538's chat this week is one that hits a pretty important topic to me.I've alluded to it before but I've become more and more concerned with the ever leftward lean of the party that I nonetheless identify (and mostly vote) with. I'll preface the discussion by saying I don't think the extremism between the parties is at comparable levels yet, not much can match the fervor of the staunchest Tea Partier, but it is still worth thinking about how inclusive the Democrats are being (I'd prefer to avoid the whataboutism if we could).
What I fear is a world where the progressive wing of the party will overtake and leave little place for those in the middle, as we are already mostly shunned from the GOP. A world where progressives cost us elections by successfully primarying against a stronger middle of the road candidate but losing the general (not unlike a Roy Moore situation). I fear we will begin to resort more and more to GOP tactics to try to get our way (I'm looking at you 2018 shutdown) when we should better than that. I know that many on the Left are reluctant of the idea of being post-partisan but I don't see how we survive if this kind of partisanship is allowed to become "the new normal", perhaps that is naïve of me though.
I think the 538 crew did an excellent job exploring the issue by addressing the two questions below in their chat but I'd be interested in your thoughts as well.
Nate Silver wrote: It feels like there are actually two interrelated concepts here:
Is the Democratic base becoming more “extreme” and less willing to compromise?
Are Democrats becoming more willing to use parliamentary tactics and otherwise push the boundaries of the rules to achieve those goals?
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
That was an interesting chat. My take was what I think is similar to the chat: maybe, kind of, a little bit, but not much.
One thing that I thought they put too much emphasis on is increased self-identification as "liberal." The right has mounted an active campaign to demonize the term "liberal" for a number of years now. I think lots of liberals ran away from the term in response, but are becoming more inclined to reclaim it. I do think that the progressive wing of the party has pushed the party a little leftward in response to Clinton's loss. I sense lots of "okay, we tried it your way" from Sanders supporters, putting pressure on the party to move further left. But I'm not sure we've seen much substantive movement on concrete policy provisions. What's been tested this year? The ACA is pretty mainstream, opposition to the tax cut bill was pretty mainstream. DACA is supported by Lindsay Graham and lots of other Republicans.
I don't think there's been much opportunity to assess the democrats' willingness to compromise for some time now. McConnell's "nothing that Obama wants will pass" obstruction offered no change to compromise. The Hastert rule in the house means that Ryan never has to ask for Democrat votes. In the Senate, the two major bills that have been passed were done under reconciliation, where no Democrat votes are needed to pass anything. They staked out an absolutist position on funding the government -- DACA or the government shuts down. But they've compromised on that twice by passing continuing resolutions to keep government running. Maybe we'll get a good test in February, as it's clear not that the White House's price for DACA is going to be painfully high for Democrats.
Moderate Democrats and Reps have shown a willingness to compromise and work in bi-partisan fashion on DACA and on fixes to the ACA. I hope that's a trend that will continue.
I see progressives bluster from time to time about primarying moderates, but I don't see it happening on anything like a Tea Party scale. I think they saw the primarying tactic lose some seats on the other side, and understand the need to get democratic butts in seats, even if they don't meet some progressive purity test.
In my opinion, you can find aggressive use of parliamentary tactics by both parties over history. For example, one of the complaints by Repub senators when Democrats controlled the Senate was that Reid would "fill the tree" with democratic amendments to block them from introducing amendments. Repubs lately have been more aggressive about crossing a line and blazing new territory, such as shutting Obama out of a Supreme Court nomination, using reconciliation to evade any regular order on ACA repeal and the tax cut bill, etc. But the problem with many of these kinds of tactics is that they "break" the government's ability to do the people's business. Much of the Republican base would be happy to break the government, so there's not much downside in being tactically aggressive. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that government has a positive role to play in making the lives of its citizens better. So, in reality, breaking the government through shutdowns, etc. has a heavier cost to them. For that reason, I don't expect the Democrats to ever be as aggressive as the current Repub crew in terms of aggressive tactics.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
The new Republican Party is not conservative but Radical. The Democrats could claim that they are now the real conservatives--the ones wanting to hold on to the achievements of pluralistic society, science, etc. But then they would have to do more than just whine and mock, they would need to start creating institutions and take on the rural-urban divide.
