Who Are Dems Listening To?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:16:57 AM EST
Tags: Paul Krugman, Iraq, Politcs of Contrast, Reid-Feingold (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

mcjoan highlights Paul Krugman's kudos to the Democratic base for pulling the Democratic Party to majority positions on Iraq and other issues:

Normally, politicians face a difficult tradeoff between taking positions that satisfy their party’s base and appealing to the broader public.... But a funny thing has happened on the Democratic side: the party’s base seems to be more in touch with the mood of the country than many of the party’s leaders. And the result is peculiar: on key issues, reluctant Democratic politicians are being dragged by their base into taking highly popular positions. Iraq is the most dramatic example.... It took an angry base to push the Democrats into taking a tough line in the midterm election. And it took further prodding from that base — which was infuriated when Barack Obama seemed to say that he would support a funding bill without a timeline — to push them into confronting Mr. Bush over war funding. (Mr. Obama says that he didn’t mean to suggest that the president be given "carte blanche.")

Certainly on 2006 that was true. But, is the Party listening to the "base" now on Iraq? What is the base saying? Are the Netroots clamoring for Reid-Feingold? Is the Party flocking to it?

I think Krugman is more accurate in this:

The only risk the party now faces is excessive caution on the part of its politicians. Or, to coin a phrase, the only thing Democrats have to fear is fear itself.

I think the base should think about that and consider whether it is pushing our politicians hard enough on Iraq and Reid-Feingold. I don't think we are

So who are Democratic pols listening to? Too many are listening to William Galston:

William A. Galston of the Brookings Institution, a Clinton administration domestic policy adviser and an early opponent of the Iraq war, said his party should note that voters appear just as worried that Democrats would withdraw from Iraq too quickly as they are concerned that Republicans would stay there too long. "I think it's important to distinguish between the desire to bring this agony to an end and the consequences of bringing it to an end in the wrong way," he said. "I can't prove this, but I believe Democrats will be held responsible if they are seen as advocating a course of action that doesn't take the consequences of failure into account. We cannot afford as a party to be either silent or blithe about the consequences of rapid withdrawal."

I can prove this, William Galston and Elaine Kamarck were dead wrong about the Politics of Contrast in the runup to the 2006 elections. They predicted it could not work:

Texeira and Halpin write:
The identity gap in politics has serious direct and indirect ramifications. Directly, voters hold the Democrats' lack of identity against candidates and the party as a whole; indirectly, the lack of identity undermines Democrats' abilities to capitalize on their strengths and enables the GOP to capitalize easily on Democratic weaknesses.
This is a critical point in my view. Too many pundits think that being mushy keeps people from lining up against you (think "values" voters) when you try to "soften" the contrast between Dems and the GOP on social issues. Kamarck and Galston were prominent in this group.

Kevin Drum wrote:

In other words, contra Galston and Kamarck, the liberal base is not really the problem a lot of people make it out to be. It's the Republican base that's far outside the mainstream.

Galston still does not get it. And I think too many Democratic pols are still listening to the failed Beltway political insiders despite their long track of being wrong just about every time.

And unfortunately, unlike pre-2006, when the Netroots and the base were firm against Galstonism, today the Netroots and the base have been wobbly on Iraq.

But now there is a proposal to fight for -Reid Feingold. Time for the base to save the Party insiders from themselves.

< More on Wisconsin's USA Biskupic and Georgia Thompson | Levin Sets The Stage For The Dem Cavein On Iraq >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Who Are Dems Listening To? | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama will probably respond (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:39:37 AM EST

to being called out by Krugman. That is one positive outcome, even if he uses the opportuinity to malign our ideas again.

Respond? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:48:34 AM EST

You mean correct?

Let's hope so.

Would it no be great if we could all be for Obama?


I see now I got it backwards (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:49:09 AM EST

You expect him to ATTACK Krugman.


Yes (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:58:45 AM EST

I'm expecting some Liebermanesque prattling about "too much partisanship." I hope Obama proves me wrong, though. Damn, why does he make it so hard for me to like him?!


