hook 'em!

[BOSSHOG]

1. I think I saw one of them Hook-em things last week

I think it was in Kansas. Please refresh my memory.

[Writer]

6. Wow. We lost A GAME by 3 POINTS after we lost our star quarterback.

How're those Razorbacks doin' anyway? I didn't see them kill USC in the Rose Bowl this year, did you?

[BOSSHOG]

10. Actually the USC game was worse then that

it wasn't in the Rose Bowl it was in Fayetteville. Does your star quarterback play defense? The Razorbacks have won nine in a row. Thankyou for asking.

[Writer]

11. Oh - you mean USC without Leinart and Bush?

Ah. I see. A team missing two Heisman winners MUST be as good as the one the Longhorns beat, rrrrright?

Sooey piggle! Sooey wiggle!
BOSSHOG makes me want to giggle.

P.S. If you want to put more points on the board, you have to have the big man in the center. Texas' big man wasn't there last Saturday, and the defense kept Kansas State down in the second half. Even with a TRUE FRESHMAN SECOND STRING QUARTERBACK Texas came within three. Was that the best Kansas State could do?

[BOSSHOG]

19. Writer must do more research

Arkansas didn't beat USC this year or last year. It was a home and home series and the Hogs got their butts kicked in both games; this years being in Fayetteville. Interesting, Arkansas had a true freshman starting quarterback but he got benched for a sophomore two games ago and neither one played against USC. When I think of UT I think of a lone gunman in a tower and when I think of Texas I think of george bush. When I think of Arkansas, I think of the beautiful Ozark Mountains, Bill Clinton, Fulbright Scholarships, Beaver Lake and the best damned Catfish in the world. There's just no accounting for taste.

[Writer]

21. When I think of UT, I think of Ann Richards.

Who I met while I was a student there. A terrific woman, through and through.

And I've never given two whiffs about Arkansas, other than the trout fishing trip I took on the Ozark River when I was 9.

BOSSHOG, UT already has major rivalries with Texas A&M and OU. Do you want UT to start a third with Arkansas?

[BOSSHOG]

27. Actually

UA and UT have a home and home series in the not too distant future. 08 or 09 I believe; not sure of the exact years. Way back when the Southwest Conference existed, before schools from Texas destroyed it with corruption and Arkansas was the only non Texas school in the conference the rivalries were legendary. Arkansas was everybody's favorite rival because we were so loveable with the best uniforms, cheerleaders, mascots, the best band, and of course the awesome traveling fans with their "Hog Hats" which have been copied by schools from coast to coast. I was in the stands when the Hogs were playing SMU in Fayetteville after we had received notice that we were going to the Orange Bowl (78 if memory serves.) Fans were chucking Oranges on the field and Lou Holtz quipped, I'm glad we aren't going to the Gator Bowl. Oh what an incredibly beautiful campus. Too bad everybody could not have gone there.

And yes, Ann Richards was a diamond in the rough. God Rest her wonderful Soul.

[Vincardog]

2. all of which are smaller than the moderates encompassing the majority of the Democratic Party. BS

That is more of the go along to get along BS. The Progressives are the largest camp in the Democratic Big Tent.

[wyldwolf]

3. not only has no one made that claim

...but your post implies that the majority of the party is not moderate.

There is simply no basis to state "The Progressives are the largest camp in the Democratic Big Tent."

[Vincardog]

14. Try this link Progressives Increase Their Numbers as Largest Group Within the House Democratic Caucu...

< http://www.udpc.org/ >

The line in my previous post was copied from the OP.

Here is a hint:

November 10, 2006, Washington, DC
Progressives Increase Their Numbers as Largest Group Within the House Democratic Caucus

PDA National Board Members Rep Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), anticipate adding at least seven new CPC Members in the 110th Congress. This would increase the size of the CPC to at least 71 Members, making it by far the largest and most diverse sub-group among all Democrats in the new 110th Congress to take office in January and an increase of 14 new House Members in just the past 18 months.

[wyldwolf]

29. the Congressional Progressive Caucus is different than saying "the Progressives"

and, of course, the House New Dems and the Blue Dogs combined tout over 100 members.

[Vincardog]

30. You are free to have what ever math you choose. If you want to get into some long

string of BS look somewhere else.
In my world the Congressional Progressive Caucus is "the Progressives".
I believe the only thing in the middle of the road is paint stripes and dead armadillos.

[wyldwolf]

31. so they're the only progressives in the House, huh?

I believe the only thing on the left and the right are spectators.

[Vincardog]

33. look somewhere else

[wyldwolf]

34. no, I believe I found it here, thank you!

