Nancy Pelosi on The Daily Show: Congress Will No Longer be a Rubber Stamp; Greenwald: Send the Blue Dogs to the Pound

By Damozel |  First Pelosi on The Daily Show. I want to be fair, so let's let her speak for herself.  Man, only Nancy Pelosi could be so banal when chatting with Jon Stewart.  Sorry...guh...LET HER SPEAK FOR HERSELF.

Glenn Greenwald has answer to the question of what Congressional Dems really need:  'Let's Give Blue Dogs the Boot.' 

I usually agree rather than disagree with Greenwald, but in pondering this piece, I have some definite reservations.

That's because I don't necessarily believe that most Dems are progressives. I don't disagree that progressives have the right to try to get more progressives elected , but I am not sure (1) that progressives have sufficient influence to make this happen; or (2) that they should discount the wishes of more moderate Dems. (I'm left of moderate and right of progressive myself---I am a 'spotted dog' Democrat, I guess).  In any case, I'd argue that Congress's first duty is to its constituents rather than to the party or Glenn Greenwald or me.

But you can judge for yourself.

I more or less agree with his initial premises.  I'm certainly disappointed with Congress.  [I've put his points in the second paragraph into list form for easier reading---Glenn Greenwald clearly doesn't care if his pieces are easy to read.].   

That a Democratic Congress is so deeply unpopular even among Democrats may be historically unusual, but it is hardly surprising or difficult to understand. On key issue after key issue, it is the Bush White House and Republican caucus that have received virtually everything they wanted from Congress, while the base of the Democratic Party has received virtually nothing other than disappointment and an overt repudiation of its agenda. Since the American people gave them control of Congress, the Democrats in Congress have given the country the following:

Unlimited and unconditional funding for the Iraq war.

Vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and retroactive amnesty for their telecom donors -- measures the administration tried, but failed, to obtain from the GOP Congress.

The ability to ignore congressional subpoenas with utter impunity.

A resolution formally decreeing parts of the Iranian government to be a "terrorist organization."

A failure to outlaw waterboarding, to apply the torture ban to the CIA, to restore the habeas corpus rights abolished by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, to impose the requirement of congressional approval before President Bush can attack Iran.

Confirmation of highly controversial Bush nominees, including Michael Mukasey as attorney general even after he embraced the most radical Bush theories of executive power and repeatedly refused to say that waterboarding was torture.

Other than (arguably) the resignation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general and a very modest increase in the minimum wage (enacted in the first month after Democrats took control of Congress), one is hard-pressed to identify a single event or issue since November 2006 that would have been meaningfully different had the GOP retained control of Congress. (Salon)

And also I agree with this.  And here's what he has to say about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid:

The Congress of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi has been every bit as passive, impotent and complicit as the Congress of Bill Frist and Denny Hastert was. Worse, in contrast to the Frist/Hastert-led Congress, which at least had the excuse that it enabled a wartime president from its own party while he enjoyed high approval ratings, the Reid/Pelosi Congress has capitulated to every presidential whim despite an "opposition party" president who is now one of the most unpopular in modern American history.   (Salon)

Maybe, he suggests, it's about time to take a look at the Democrats who are in Congress so we can cull the ones who aren't standing up to the Republicans. 

This is where I started to question his premises.  I mean it's fine with me if progressives want to push for more of their kind in Congress, but I'm guessing that where there's a blue dog, there's a pretty conservative constituency whose views don't coincide with Greenwalds on all or even many points. [Again I imposed some formatting on his piece.]

If simply voting for more Democrats will achieve nothing in the way of meaningful change, what, if anything, will? At minimum, two steps are required to begin to influence Democratic leaders to change course:

1) Impose a real political price that they must pay when they capitulate to -- or actively embrace -- the right's agenda and ignore the political values of their base, and

2) decrease the power and influence of the conservative "Blue Dog" contingent within the Democratic caucus, who have proved excessively willing to accommodate the excesses of the Bush administration, by selecting their members for defeat and removing them from office. And that means running progressive challengers against them in primaries, or targeting them with critical ads, even if doing so, in isolated cases, risks the loss of a Democratic seat in Congress.   (Salon)

Greenwald argues that Dems are certain to win both houses of Congress in the next election and should now begin to hold accountable Democrats who don't stand on Democratic principles.   

As long as they know that progressives will blindly support their candidates no matter what they do, then it will only be rational for congressional Democrats to ignore progressives and move as far to the right as they can. With the blind, unconditional support of Democrats securely in their back pocket, Democratic leaders will quite rationally conclude that the optimal way to increase their own power, to transform more Republican districts into Blue Dog Democratic seats, and thereby make themselves more secure in their leadership positions, is to move their caucus to the right. Because the principal concern of Democratic leaders is to maintain and increase their own power, they will always do what they perceive is most effective in achieving that goal, which right now means moving their caucus to the right to protect their Blue Dogs and elect new ones.  (Salon)

Clearly, he assumes that most Dems are progressives:

Democratic leaders must learn that they cannot increase their majority in Congress by trampling on the political values of their own base. It's crucial that they understand that they will not gain seats, but will lose seats, the more they accommodate the right's agenda. That, in turn, will happen only if progressives target for defeat selected members of the Democratic caucus who are responsible for that right-wing-enabling behavior. (Salon)

Buh-but-but...what if the Dems who elect Blue Dogs people aren't progressives?  I mean, sure---try to persuade them that they should be.  But what if you can't?

Justin Gardner at Donklephant spotted the same flaw I did.  He doesn't like Greenwald as much as I do, so he calls him out a lot more sharply.  It's a really good analysis.  Here's a snippet:

Greenwald’s screed reads practically like satire, but since he’s got all the humor of a slab of granite, he’s clearly decided that defeat equals victory. Why? Because Greenwald sees the Blue Dog Democrats as enablers of George Bush and the evil Republican empire. The fact that a conservative Democrat is far more liberal than, say, a mainstream Republican completely escapes Greenwald. Since Blue Dogs don’t follow lockstep with the hard-left agenda, they are the enemy....

Greenwald has every right to pursue his own political agenda and use the mechanisms of our electoral system to do so. But if he thinks starting a civil war within the Democrats will improve the party’s image and ability to get things done, he’s clearly entered an alternative universe.

Conservative Democrats are moderates. They aren’t radicals. And, sure, they are more likely to collude with Republicans than progressives but America needs its non-partisans, its members of Congress who represent mainstream predilections as well as the mainstream’s resistance to radical change.  (More)

More blogger responses at Memeorandum.

Senator Ted Stevens Indicted

Will Goodling be the Bush Administration's Scapegoat?

Jonathan Turley:  Two More Questionable Taserings

The Monica Goodling Files:  Notes on the Investigation

Victory in Iraq:  Not Ours to Claim?

Irony Alert: Former Bush Speechwriter/Neocon David Frum Lashes Out at Comedy Central for Distorting the Facts

Comments

[Adam]

I don't really agree with the underlying theme of Justin Gardner's counterpoint. Greenwald is RIGHT to have serious issues with the actions of this congress. As you say, his background material lambasting the Reid/Pelosi congress is almost entirely on-target.

Reading Greenwald, I don't think it's fair to characterize his solution as simply kicking the Blue Dogs out. Like Markos from Daily Kos, he advocates trying to primary out some of the more conservative Democrats. I think this makes sense in some isolated cases (particularly in more liberal districts) but it obviously carries risks.

Greenwald's broader point, though, is that particularly when the Democrats enjoy the majority, the party agenda should serve the median Democratic supporter's position and not the positions of the Blue Dogs. This has really been the problem with this session of Congress.