: We'll see. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:41:57 AM EST

Netroots? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by TexDem on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:06:59 AM EST

In my readings it appears the so-called leaders of the netroots are in that conflicted position of trying to be (as they see it) relevant and the positions of their readers/posters which is far more pulling in the direction of getting out now, than they are willing to admit. It's as tho' they've joined the DLC. Or somehow feel that now that they've had an impact they don't want to over-reach not realizing that it was the over-reaching that created the impact in the first place.

I could ramble on but I think everyone here takes my meaning.

Afraid to risk (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:17:06 AM EST

what they mis-perceive as a position of leadership?


A leader must be able to take (none / 0) (#34)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:41:56 AM EST

calculated risk. A leader must be able to initiate change to remedy detrimental outcomes. If you can't take caluculated risks when we are suffering from detrimental outcomes you never really were a leader! Maybe you were just a good organizer or analyzer at a time when that was needed but you weren't a leader.


: Sorry I can't spell this morning n/t (none / 0) (#35)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:43:48 AM EST

The readership (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:41:35 AM EST

a minority of the readership I would say.


: Proably more followers than are willing to admit (none / 0) (#39)
by TexDem on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 12:02:51 PM EST

but there are also far more leaders than some would like to recognize. And not all the leaders have their own blogs, some are prominent posters.
A prominent poster can be and is a leader, their informed or well researched opinions attract many who agree and some who disagree. But their prominence and the discussions that follow help develop all of our thoughts.

There was a well-known ad (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by jpete on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:53:57 AM EST

that had people trying to pull a donkey and suddenly one person appeared and kicked it!

You're saying those days are gone; the net roots leaders are turning into donkey enablers? Hmmmmmm.


Like Move-On... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:59:10 AM EST

btw (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:01:34 AM EST

That would make a great name for a blog right about now.

"Kicking Donkeys".


How about "Kicking Jackasses"? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:06:22 AM EST

Well... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:11:30 AM EST

Yes - that's more like it. But I was trying to be nice for a moment there. ;-)


Heh (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:12:12 AM EST

They ::need:: a good boot in the ass. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:28:12 AM EST

Being too nice to Bush is a big risk.


I finally had to bookmark your blog (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:45:56 AM EST

You are a little ass kicker yourself aren't you ;)?


: I try. (none / 0) (#38)
by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:56:33 AM EST

I've got nothing compared to CD though. ;-)

The parable goes like this; (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by TexDem on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:52:23 AM EST

Farmer B is passing by Farmer A's field, Farmer A is waving his arms wildly and talking to his jackass which is setting down in the field. Farmer B shouts out to Farmer A and calls him over.
Farmer B ask Farmer A; "what seems to be the problem?"
Farmer A responds; "that damn fool animal doesn't want to do anything today."
Farmer B says; "let me see what I can do."
Then he reaches into his wagon and picks up a 2x4 and walks out into the field where upon he smacks the jackass in the head with the 2x4. The jackass gets up and starts pulling the plow in perfectly straight lines.
Farmer A ask; "how'd did you know to do that?"
Farmer B responds; "well first you have to get his attention."


Some days (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:13:13 AM EST

I don't do 'nice' very well. :-( I'm working on it.


DLC? Kind of strong words, no? n/t (none / 0) (#23)
by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:05:12 AM EST

And is there an underlying problem? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by jpete on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:49:30 AM EST

Perhaps 'our leaders' should try leadership, vision and conviction.

Or at least pretend to have it.

Pretend (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:53:13 AM EST

I really am not that hung up on it on Iraq.

Getting it right now is what matters.

The election is a year and a half away.

The Debacle is NOW.


: yes, agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by jpete on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:56:56 AM EST

But people with vision and leadership don't mirror the dithering that will always be found in the electorate. There are always the worriers, the what-iffers. That is something leadership can deal with and not reflect.

The puppetmasters revealed. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by SeeEmDee on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:09:39 AM EST

When the vast majority of the electorate move in one direction, and the de facto power elite moves in another, the top leadership of each party must bend knee to their true, corporate masters while hoping that they can water down and erode the popular positions arising from their base that challenges that suzerainty.

That's why, despite the fact that it is obvious the people want a withdrawal from Iraq, the ones who are profiting so handsomely from the chaos it has engendered are dragging their feet about the inevitable withdrawal.

This is serving to demonstrate just how naked the power grab by the corporatists has become.

Ending the war will take leadership (5.00 /