The Hopelessness of the Blue Dogs
This comment was inspired by something I heard Ed Schultz say yesterday. I don't mean to pick on Ed, who I have liked very much since he went on MSNBC- I have heard similar things from a number of people.
Ed said that he thought Obama needed to be much more forceful with congress, after the manner of Lyndon Johnson, who was famous for manipulating congress like a slave master.
I think this view misses something. In the time of Lyndon Johnson, candidates were dependent on the support of the party and its adherents for the means to run for election or re-election. Johnson could enforce party discipline because he had the power to deny that to them.
Today, in the world of legalized corruption left to us by deregulation and the explosion of lobbyists, the situation is sadly different. Remember that, for a Democrat, to buck his party is to side with the rich and their companies. The likes of Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman find that these people are ready at a moment's notice to step in to fill their campaign coffers and keep them in office. Thus, regardless of what he might want or say, Obama simply does not have the power that Lyndon Johnson had.
Unfortunately, this phenomenon does not work both ways. To buck the Republican party is to side with the poor, the sick, the disenfranchised. These people do not have the money to buy their treason.
It is undoubtedly true, as has been pointed out, that there is an authoritarian streak in people attracted to the right wing; and this does indeed explain a lot about the lack of dissent on the Republican side. However, I believe that what I have described above is a significant factor in the presence of Ben Nelsons and Mary Landrieius among us, and the party's inability to deal with them.
Ed said that he thought Obama needed to be much more forceful with congress, after the manner of Lyndon Johnson, who was famous for manipulating congress like a slave master.
I think this view misses something. In the time of Lyndon Johnson, candidates were dependent on the support of the party and its adherents for the means to run for election or re-election. Johnson could enforce party discipline because he had the power to deny that to them.
Today, in the world of legalized corruption left to us by deregulation and the explosion of lobbyists, the situation is sadly different. Remember that, for a Democrat, to buck his party is to side with the rich and their companies. The likes of Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman find that these people are ready at a moment's notice to step in to fill their campaign coffers and keep them in office. Thus, regardless of what he might want or say, Obama simply does not have the power that Lyndon Johnson had.
Unfortunately, this phenomenon does not work both ways. To buck the Republican party is to side with the poor, the sick, the disenfranchised. These people do not have the money to buy their treason.
It is undoubtedly true, as has been pointed out, that there is an authoritarian streak in people attracted to the right wing; and this does indeed explain a lot about the lack of dissent on the Republican side. However, I believe that what I have described above is a significant factor in the presence of Ben Nelsons and Mary Landrieius among us, and the party's inability to deal with them.
Comments