A Simple Explanation Of Why We Must Work To Elect Liberal Democrats

[TomCADem]

Let us take a simplified model of the Presidency and Congress. Barack Obama is, of course, president. However, Congress consists of only five people with no separate House and Senate. The five members of Congress are:

1. Jim DeMint (R)
2. John McCain (R)
3. Joe Lieberman (I)
4. Richard Durbin (D)
5. Jay Rockefeller (D)

Durbin and Rockefeller are progressive. Lieberman is a backstabber who is willing to vote with whichever caucus serves his needs. DeMint and McCain will always vote “no” on any domestic proposal supported by the President.

Now, let us take health care reform. Durbin and Rockefeller would probably support single payer, and definitely support a public option. Lieberman is dead set against single payer or a public option. DeMint and McCain are against any form of health care reform. So, the first dilemma is what to do? Should the President simply give up on HCR or pass the best bill that he can get through our simplified Congress?

The second dilemma, and perhaps the more important one, is how will the Democratic constituency react to this state of affairs?

Some folks on DU think that the answer is to punish the Democrats as a whole because of the inability to pass more progressive legislation. However, in this model, this means that Democrats would be vote against or not supporting Democratic incumbents even though they share similar views with 2/3 of the Democratic incumbents. In other words, punish those they agree with whole heartedly for the actions of the Republicans and a few conservadems.

I personally think that the answer is not to abandon the President or the two thirds of Democrat incumbents we agree with, but to target the Republicans who are voting “no” as a block, as well as those Democrats who threaten to side with the Republicans. Sadly, this course of action is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media, as Republicans are given a free pass for their obstructionism.

Conversely, Republicans will (1) continue to vote “No” as a block if they suffer no backlash, and (2) will continue to whip liberal discontent and hope that it translates into lack of support for Democrats who are actually liberal. We can see this with Fox News prominently featuring liberals who attack Democrats in Congress in order to undermine support among the Democratic base. One thing to ask is why it was so rare to hear conservatives criticize Bush during most of his Presidency? Patrick Buchanan was not crazy about the Iraq invasion, yet he was given relatively little air time to express such views compared to the prominent display of liberal "dissatisfaction" with Democrats that we see on cable news.

Finally, if we abandon the Democrats who support our views as “punishment” for the lack of progressive progress, where does that leave with us? Are we any closer to progressive legislation or farther away? I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of how "punishing" Democrats as a whole by withholding our support will somehow make the Federal Government more progressive.

[msongs]

1. the goal is more progressive/liberal dems + keep conservative dems only until we can

replace them, and replace repubs, of course.

the current crop of conservative non-liberal/progressive dems should be moved out ASAP.