The primary element resisting change and much of Barack Obama's agenda is a core group of 'conservative' Democratic Senators. Reaching 60 was not a 'magic number', after all. Frankly, as we add [hopefully] more Democrats to the Senate, they are unfortunately going to come from rural / red States. Getting to 65, 67 .. not even then will it be a 'magic number'.
The reality is, certain Democrats in the Senate are acting as obstructions to change, they come from rural / more conservative areas of the country. Their obstructionism is going to become more readily apparent in issues other than health care: the environment, labor, continued support for Detroit (and what's left of our manufacturing base), issues related to taxation social issues like DADT and DOMA as well as national defense are going to be sticking points.
Potentially there are a number of issues where Bayh, Lincoln, Nelson, Conrad, Baucus and perhaps a few more Democratic Senators will stand in opposition to the desires of the WH and The House.
We aren't going to change the way Senators are chosen, it's part of our Constitution. Two Senators per State gives disproportionate power to low population rural States, which tend to be conservative. As we add to the number of Democratic Senators, they will necessarily come from red States, rural areas that tend to be more conservative because we've already got the liberal States on our side. Having 70 Democrats in the Senate, but 20 of them are Bayh-like is not a pleasant thought.
So, what can we do about it?
Harry Reid cannot keep the Democrats unified; it's clear he's incapable of dealing with the dynamics he's been handed. Bob Menendez took Schumer's place as head of the DSCC, and I have to suspect Chuck Schumer knew this challenge was coming. Perhaps that's one reason he bailed from the leadership position. So in addition to a weak leader of the Senate, we have a new head of the DSCC who is almost invisible, trying to get his feet wet.
One thing that is understood in Washington is money. Some friendly pressure from the left to Bob Menendez: the DSCC needs to be told "either Bayh and the Blue Dogs get in line, or no more money for the DSCC". We can make our own choices about who we want to give our money to, we do not need to be funding campaigns of people who are going to vote against our interests. More than one analyst has already indicated that it is people like Baucus, Conrad, Bayh, Nelson, Lincoln, Pryor who will be under greater threat as they ignore what their own constituents want. They will be paying at the polls; and we should be be squeezing them in their campaign warchests.
That is one way of flexing some power.
That's the stick we've got.
Hell, it's about the ONLY stick we've got.
So now we have to look at what feeds these decisions Senators make [yes, I know .. lobbyists, but let's put that aside here]. What level of contact do these Senators have with their constituents? We have to realize that they are representing [generally] the nature of the people who live in these red States. While you and I might despise the stances they take, they are [at least apparently] representing "the will of the people in these States", for the most part. If not, they'd be voted out.
So what can liberals and progressives do about that?
What Howard Dean realized and knew: build up the Democratic infrastructure in these red / rural States. Get the organization in place, to cover every issue, every election, in every State. The 50 State strategy works. People are needed on the ground in these places to do the grunt work, and spread facts and information to counter the nonsense. I've shifted my meager financial donations from the DSCC and DCCC to the DFA. I'd recommend that all Kossacks who consider themselves to be liberal / progressives contemplate that change. I'll donate directly to those candidates I favor, rather than giving money to the DSCC where part of it ends up in the hands of Evan Bayh's coalition of obstructionists.
The DFA serves two functions; I believe it make the voices of Democrats [and liberals] louder, to influence the Senators, and of course it helps to influence voters generally. So I am happy to support the DFA with what I can.
-------------
But changing the minds of people who live in these rural places is hard, when they are bombarded at every turn with right wing nonsense, and hear almost exclusively right wing talking points in every media venue, and yes from the church pulpits as well. The DFA simply is not enough.
AM radio is still a significant force in these stretched out places. AM radio by it's nature carries longer distances, and people travel longer distances in vehicles on average than in metro areas. Yet, liberal / progressive talk radio is almost exclusively located in the liberal bastions; you aren't going to find Air America or shows like that in many Red States, but that's exactly where some of these shows are needed the most. Yes, it's nice to have our message reinforced in LA, SF, Portland, NY: but the truth is when looked at demographically, left leaning radio is preaching to the choir.
And it's not just AM radio, of course .. local TV and print media rarely will have a slant other than to the right in these rural States. The only countervailing force in many of these red States is NPR, which has become more and more like a mouthpiece for corporate America. Keep in mind that local NPR stations can pick and choose programs. I doubt shows like Fresh Air or Living On Earth are heard at as many NPR stations as in the more liberal/metro areas.
Before someone makes the argument that AM radio, TV and even print media are dead and going away, I'll say that blogs are nice. They provide an outlet for democracy and information, but it doesn't do much if the actual information never makes it to the people who are being brainwashed day after day. AM , TV and print media are not going away. And blogs like dailykos and huffingtonpost do not get read in rural America in the same penetration levels they do in hotbeds of liberal activism like the Coasts and major metro areas.
As long as right wing poison and misinformation is spewed out with hardly a squeak from the center, (never mind the left), the culture in these red States isn't going to change much demographically. The sheer power of seeing the systemic corruption and asshattery of the Republican Party will no doubt result in more Democrats serving in the House and Senate. But the nature of these people who are elected will continue to reflect more or less the rural nature of a whole swath of the population that this brainwashed day after day with Rush Limbaugh and rantings from the pulpits of churches.
In a dream I keep having, wealthy liberals and even moderates help to fund AM radio stations, establish newspapers and even news networks and TV stations that simply report the truth, without any spin and get them up and running in these places where truth is seldom heard.
What a dream.
addendum .. directed to those who post responses to the diary without reading it.
Go away.