Apropos of the Dana Milbank column on Joe Lieberman I discussed in this afternoon’s Campaign Desk piece, the poli-sci blogger Jonathan Bernstein recently offered some more interesting thoughts about Lieberman’s complicated relationship with the Democratic leadership (see here and here). Basically, for all the grief the Connecticut independent causes Reid, et al on high-profile issues, he provides essential support on a lot of Democratic policy priorities—a fact that often gets obscured in the discussion about whether Democrats can, or should, “punish” him.
But if you follow the link to Bernstein’s blog, don’t stop with the Lieberman items. Over the weekend, Bernstein also wrote a very thoughtful post on the difficulty, and necessity, of coalition politics. This passage is simultaneously a corrective to disappointed liberal activists, and a reminder to the media that political outcomes don’t hinge on one person, or one election:
Because you didn’t elect Barack Obama; you and millions of other people did, and some of them really, honestly, had different goals in mind than you did. And you (collectively) didn’t just elect Barack Obama; you also elected Bart Stupak, and Ben Nelson, and Jim Webb, and Blanche Lincoln, and you lost some too, so all of us collectively also elected Judd Gregg and Mitch McConnell and Michele Bachmann. And Joe Lieberman. Those elections were just as real as the ones that produced Obama (and Schumer, and Harkin). And you have to deal with the results of all of those elections.
Frankly, Greg, this excerpted paragraph is simultaneously (1) true; and, (2) so cliched as to be a prescription for never taking any action whatsoever with regard to politics. As much as even contemporary Republicans might try to have a 'pure' party instead of a coalition, the possibility of that ever happening is zero. Zero. Which, in turn, means that a corollary reality is that different groups will always be party to coalition results in elections. And, that also means that such groups must face the reality of sausage making legislation, etc.
Bernstein's comment, then, applies to every single group that will be part of coalition electoral results. Every single one.
So what? It's an unfortunate example of sophomoric commentary that too often passes for 'insight'. At one and the same time utterly obvious and entirely useless as a prescription for anything other than selecting one group of the coalition and telling them to STFU.
What a waste of precious space at CJR.
#1 Posted by Doug, CJR on Tue 22 Dec 2009 at 09:54 AM
A blog post worth reading:
http://www.openleft.com/diary/16648/grand-unifying-theory-of-progressive-frustration
The fact of the matter is that though the country gave the democrats the majority required to enact progressive change, it's people like Rahm Emmanuel who set up the primary candidates, people like the republicans who use the undemocratic filibuster 70% of the time
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/11/25/the-staggering-rise-of-the-filibuster.html
and people like the blue dog senate who are taking the reform process hostage - using the fate of the underinsured to demand high ransoms for their states and their corporate contributors, they are using the process to stop the real change that was voted for.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 27 Dec 2009 at 02:27 AM
Another good read:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/12/0082740
Basically you have a situation, which you can glean from the open left link above, where the third way corporate dems are paying businessmen to meet societal needs. Instead of disciplining banks and reigning in the over financialization of the economy, they are going to pay bankers to regulate themselves. Instead of offering public services which provide healthcare and drugs in a regulated medical market, they subsidize companies to do the right thing. Instead of setting hard standards and enforcing penalties to fix our pollution crisis, they will offer credits and a lax enforcement regime with hand crafted exceptions. So yes, maybe society's needs will be met, but they won't be met efficiently and they won't me met wholeheartedly. These companies are motivated by their own interests and needs, society's are a secondary, if that, priority. If they are paid a lot more money than what it would cost to pay for an equivalent government organization, which is defined by its service to the public, then maybe the private sector will meet the need. Maybe it will, even though it's expensive to meet needs in a timely, high quality manner. A private sector company may also see that expense and find ways to cut it, because expense reduced equals profits increased. Or maybe it will demand increased revenue to maintain the quality of service
http://vodpod.com/watch/2289408-where-do-our-premiums-go
But yeah, to these democrats, that is an acceptable evil. So you have democrats who want to use business to social ends, you have republicans who cry "SOCIALISM" whenever they hear words like "social ends", and you have progressives who want the government to be activist when it comes to meeting social ends.
The progressives are marginalized because the realm of policy choice is between attempts at meeting social ends through corrupt actors (Rahm and Obama Dems) and no attempts at all. Progressive solutions are used as bargaining tactics, something used to threaten businesses so that they play ball. There is no real thought given to making progressive policies reality. Businesses can pick and choose between the party representing "taxpayer fee for service" and the party representing "no obligations what so ever". Right now, the private sector could use the money, so they are supporting the "fee for service" party. This leaves the republicans, for now, with nothing but their Sarah Palinesque base
Which brings me to the final line of that harpers article describing the two party system competing for the title of most pro business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans, having lost their status as the party of business, have become the party of incoherent rage. It is difficult to imagine anything good coming from a system that moderates the will of corporations with the fantasies of hysterics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 27 Dec 2009 at 12:03 PM