[HereSince1628]

4. As a 2-per, I'm gonna roast yer t-sipping hide on the bonefire for

saying anything that so demeans A&M by implying that the A&M and ut rivalry is less than as serious as the fight to preserve truth, justice, and the American WAY!!!!!!!!!!

What are you BEEVO brained or something???????????????????? :rofl:

You guys broke the faith when you let GIRLS (!!!!) into the band without an order from the court! :rofl:

Seriously, throw the aviation fuel on the freaking DLC charter toss the torch and let it light up the night!

[Odin2005]

5. The main problem is that the ideological purists assume centrist = DLC hack.

[Mojambo]

8. Centrist doesn't equal DLC, but DLC does equal corporate stooge.

I don't have a problem with the DLC because they're moderate. I have a problem with them because they advocate representing corporate interests over the people.

[Odin2005]

15. Agreed.

[Writer]

9. Even there, who really is a centrist?

Everyone is just who they are - an amalgamation of different stances.

[HereSince1628]

13. What is the center? Or even of central tendency? It's a moving target

Why chase it?

[Writer]

16. I dunno. Don't ask me!

:shrug: I just wrote the OP, a'right?

[w4rma]

7. This isn't some @#$%ing game being played for our entertainment. People's lives are at stake

in this so-called "game".

Why do folks dislike the DLC so much? Because these folks understand the negative effect that the DLC leadership has on public policy. Because this is not a "game" to be played and "won". Because these laws have huge affects on the livelihoods and even life and death for citizens of the U.S. and also for folks in other countries who might end up on the wrong side of our foreign policy.

This is not a game. And vapid essay's that try to trivialize these debates as a "game" are one of my pet peeves. Get serious.

[blondeatlast]

12. The MSM is playing the divide up and many DUers are lapping it up

like milk.

I think you've nailed it. It's a fun little rivalry for us on the inside (and I haven't gone either way), but we need to show a united front to the public.

The only Democrat I am is a big "D" one.

[Zodiak]

17. I study this sort of thing for myself

Because I typically do not wish to start out with labels. I wanted to see the shades of grey, so I went after this issue in the only way I know how...I quantified it according to my "progressive" ideological barometer (not my own beliefs, but what I believed to be the popular beliefs here on DU...with a little input from others). I do this for my benefit, but I report my results here each time I update.

I only did the Democrats in the Senate, but it really cleared up a lot of issues for me about where our party stands.

I even graphed out this "highly-partisan nation" so I could see what the political atmosphere looked like. Here it is.



The Republicans are truly lock-step, clustering like a giant wave on the left of the graph. The Democrats cover the entire ideological spectrum, from Ben Nelson's clearly consistent pro-Bush voting to Harkin's quiet but consistent progressivism.

The Democratic party is trimodal, from what I see. The bulk of the party is clearly on the right side of the graph, but it is stretched out over quite a range. John Kerry typifies this wng, but its edge lies with Harkin-Boxer, etc. At the other end is Clinton. From Harkin to Clinton is a loong divide...and I believe that Clinton represents a "true" moderate. Yes, she is DLC, but really one of the more liberalmembers of that organization (Kerry is the best DLCer we have from a progressive's point of view).

The other two humps are entirely different. At the center of the middle hump is Joe Leiberman with his 43% record (now we are in the "mostly votes with Bush policies" category) and Senators that vote similarly. Joe has sins well beyond his voting record on my chart, so I know he deservedly is less popular than his ideological brethren (like Carper).

The last hump represents right-wingers. Clear right-wingers. These are not moderates, in my opinion as they have voted for the bulk of 6 years of oppressive policies.

I do not mind hump #1 and #2 working together, but that last hump is a real drag on the party and they act more like spoilers than members.

And I am willing to bet that those in the third hump would have a hard time in a primary against pro-woker social conservatives (populists, if you will). People are ready for change and now recognize that they are more slaves to this system than participants. Bush-enabling right wing Democrats will not give them that. Populists will.

The rest of my analysis (as well as a list of each Senator's score and the issues I scored) is found in my journal. That is, if anyone is interested.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist/4

I think that it is the essence of this debate. The labels just make it easier to talk about. We are a brand-name society, after all.

[OzarkDem]

22. Its interesting, but I'm not sure

are these based on actual votes or position statements of the members?

[Zodiak]

28. Votes

I picked the big issues from the 109th Congress. All of the bills that were controversial or divisve. Plus a couple of "important moves".

The list is in my journal.

But these are 95% votes only. The only exceptions being cloture on Alito and the Ohio voting certification...those were deemed by many (sorry for the FOX news method of rhetoric) to be just as important as bills. The rest are bill passages and important BushCo nominations.

