‘Be Very Nice to the Blue Dogs’
The Cagle Post identifies her as “an independent and witty voice.” The bio at her blog informs us that, per Media Matters for America, she’s among the top-20 syndicated columnists. Yet I had never heard of Froma Harrop until I read her RCP column today — an oversight that suggests either (a) it’s increasingly difficult to achieve broadscale name recognition in this country, or (b) I’m hopelessly out of touch. Let’s go with (b) for now, to avoid a distracting debate.
Harrop’s column focuses on the travails of the Blue Dog Democrats.
As do I, Ms. Harrop seems to have an affinity for the Blue Dogs. In addition to her admonition in today’s column to “Be very nice to the Blue Dogs,” consider that — beyond RCP and Politico — Harrop’s blogroll includes only one other site: Right Democrat, which longs for a day when Democrats “who believe in economic populism and social traditionalism … win back the values and national security voters” and thus “build a governing majority.” That vision (somewhat) echoes the Blue Dogs’ self-portrayal as “a policy-oriented group to give moderate and conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives a common sense, bridge-building voice within the institution.”
Affinity or not, Ms. Harrop aptly describes the Blue Dogs’ difficult position in the middle:
The semi-conservative parts of the country that elect Blue Dogs are not thickly settled with liberals. Forty-nine House Democrats come from districts that backed John McCain in 2008. They have no reason to relax. As a reality check, the special election in upstate New York to replace Blue Dog Kirsten Gillibrand (now in Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat) remains too close to call.
And Republicans totally understand the Blue Dogs’ vulnerability. House Minority Leader John Boehner called them “lap dogs” for Obama.
These Democrats are dogged if they do and dogged if they don’t.
Harrop then encourages us to “set aside the politics and look at the policies” — i.e., consider the merits rather than the challenges of the Blue Dogs’ position, which she describes thus:
This year and next, big deficits are needed to pull the economy out of the ditch. But in the longer term, deficits must come down. The “pay-go” rule, a Blue Dog obsession, is the way to impose discipline. It requires lawmakers to offset the costs of legislation with tax increases or spending cuts.
By the way, these centrists are not Lite Republicans. When Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, said, “I want to ask my friends, the Blue Dog Democrats, do you really want all this government?” he truly asked the wrong question.
The Blue Dogs have no ideological objection to government. They support such Obama priorities as health-care reform. They just want them paid for.
And Blue Dogs hold undisguised contempt for recent Republican conversions to fiscal rectitude …
Considering these points, I think the most partisan members of the House — on both sides of the aisle — would be well advised to heed Ms. Harrop’s counsel to pay the Blue Dogs some respect.
16 Responses to “‘Be Very Nice to the Blue Dogs’”
Er…. economic populism? Not sure how far behind that I can get. Maybe I'm not understanding the term?
I'm unsure, as well, Polimom, but I think it refers to an economic focus on the middle class, i.e., making sure the middle class is not:
(i) Overly burdened with taxes to support hard-left goals for the “super poor”
(ii) Overlooked for benefits when the hard-right tries to lower the tax burden for the “super wealthy.”
Hmmm. You could very well be right, Pete. I know that I'm having major (negative) reactions lately to the term “populism”, so maybe it's fine.
Speaking of somewhat nebulous terminology… it would be VERY helpful if somebody could get the term “middle class” into a box.
Wow, I don't think I can agree with your characterization of not “Overly burdened with taxes to support hard-left goals for the “super poor”"
I don't think the Right or Blue-dog Dems have any issue with taxes and programs that truly address the 'super poor'. It is the taxes for Democratic pet projects that have little or nothing to do with the Social Safety Net, or that twist that term beyond all recognition.
AustinRoth — You say much better what I intended to say. Apologies for my less-than-precise verbiage.
AR
You make a great argument when you don't specify what “Pet Projects” are. Who can argue with glittering generalities?
I was just replacing one glittering generality with another. We were talking in generalities. Every post can't be a 10 paragraph essay.
You just looking for reasons to debates with me now? :0
AR
I could say “Prove to me that I want to debate,” but that response would be debatable. Too cute by half.
The Blue Dogs are a survival strategy, nothing more. They're Dems in Republican districts. There used to be “moderate” Republicans. New England Senators are all that's left. The calculus used by both groups is identical, and their “real” opinions get lost in the shuffle. They thrive on glittering generalities like “economic populism and social traditionalism” because it minimizes them as political targets, but really doesn't stand for anything. In short, it's politics as usual.
You're right though; I've certainly spent more than “my two cents” worth of posting.
AustinRoth: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
HemmD: I told you once.
AustinRoth: No you haven't.
