CNN is the latest media outlet to write a "how will Democrats deal with all these new conservative members?" story. Unlike many Kossacks here, I'm willing to concede that many of these new members are more Conservative than the typical Congressional Democrat. While not all of the new class is moderate to conservative, Representatives-elect like the Indiana trio and Heath Schuler are socially fairly conservative.
But this question of how Democrats will possibly get anything done with these new members is a silly one for two reasons; One, this isn't anything new. And two, Dems get to control the agenda.
More on the flip...
CNN's article is ludicrously titled "If it walks, talks like a Conservative, can it be a Dem?" Key paragraphs include
The new Democrats, say analysts, are likely to force the party to shift more toward center, or else butt heads with more liberal congressional leaders.
and
"You are going to see particularly the more conservative members saying, 'Let's make sure the face we are showing on security is one I can go home and run on,' " he said.
They don't have to run again for two years, he said. Until then they'll have to prove they can get along.
All of this makes it sound like this is an entirely new challenge for the Democratic Party, but that couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the Democratic Party has historically been one of incredible ideological heterogeneity. Majorities from the New Deal up until the
Republican Revoluion were not the product of a bunch of latte-sipping liberals in San Fransisco and New York. That has never been the Democratic Party. Rather, they were the result of a coalition between northern liberals and southern Democrats far more conservative than anything this Freshman class can approach.
Richard Shelby? Strom Thurmond? Yeah, they used to be Democrats.
And that period was one that's often considered a high point for liberalism in America. The 1960s and 1970s gave us Civil Rights Acts, Environmental Protection and the Great Society. The fact that the Democratic Party had some Conservatives (many virulently opposed to the legislation far more than any of today's Democrats will be) didn't bring a Democratic agenda to a crashing halt. Sure, more conservative Democrats led to deal-making and moderation, and there's an argument that the new Democrats today may do the same thing. But that's not the worst thing in the world, and it's a million times better than being in the Minority. Something tells me we'll deal with it.
A second, and related point, is that these new "conservative" Democrats aren't conservative across the board. They're mostly conservatives on so-called "values" issues. And the Democratic Congress under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi just isn't going to have any reason to bring those issues into conflict.
The first paragraph of the CNN article is telling.
Brad Ellsworth opposes abortion and same-sex marriage and is an Indiana sheriff who very much believes in the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Does anyone really think Democrats were about to propose an agenda full of abortion and gay marriage? Democrats certainly advocate a woman's right to choose and equality for same-sex partners, but the implication that that
defines what it means to be Dem is nothing more than an absurd stereotype.
I mean, look at the actual Democratic agenda. The top issues? Raising the Minimum Wage. Pell Grants. Energy independence. Some action on Health Care. An end to corruption. There are issues that "liberal" Democrats and "Conservative" democrats have a wide consensus on. These more conservative Democrats often got elected by running populist campaigns on the very issues that liberal Democrats want to bring to the fore. We have the power to set the agenda, an agenda with a consensus among caucus members, and I'm supposed to believe Democrats will be re-enacting Fight Club on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives?
Like I said before, somehow I think we'll be okay.