Well, on the bright side – if scream therapy actually works a lot of us should be feeling quite a bit healthier.
We’ve screamed at Obama, Reid, the conservadems, everyone who didn’t get it (which was everyone at some point) and each other for sins and slights both real and imagined. We discovered we’re really good at that. I’ve yelled at good friends on other boards and last week I unsubscribed to OFA’s mailing list with a "Go to hell" after Obama and Reid caved to Lieberman on expanding Medicare.
The problems in the system have been recited again and again. Harry Reid is a joke. Obama isn’t going to charge the barricades. The rules of the Senate would do Mao proud, and the media is an even bigger joke than Reid.
But we're not asking the hardest question: Why have we as progressives and activists failed to push this through? Why have we been so ineffective against the conservative Democrats? After two amazing Congressional elections and the most populist Presidential campaign in anyone’s memory, I think we started to believe a little of our own hype. We thought electing Barack Obama and getting sixty seats in the Senate was the finish line.
We were wrong. And we’re going to continue being wrong until we change.
Let’s start with something easy: Why are we so ineffective against the conservative Democrats?
Because they don’t need us. For anything.
It’s that simple, and it's something I think we don't remember often enough. Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Max Baucus – all of them got elected, re-elected, and rose up through the ranks without ever raising a dollar online or needing a Meet Up to organize volunteers. Lieberman managed to get re-elected in spite of having all that used against him. On top of that most of them are from states that Obama lost, so he doesn’t have much more pull over them than we do.
Politics at the beginning, middle and end of the day is about power, and we have no power over any of the conservative Dems. What are we going to do to Evan Bayh? He doesn’t need our money or organizing, and he dominates the Indiana Democratic party. Your chances of getting a serious Dem challenger to primary him are nonexistent. It’s the same with Harry Reid in Nevada.
Power gets to something else that we overlooked. All of these people amassed their power through the 90’s and during the Bush years by positioning themselves as the swing Democratic votes. Between Clinton’s election in ’92 and the last hurrah of the Reagan Republicans in 2004, when there were still moderate Republicans that would vote with the Democrats, the conservative Democrats made themselves the dealmakers (or breakers) on every close vote. The bribery/horse trading we saw last week with Nelson, Landrieu, and the rest is nothing new. The conservative Dems have been running that act for almost twenty years. They’ve milked it with lobbyists, to get prime committee assignments and chairmanships, and they milk it constantly for their states when a bill is being put together.
So it’s not just that they can get elected without the help of progressives. They would be abandoning all the power they have in the US Senate if they fell in line with the progressive wing in the party. If they were inclined to give up that power for the better of their party or the country, the last nine months would have been a lot different. We need to recognize that they are never going to give up that power just because our ideas are better or we won an election for someone else.
The good news is, all evidence indicates they're a dying movement. The definition of what is a conservative Democrat is subjective, but by my count the last new conservadem elected to the Senate was Mark Pryor in 2002. They reached the zenith of their power after the 2004 elections but it's been downhill ever since as we have elected over a dozen real progressives.
But the bad news is, as long as they can keep their little caucus together they can continue to hold the Senate hostage for as long as four or five of them stay in office. Even if the Dems have a net gain of three seats in 2010 and they're all solid progressives, that only means that the conservative Dems left need four votes to stop any bill. There will be at least five conservative Dems in the next Senate in 2011 no matter what happens next November.
Letting nature take its course with the conservative Dems is not going to help us. We need to recognize that it inaction is not an option if we ever want to pass any substantive progressive legislation. Either we find a way to exert some power over the conservatives and the leadership that enables them, or we get used to a diet of shit sandwiches. Forever.
As much as I hate to write these words because I know how it can end badly for everyone (see the devolution from the Reagan GOP to the Club for Growth to the Teabaggers) we have to become the SOB's of the Democratic party. We need to make it clear that even if you don't need the organizing or financial support of the progressive movement and the netroots - we will do everything we can to remove you from office if you consistently block the legislation we want. By supporting a better Democrat in a primary if possible, but by actively working against you in a general election if necessary.
By now it should be clear that no one else is ever going to enforce any discipline against the conservative Dems. If we want that we're going to have to do it, and that includes punishing the members of the Senate (and House) who work against what Democrats were elected to do.
I think we need to make a stand in 2010. Harry Reid has to go because of his gross incompetence in managing the Democratic caucus. Blanche Lincoln will vote against us for as long as she is in the Senate. We have an excellent chance to recruit a primary challenger and we need to throw our backs into supporting Bill Halter. Lastly, we need to take down Evan Bayh. He doesn't call a lot of attention to himself but he is the lynchpin of the conservative Democrats in the Senate, on top of being wholly owned by Eli Lilly, WellPoint and Goldman Sachs. Bart Stupak has to go because he is a traitor.