HemmD: Yes I have.
AustinRoth: When?
HemmD: Just now.
AustinRoth: No you didn't.
HemmD: Yes I did.
AustinRoth: You didn't
HemmD: I did!
AustinRoth: You didn't!
HemmD: I'm telling you I did!
AustinRoth: You did not!!
HemmD: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
AustinRoth: Oh, just the five minutes.
HemmD: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
AustinRoth: You most certainly did not.
HemmD: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
AustinRoth: No you did not.
HemmD: Yes I did.
AustinRoth: No you didn't.
HemmD: Yes I did.
AustinRoth: No you didn't.
HemmD: Yes I did.
AustinRoth: No you didn't.
HemmD: Yes I did.
AustinRoth: You didn't.
HemmD: Did.
AustinRoth: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
HemmD: Yes it is.
AustinRoth: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
HemmD: No it isn't.
AustinRoth: It is!
HemmD: It is not.
AustinRoth: Look, you just contradicted me.
HemmD: I did not.
AustinRoth: Oh you did!!
HemmD: No, no, no.
AustinRoth: You did just then.
HemmD: Nonsense!
AustinRoth: Oh, this is futile!
HemmD: No it isn't.
AustinRoth: I came here for a good argument.
HemmD: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
AustinRoth: An argument isn't just contradiction.
HemmD: It can be.
AustinRoth: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
HemmD: No it isn't.
AustinRoth: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
HemmD: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
AustinRoth: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
HemmD: Yes it is!
AustinRoth: No it isn't!
AustinRoth: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
HemmD: No it isn't.
AustinRoth: It is.
HemmD: Not at all.
AustinRoth: Now look.
HemmD: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
AustinRoth: What?
HemmD: That's it. Good morning.
AustinRoth: I was just getting interested.
HemmD: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
AustinRoth: That was never five minutes!
HemmD: I'm afraid it was.
AustinRoth: It wasn't.
HemmD: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
AR performs the Full Monty (Python that is)
I thought I was in the abuse department.
Did Republicans cut spending when they ran the government?
I ask because I was under the impression that Republicans increased spending–and by quite a lot–when they ran the government.
George — Of course the R's increased spending, but how and why is that relevant to this post? Are you saying that, because one party failed to reign in spending, the other one gets a free pass to spend us into an even deeper hole?
pabel – you silly, silly boy (man? girl? woman? don't want to offend!)
Back when Bush was in office, it was the height of avoidance and blame shifting to point out any action by the Clinton administration in defense of a Bush action, and proof that you had no real intellectual defense to make.
But that attitude is SO pre-2009. Now that Obama is in office, pointing out the fallacies of the past administrations, especially Bush's, is not only acceptable, it is down right respectable!
Pete-
I wasn't responding to your post, but to Austin Roth's complaining about “pet projects”. If there's some kind of valid argument that Republicans are the party of fiscal reponsibility, I'd like to read it.
Though in light of his subsequent comments, maybe AR was just practicing satire.
And I fell for it. ; )
GS – no, that comment was not satire, but you are correct. I should not have said 'Democratic pet projects', I should have said 'Congressional pet projects'.
And do not look to me to defend the Republican spending orgies. At the time I said they were spending like drunken sailors, then later apologized to drunken sailors for comparing them to Congress. But, to be fair, now they are drunken sailors on crack.
In the first three months of complete Democratic control of the government, the Democrats have raised the bar to stratospheric new heights on spending and deficits, and a huge, huge portion of that has nothing to do with 'stimulus' or 'bailout' funding. There is no way to call this: Projected Deficit anything but excessive, uncontrolled spending.
IMHO
p.s. – glad you enjoyed the humorous (I hope) interlude.
AR–
I would like to see Republicans propose spending cuts. It wouldn't make them popular (at least not with the special interests that fund campaigns), but they're so unpopular they've got very little to lose. And if what Obama is doing actually flops, they'd be reasonably positioned to pick up the pieces. Or so it seems to me.
Maybe they could do something else constructive. I'm not–of course–the best judge of what that might be.
But complaining about teleprompters and suggesting Obama bowed down to the king of Saudi Arabia is fundamentally unserious. And while doing nothing but complaining is, at least, better that freaking out about some dumb hippie like William Ayers, it's still not too impressive.
I'm well aware of the fact that what Obama is doing is following a kind of conventional wisdom. I'm well aware that it's risky. I'm well aware that it could end in fairly catastophic failure. But it's too soon to tell.
And despite all the predictions of impending apocalpyse, it's more likely to be something of a muddle.
There should be a plan b of some kind.
Is there some reason for me to think Palin or Jindel or Eric Castor is going to provide it?