Lately, there have been a lot of attacks on so-called "Centrist" Democrats. There is a continued insistence that we represent "the mushy middle" or have "no ideological basis" for our positions. Rather than fanning the flames even higher, I'm going to lay out the assumptions that pragmatic Democrats and Liberals are using as the basis of our arguments, and see if it leads to some sort of dialogue.
Follow me after the jump to find out just what we're thinking.
1.) Less Progressive legislation that gets passed is a more Progressive outcome than more Progressive legislation that doesn't.
Personally, this strikes me as obvious, but it appears to be less so to many others here. Failing to extend the tax cuts for the rich would be an ideal outcome - but that bill received only 53 votes in the Senate. Health Care Reform with a Public Option - or some form of Single-Payer - would have been greatly preferable to what passed, but the ConservaDems made it clear that they would never vote for such a plan. When a bill is only one or two votes shy, one can rightfully blame the President or party leadership for being unable to press them for their votes. But when a plan needs another half-dozen votes in the Senate? It's better to get more incremental improvements and show the people that Progressive legislation has better outcomes when applied.
2.) Results matter more than messaging.
Obviously, messaging is important, and perhaps the more pragmatic branch of the Democratic party should not underestimate it so frequently. But results are what swing elections. We were beaten in 2010 primarily because the economy was still bad. People don't care that it was still bad because Republicans blocked everything we did. People only cared that things were still bad. This is why many of us are reluctantly supporting the President's tax cut compromise - the key to getting "more and better Democrats" elected in 2012 relies almost entirely on us getting the unemployment rate as low as possible, and virtually all economists are estimating that this plan will reduce the unemployment rate by anywhere from 0.5-1.5%.
3.) Absolutist Progressives appear to have no plan.
I apologize if that statement is too strong, but I simply don't see any way in which we can get the votes to end the tax cuts for the rich without losing unemployment extensions and tax cuts for the middle class. Republicans have continually blocked UI extensions over the past year, and I see no reason to believe this will end. I'm not sure how increasing taxes on everyone and failing to bring unemployment below 9% will result in "more and better Democrats" in 2012. Yes, some sort of jobs program would be better than what we see now. But I don't see any possible way such a plan would pass.
4.) Some fights can be fought later.
Republicans will fight to make sure these tax cuts - all of them - remain permanent. But when Republicans demand that the Social Security tax cut remain in effect, we can demand that the cap be raised to compensate.
"The President wants the rich to pay their fair share into Social Security. Republicans want to bankrupt it. Who's on your side?"
When Republicans demand that tax cuts on the rich expire, we can trot out graphs showing the Federal tax rate for each quintile over the decades, showing how much payroll taxes have increased on the middle class while income taxes on the rich have plummeted. When Republicans demand the abolition of the estate tax, we can point out that it was first proposed in the Federalist Papers, and ask why they hate our Founding Fathers. Punting on these issues now, in order to reduce unemployment, does not somehow prevent us from fighting for these things later. And this goes both ways - we can point out that even 99-week Unemployment Insurance has proven to be insufficient, and demand that standard UI be extended from its typical 26 weeks, or that automatic extensions be written into the law anytime the economy slows. Now that everyone has seen people they know lose their jobs, this is a fight we can win.
We are not without principle. But results matter.
These types of debates are good and important. But - and this applies to both sides - don't insist that the other side is somehow lesser than yourself. We need to figure out what our priorities are, and how they differ within the party, and decide where to go from there.