I have a couple pieces of advice for Chris Bowers. He notes that almost every Democrat elected to Congress last year has chosen to join either the New Democrat or Blue Dog caucuses (or both). And few of them telegraphed their intention to do so prior to being elected. Now, my first recommendation is that those that raise money for candidates start including questions about caucus-joining along with the more typical questions about issues before deciding to endorse a candidate. Perhaps a pledge not to join the Blue Dog Coalition should be a prerequisite for support.
Second, this really should not come as a surprise, especially after our experience with the 2006 midterms where a bunch of northerners (Patrick Murphy, Michael Arcuri, Kristen Gillibrand) unexpectedly joined the Blue Dogs. The Progressive Caucus is so urban and so black/Hispanic that it is just not a natural fit for the kinds of members we’re picking up in formerly Republican suburbs. That leaves these new members with a choice between joining the New Democrats and/or Blue Dogs, and joining no caucus at all. Rep. Bruce Braley may have partially addressed this issue by creating the Populist Caucus late last year. The Populist Caucus has twenty-three members that come from all three of the other caucuses. Yet, I remain unconvinced that the Populist Caucus will emerge as a driver of progressive change.
What is needed is a new caucus that joins labor and the academic and urban progressive communities to reflect the common interests of the progressive movement. The Progressive Caucus as it currently exists cannot expand by more than a handful of seats, and that will only happen when an Al Wynn-type is replaced by a Donna Edwards-type, not by plugging in new Democrats from formerly Republican suburban seats.
New members are joining the Blue Dogs and (especially) the New Democrats because they don’t feel like they have anywhere else to go.
What’s interesting is that when voters are quizzed these days they support government action in a whole spectrum of things. That is, they poll liberal—except in what they call themselves.
I think that it’s more than just branding, but branding is part of that. And branding will always be a problem as long as most of the mass media are controlled by the reactionary ultra-rich who will want to put the worst spin on pro-labor, pro-worker, pro-individual rights versus corporate rights.
I think some liberal arguments are lost. For example, gun control. It just ain’t gonna happen. Better to emphasize that it should be a local issue. I think Obama and Edwards actually did a good job in neutralizing that issue. So what do you do about the nutjob in Alabama? Well, maybe it’s a public health issue. I bet this guy wasn’t seeing a psychiatrist, and no one was making sure he was on medications. I don’t know how much followup there will be for this story, but was he a vet from wars over Iraq/Afghanistan?
The other issue with blue dogs is that a lot of them have been backed financially by some of the same people who back the Repubs, so their corporate backers who may not care about abortion still care about the oil depletion allowance. That will be a tougher nut to crack.
I work in a union shop. I’m starting to hear a lot of union members saying that EFCA is wrong and people shouldn’t be forced to join unions if they don’t want to. This shows the relentless grip of the mass media.
Agreed.
in addition, we need a strong progressive, pro-union voice on the radio and TV; I believe that voice is Ed Schultz.
he was great hosting (temp) MSNBC’s 1600 Pennsylvania show last night, and I believe he needs to be on full time.
http://www.bigeddieradio.com/default.asp
goto his site and check out the first four video clips- these are from last night shows.
I know, it is SO hard for white people to work together with blacks and hispanics.
if only there weren’t so many of… you know…”those people” in the progressive caucus, pat and kristen wouldn’t feel so uncomfortable.
not saying they’re racists of course, but when you specifically say “so urban and so black/Hispanic”, it kinda leaves that taste in my mouth. and it doesn’t taste very good.
heh. ever notice drinking liberally in Philadelphia is nearly 100% white people (and one indian girl).
it should taste bad, to a degree. But it’s not a natural fit to have district one and district eight caucusing together. Race is a diminishing part of the reason why, but still persists. It’s really the whole package: urban vs. white flight, suburban vs. urban, cultural differences, policy/tax/education issues, etc.
I understand, but that pisses me off.
I haven’t been at drinking liberally lately because I’ve been engaged in real work in my community (plus it’s cheaper to drink at home than to go to a downtown bar that’s priced for privileged white people, but i digress).
and it’s amazing: for a neighborhood that gets written off as dangerous and awful, our library coalition is filled with all sorts of people: young and old, richer and poorer, and more colors than you can imagine.
It’s just sad that so many of our congress people are so backwards. i don’t think most of them would be comfortable in our group, certainly not the people who “represent” southeast PA, except for maybe Brady.
it’s really great to see all us trashy people getting together to fight the people who think our services don’t matter because we’re trashy.
Yeah, I know. There’s nothing like it when everybody drops the bullshit and pulls together. that’s what community organizing is all about.
But if Bowers thinks that these suburban Democrats are going to race to caucus with the Progressive Caucus, he’s mistaken. And it isn’t all the suburban Democrats’ fault because the Progressive Caucus is too insular, too non-ideological, too parochial, and too out of touch with the academic progressive movement. They don’t offer a whole lot right now to outsiders.
The solution is to create a new progressive caucus that isn’t divided by all these old, tired turf wars.
There are many white members of the Progressive caucus, and not all of them represent urban areas. Some of them, like my rep, cover a mixed district (like academic, agricultural, tourist and military economies).
It’s possible that some of the newbies are racist or afraid of being labeled “progressive.” But it’s also possible that the only Democrats who were able to carry a coalition in a formerly Republican district have committed to a more conservative interpretation of some key issues than the progressive caucus (like abortion).
And we were just talking about how we missed having you around last night. It isn’t surprising that DL would be largely white and largely male since it draws a lot of its attendance from the blogs which is still largely white and largely male. It doesn’t help that we are (and generally have been) in a bar in a part of town that is mostly white and expensive. Then again I think the a $3 beer compares well to most places.
Racial politics are always difficult and probably more so in Philadelphia than in many places. I was very happy to see that groups that met for Philly for Obama reflected Philadelphia in diversity, but I get the impression that such a thing is rare and would not be sure how to recreate that for another organization.
BTW I don’t really understand why Bowers on track so concerned with caucus identification. I know that he is concerned with branding, but what really matters is what legislators fight for and how they vote in close votes.
it’s variety of reasons really.
i’m busy with other things, including 2 bands. my budget is tight.
But the bigegst barrier is getting there on time, which means leaving straight from work, and i like a quick puff at home to wind down. by that time it’s 5:30 or so.
if I use public transit it can be up to an hour when you include waiting for the trolley or el; if i drive, i have to pay search for a parking spot, pay rapacious parking meter fees, and still probably get a ticket for $30.00 anyway. and then the price of beer and food on top? i can’t afford that price tag.
and as much as I like y’all, that’s a real hassle.
Because it sounds like you are saying these folks join the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats because there are too many minorities in the Progressive Caucus, and they feel more comfortable around rural white folks.
You don’t think it maybe has to do with their political beliefs?
I am not a huge believer in political beliefs as a prediction for how politicians will vote and organize themselves. Their districts/states and their microcultures are more important.
Birds of a feather flock together. And districts of a feather flock together.
Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma, CA) is Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus. Her district demographics per Wikipedia:
California’s 6th congressional district
Current Representative Lynn Woolsey (D)
Area 2,119 mi²
Distribution 89.8% urban, 10.2% rural
Population (2000) 639,087
Median income $59,115
Ethnicity 76.1% White, 2% Black, 3.7% Asian, 14.5% Hispanic, 0.6% Native American, 0.2% other
Cook PVI D+21
These demographics shouldn’t scare off zenophobic Democrats.
Cab4me