Stephanie Herseth, sellout?

Noam Scheiber's posted at TNR's &c. that the House New Democrat Coalition sent a letter to Speaker Denny Hastert that urged that Hastert support the same bankruptcy legislation in the House as the Senate version that is now heading to the Senate floor.

I'll get back to what this "bankruptcy reform" movement means for "moderate Democrats" generally, but first I want to note that I was slightly surprised to see the name of one representative who had signed the letter:  Stephanie Herseth.

Stephanie Herseth
Long-time dKos readers (in blog-time, "long time" means more than 6 months) know that Herseth was supported by Markos and other kossacks when she ran for S.D.'s House seat in a special election last year.  I think dKos raised a bit of money for her campaign.

Back then, there was some controversy surrounding Herseth because of her support for a Same-Sex Marriage Amendment (a.k.a. the Hate Amendment).  

Then, after she won, she voted for an idiotic bill that would have stripped jurisdiction from federal courts over gay-marriage cases.  At the time Markos posted the following:

 So there's plenty of wailing from the ideological rigid. But it seems silly for anyone to be surprised at the vote.

 Herseth is pro-choice in a fiercely anti-abortion state. You can only take so many contrarian stands before you become unviable. And being pro-choice and pro-gay marriage is a non starter in states like South Dakota. Or Oklahoma. Or Utah. You get the idea.

 The reason to support Herseth or Democrats like her have nothing to do with supporting candidates who agree with you on all the issues. There is just one vote that matters -- that for Speaker Pelosi or a Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate.

I basically agree with that sentiment.  It makes no sense for Democrats to insist on ideological purity from candidates unless they are content to remain the minority party for a long, long time.  If Herseth needs to pander to mouth breathers from time to time, well, that's the way life works. (Although I'd prefer if it if politicians never supported legislation that is so obviously unconstitutional.  Inviting needless and costly litigation just to help your political career is rather tasteless.  That goes for liberals, too.)

However, it is one thing to let candidates from socially conservative districts slide on social issues.  It is another to let them sell out on other issues just because they have D's next to their names.

South Dakota is no Mecca of credit card company incorporation.  But I bet there are plenty of people in South Dakota who are being screwed by oppressive credit card provisions or are burdened by massive medical bills.  There is no way that this bill is in the best interest of South Dakotans.

What's the matter with South Dakota?
Many here have read (or are basicially familiar with) Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?. The book deals with how the GOP has used social issues to get rural Americans to support economic policies that are against their interests:

With his acclaimed wit and acuity, Thomas Frank turns his eye on what he calls the "thirty-year backlash" -- the populist revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment. The high point of that backlash is the Republican Party's success in building the most unnatural of alliances: between blue-collar Midwesterners and Wall Street business interests, workers and bosses, populists and right-wingers.

In asking "what's the matter with Kansas?" -- how a place famous for its radicalism became one of the most conservative states in the union -- Frank, a native Kansan and onetime Republican, seeks to answer some broader American riddles: Why do so many of us vote against our economic interests? Where's the outrage at corporate manipulators? And whatever happened to middle-American progressivism? The questions are urgent as well as provocative. Frank answers them by examining pop conservatism -- the bestsellers, the radio talk shows, the vicious political combat -- and showing how our long culture wars have left us with an electorate far more concerned with their leaders' "values" and down-home qualities than with their stands on hard questions of policy.

Democrats need to use economic wedge issues to divide and conquor movement conservatism. This proposed bankruptcy legislation could be a rallying point for Democrats. We should be using people like Stephanie Herseth, people with the trust of Red-State voters, to open the eyes of South Dakotans. Instead of letting Herseth have a free pass, we should be demanding that she hold town hall meetings to explain the truth about "bankruptcy reform".  

Joe Biden may turn my stomach when he supports this crap.  But, truth be told, is any Senator from Delaware ever going to cross MBNA?  Of course not.  But South Dakota is not Delaware and we need to start expecting more from Red-State Dems.

What's the matter with Kansas or South Dakota?  We have Democrats who concede on social issues and sell out on economic issues.

"Moderate Democrats"
Scheiber concludes his piece by noting the following:

But, even worse than that, support for the bill by Democratic moderates betrays a striking obliviousness to the most important debate underway within the Democratic Party. Moderate Democrats have been under assault from grassroots liberals lately for selling out Democratic values in their rush to appease conservative interests. I normally think this criticism is highly misplaced, and that moderates have exactly the right instincts when it comes to social issues and foreign policy, even most economic issues. But in this case the moderates proved the liberals' point for them, which could set back the cause of moderates within the party for months, if not years. It really is a colossal, inexcusable mistake.

Scheiber touches on an interesting point, but misses the critical essence.  The only reason "Moderate Democrats" have been under assault is because real moderates have refused to distance themselves from the corporate whoring, crony capitalism, and general corruption that the GOP is peddling.  If you don't want to be tarred by a brush, don't stand next to someone who deserves tarring.

The philosophy of the "moderate" liberal movement in the U.K. was called the "Third Way".  I always liked this term because it is helpful in reminding people of what the movement is all about.

The "First Way" can be thought of as the way of the establishment.  Laissez-faire most of the time, but with a healthy helping of regulation, subsidization, and corruption when it helps the establishment.  

The "Second Way" might be thought of as the traditional response to the First Way:  Namely, the adoption of socialism, if not communism, in order to protect the interests of average people who would get screwed under the policies of the First Way.

The "Third Way" was an attempt to preserve the values of goals of the Second Way (protecting average citizens from financial elites) but accept that the adoption of free-market tools will, in most instances, help ordinary people more than socialist policies will.

The problem is that, somewhere in the 90's, the American proponents of the Third Way philosophy (the DLC, TNR) forgot that there was an ugly First Way that they were supposed to avoid.  They started to view the Second Way socialist-types as the real enemy.

And that is what Scheiber is bemoaning now.  That by whoring for big business (i.e. acting like First Way elites), "moderate Democrats" (i.e. enlightened Third Way progressives) are validating the complaints of the liberals (i.e. unenlightened Second Way socialists).  And he is right.  The proper response is to not let them get away with it.  Don't let Democrats shill for corporate interests and still call them "moderates".  They aren't.  They are First Way establishment whores.  

I only hope that Stephanie Herseth is young enough and innocent enough to change her current path.

Update [2005-3-9 9:28:2 by space]: Okay, I stand corrected. As indicated in comments, South Dakota apparently does have a large credit card presence in S.D. While that may put her more in the Biden situation of having to support this, my thesis remains the same: Democrats need to find a way to use populist economic issues to appeal to rural voters and this bankruptcy issue should be seized upon. They should not just let the GOP take this as a win. The Democratic takeaway should be "American people, you just got screwed."