But this is my barometer. These are what I consider to be the big issues (actually, I only set the criteria and try to follow it). I really encourage every DUer to do this exercise for themselves. It only takes an afternoon, and it transcends labels.

I know who has been naughty and who has been nice by my personal prism, and because of it, I know who to support fully or who to only support against a Republican. I also know which ones I would advocate replacing with a more moderate candidate (that's what I think...moderates are moderates, but right-wing Democrats are right-wingers...not moderates).

In the end, all I can say is that I have done enough homework to have a reason for not getting fully behind certain Democrats.

These are my good senators:

Harkin (Iowa).................. 90
Boxer (California)............. 86
Lautenberg (New Jersey)........ 86
Durbin (Illinois).............. 81
Feingold (Wisconsin)........... 81
Kennedy (Massachusetts)........ 81
Corzine (New Jersey) now Gov... 77
Kerry (Massachusetts).........> 76 *
Akaka (Hawaii)................. 76
Levin (Michigan)............... 76
Mikulski (Maryland)............ 76
Reed (Rhode Island)............ 76
Sarbanes (Maryland)............ 76

These are my bad ones:

Leiberman (Connecticut)........ 43 *
Carper (Deleware).............. 38 *
Baucus (Montana)............... 36 *
Johnson (South Dakota)......... 33 *
Lincoln (Arkansas)............. 29 *
Pryor (Arkansas)............... 26 *
Nelson (Florida)............... 24 *
Salazar (Colorado)............. 24 *
Landrieu (Louisianna).......... 19 *
Nelson (Nebraska).............. 5 * * = DLC

AS you can see, I flagged DLC members to see if they REALLY were all right-wingers. They aren't all that way (Kerry and Clinton being excellent examples), but most of them are.

[OzarkDem]

18. The ideological battle

is between Dems who want to pursue good public policy a strong economy, honest and open government and clean up the political and election system. Progressive Dems believe we can't make progress in meeting challenges of economic development, balancing the budget, good energy policy, health care reform, clean environment and a restored foreign policy unless the corrupting influence of corporate money is removed from government influence.

DLC doesn't believe those things. Instead they believe corporations should have the greater say in how we govern ourselves and determine our future.

It can't get much clearer than that.

[DemCam]

20. Bravo!

A well-taken analogy and well-argued as well. Daily Kos just had a great piece about this very thing in the Republican Party and how destructive it was and is. For the life of me, I can't understand how really smart people prefer to put blinders on and insist that moderates had little effect on this election. Elections in our country are won in the middle, and this country has been tugging back and forth in very small arcs since 2000.

It sometimes makes me discouraged, but then I remember the primary rodeo season last time around and how virulent and unpleasant it all was and how we choked down the fact that John Kerry indeed won the nomination no matter how loudly some of us screamed for Dean or Kucinich or Clark or any of the others. In fact, the night before the Iowa caucus I very confidently spouted that John Kerry couldn't win the nomination, that he was hanging in there around 8%. I had to change my tune that very evening. It taught me a big lesson.

We don't know who can win or can't win until the countings done. We certainly don't know when there's a good year before we get a whole field of primary candidates. And if we'd had decent election officials in Ohio, we would have proudly elected John Kerry President of these United States.

So I join you in a hearty, Hook 'em, Dems: left, center, Republican-lite, DLC, DNC, and all who choose to vote Democratic, no matter what ideas you hold that I don't agree with 100%.

[Writer]

23. Hook 'em, Democrats!

I love it! :hi:

[Josh]

24. What does A&M stand for?

We don't call our universities that here in Sydney. I was watching a Simpsons episode some time ago where Homer can't remember if he hates Springfield U or Springfield A&M (and ends up alternating between them in his taunts) - and I'm sitting going, what does A&M stand for?

Would someone help enlighten me? :)

[Writer]

25. Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College...

it's a land grant university in College Station, Texas. There's also a Florida A&M, if I'm not mistaken.

[Josh]

35. Thanks!

It's been bugging me for some time! :)

[OzarkDem]

26. Agriculture & Mining? n/t

[geek tragedy]

32. What's stupid is trying to slap a label on every

Democrat. It's like Henry Waxman wears a Progressive Caucus jersey out there or something.

Democrats are complex people with complex belief systems. You can't pigeonhole most Democrats as belonging exclusively in one category or the other.

[wyldwolf]

36. It's more like the post-Beatles McCartney vs. Lennon

We could argue all day who was the most artistic, but it is a matter of public record who sold the most records.

On the political level, the DLC has has had greater electoral success than "progressives."