While a heaping platter of revenge probably sounds good to a lot of people right now, it is critically important that we do this right. It can't be just about getting even. We have to use this to make the progressive movement stronger, and that's going to require a lot of discipline on our part.
My suggestion for rules:
- We do not endorse Republicans. It is preferred to organize a progressive campaign to show how the Democrat has worked against his or her constituents, but if that's not available we will donate money to the Republican and do volunteer work on an individual basis.
- Our campaign should be aimed at Democrats in that district or state, and it should simply ask "You've voted for _________ for years, but what has he/she done to earn it?" We should encourage Democrats in these states and districts to not vote in that race.
- We have to remember that this is about getting better Democrats into Congress. For every hour and dollar spent campaigning against a conservative Democrat, we commit at least two hours and two dollars for a strong progressive.
And that gets to the second big thing I think we are getting wrong.
*
In four words: We must keep fighting. There's been a lot of talk about quitting in 2010. It has to stop.
The finish line wasn't electing Obama and sixty Dems to the Senate. The finish line won't be electing sixty three or even sixty-five in 2010 with Richard Durbin as the new Majority Leader. There is no finish line. I'm sorry if you've been disappointed this year because you thought winning the election in 2008 meant we won. It didn't, and it never does. Winning an election only means that you get to keep pushing forward. Winning on an issue only means you get to fight for the next one.
If you believe in the progressive cause, you have to keep fighting. There are opportunities in every election and every bill. If you fail to take them - that's when you lose.
For example, the 2010 Senate elections. Have a good look at this map. It's the last time you'll see that much red or pink - states that can be taken from the Republicans - for at least six years. Starting in 2012 the Democrats are going to have more seats to defend and fewer opportunities to grow as the GOP only has forty seats or less concentrated in the south. After 2010, we're having a great year if we don't lose any seats.
2010 is our last chance to create an enduring progressive majority in the US Senate. I know everyone is weary of hyperbole after last year's election, but in my not-so humble opinion the 2010 Congressional races, especially in the Senate, are more important than electing Barack Obama last year.
This isn't about just electing more Democrats. There are some terrific progressives in those Senate races, particularly in Missouri (Carnahan), Ohio (Brunner) and New Hampshire (Hodes), which are as prime to be flipped as any seats the Dems have picked up since 2006. Even Kentucky looks like it might be in play.
But taking advantage where we are strong is only part of 2010. Contrary to the conventional wisdom being pushed around by the Beltway press corps, the Republican party is not resurgent or energized. They have the illusion of going somewhere, but they're really rudderless and adrift in a hurricane created by the Teabaggers.
We can already see the effect of the teabaggers on 2010 and it's not helping the R's. It's pushing Mark Kirk in Illinois to the right and into trouble for a general election. They've turned the Florida Republican primary into a toss-up. If Crist loses we've got a good pickup opportunity for another solid progressive. The new Republican ten point "purity test" damn well isn't going to help Mike Castle in Delaware. If JD Heyworth primaries John McCain as the teabaggers are begging him to do, that becomes another coin flip for the Republican nomination and another pick up opportunity if a top-tier progressive Dem like Terry Goddard gets in. There's also a pretty strong primary challenge against Bob Bennett in Utah. The chances of any Dem winning Utah are probably slim (former SLC mayor Rocky Anderson) to none, but it's another race where the Teabaggers are forcing the GOP to spend money defending a safe seat, or helping a neophyte who knocks off an incumbent.
But we're not done yet! Even though the Dems didn't get their first, second or third pick to run against Richard Burr in North Carolina, he's still polling at 46% or lower against every other possible Dem challenger even though they have a combined name recognition of approximately zero. Texas is probably out of reach since Mark White decided to run for governor, but if Kay Bailey Hutchinson retires it will be another open seat in a very expensive state that the Republicans will have to defend. And while I'm not pulling for Blue Dog Charlie Melancon to beat David Vitter, I am taking heart that Vitter is looking at a bitch of a primary and can't get over 50% in any poll. Another race for the right to spend money defending.
Know how Dems are famous for yanking defeat from the jaws of victory? If we screw up 2010 Al Gore will finally be able to sleep at night. The opportunity for progressives is that big. In the spring of summer of 2008 the smart people who were tracking this stuff said that 2010 would be the Dems chance to get sixty votes. Now it's a chance to get sixty good votes, or damn close to it. I don't think it's exaggerating much to say this is our best (and probably last) chance to break the back of the conservative movement.
That is, if we don't quit.
Anyone ready for one more round?