Should majority leaders only come from solid blue States? I'm asking this question because of all the consternations over the way Harry Reid has been governing the senate. With a 60 seat super majority there is a lot of grassroots frustration with the way legislation seems to not be moving through the senate.
This lead me to ponder if Democratic majority leaders should only come from solid blue states. Just like Republicans always pick leaders from red states. Dole (R-Kansas), Lott (R-Mississippi), and Frist (R-Tennessee). Lord forbid if McConnell (R-Kentucky) ever gets control.
Democrats always seem to pick leaders from pink and purple states, such as South Dakota and Nevada (although NV is trending blue). Maybe we as a party have been relying to strongly on caucus seniority? Maybe in order to shield vulnerable members we have promoted too many purple and pink state Senators to leadership positions?
Maybe we have chosen leaders who get elected because they are skilled at splitting differences and obfuscation. Maybe these Senators aren't experienced in articulating a strong progressive position. I wonder if the original idea was that leaders from purple states gave cover to "centrist" democrats, but I would now argue it's diluting our message. I feel maybe our caucus leaders are always looking over their shoulders, always afraid talk radio will raise a pitch fork brigade of angry conservatives to take their seats. Most politicians are cowards, whose biggest concern is reelection, as much as I hate to admit it.
What we need going forward are pragmatic progressives. Leaders who are both progressive but understand that winning in Red state may mean giving certain Senators cover. But leaders who none the less, are forceful voices for liberal causes.
Yes there are exceptions. I think Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) could eventually be a great leader. There are also purple state democrats whom I think the world of (like Claire McCaskill) but I now wonder if they would also be squeamish leaders? On the other hand there are strong progressive, whom I strongly support, but who are SO strongly principled (like Russ Feingold) I think they would have a hard time being an effective majority leader.
I understand that Harry Reid isn't going anywhere (yes there are always a few commentators who will "helpfully" point this out), but as we develop future leaders maybe this is something we should keep in mind. If we discuss this idea and it takes to the larger sphere of progressive thought it could help to form how we chose leaders going forward. As an opposition party it may have served a purpose to have purple state leaders who could reach out to moderate voters. But as a majority party?
None the less I think my synopsis is mostly true. What do you think?