Maksutov wrote:The new Republican Party is not conservative but Radical. The Democrats could claim that they are now the real conservatives--the ones wanting to hold on to the achievements of pluralistic society, science, etc. But then they would have to do more than just whine and mock, they would need to start creating institutions and take on the rural-urban divide.
Hey Mak, what kind of institutions are you talking about?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Are Democrats becoming more willing to use parliamentary tactics and otherwise push the boundaries of the rules to achieve those goals?
The problem here is twofold. 1) It would be a bad thing if the Democrats increasingly destroyed political norms to achieve political goals and 2) Given what Republicans are doing, it would be atrocious political strategy and irrational of Democrats not to respond by doing this.
This is part of why what the Republican party is doing is so bad.
Maksutov wrote:The new Republican Party is not conservative but Radical. The Democrats could claim that they are now the real conservatives--the ones wanting to hold on to the achievements of pluralistic society, science, etc. But then they would have to do more than just whine and mock, they would need to start creating institutions and take on the rural-urban divide.
I'll bite...who are the radical republicans?
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Are Democrats becoming more willing to use parliamentary tactics and otherwise push the boundaries of the rules to achieve those goals?
The problem here is twofold. 1) It would be a bad thing if the Democrats increasingly destroyed political norms to achieve political goals and 2) Given what Republicans are doing, it would be atrocious political strategy and irrational of Democrats not to respond by doing this.
This is part of why what the Republican party is doing is so bad.
This was demonstrated during the Gorsuch confirmation hearings.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote:This was demonstrated during the Gorsuch confirmation hearings.
There's degrees of this. For example, North Carolina's GOP is using its supermajority gained from an unconstitutional gerrymander to restructure the entire system of government to set up an enduring pseudo-democracy that enshrines their power above all else. See here for the latest on that front.
There really is no Democratic equivalent to this, but the logical response is to fight fire with fire or be consumed.
For a national example, look at the GOP's recent efforts to discredit anyone in the FBI who isn't explicitly pro-Trump. This is tearing down a civic norm - namely the political independence of federal law enforcement - to enhance power in a way that has no equivalent on the Democratic side. Part of this is an attempt to purge the FBI of civil servants and install political cronies who take advancing Republican leadership interests as a primary mission. If and when Democrats retake power, they'll be faced with the choice of counter-purging or dealing with the lingering consequences of this. You have to counter-purge at that point.
The latter isn’t new with Trump. GWB tried to use the DOJ as a political tool to create a permanent Republican majority.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
For a national example, look at the GOP's recent efforts to discredit anyone in the FBI who isn't explicitly pro-Trump. This is tearing down a civic norm - namely the political independence of federal law enforcement - to enhance power in a way that has no equivalent on the Democratic side. Part of this is an attempt to purge the FBI of civil servants and install political cronies who take advancing Republican leadership interests as a primary mission. If and when Democrats retake power, they'll be faced with the choice of counter-purging or dealing with the lingering consequences of this. You have to counter-purge at that point.
I think they just want people willing to not leak and sabotage the incoming administration. A large majority of the left and many on this board want to deny the presidency to the man democratically elected any way they can because their liberal principles come first before democracy.
You speak of this as if the Democrats haven't used the fact that the attorney general is appointed by the ruling political party to their advantage. Loretta Lynch's two hour meeting with WJC to discuss covering up the Clinton private server scandal comes to mind.
“It's not logical that we boast the most advanced and powerful internationally integrated economy in the world, then claim organizational incompetence and poverty when it comes to creating and funding a national health care system for all Americans.”