Folks, we have a three party system, and Specter's proof
Tuesday was a good day. Specter defects to the Democratic
Party. On the same day Senator Coryn (R,
TX) proclaims that in Nov. 2010 the "Republicans will regain their status as
a national party," which means even they know now that they really aren't all
hands on deck. But even though it was a good day for Democrats, something gives me pause.
Last month, Senator Bayh formed the Moderate Dems Working Group, a coalition linked through the Third Way to the House's Blue Dogs. He posited the formation of this group in December after the Democrats had taken everything in November. Members of both coalitions are "Honorary Chairs" in the Third Way, a group that "is the leading think tank of the moderate wing of the progressive movement." When commenting on posts, such as Tuesday's Specter defection (or "addition", depending upon your taste), I called Specter an instant "Blue Dog"--which I am assuming that he will be. And though the reasons of his defection are many, including the fact that he has little chance of being re-elected next year as a Republican, one big one is the security that the Moderate Dem Working Group (from now on, I'm just going to call a spade a spade: Blue Dogs) will offer him.
The Blue Dogs, now that they are essentially active in the House and Senate, are now often the group that "mainstream" Democrats are having to negotiate with (especially since the Republicans keep voting "no" and refusing to play ball with anyone). They are a boon to the Democrats, as they caucus and vote with them, mostly. But it's obvious to me that they now are growing in power--especially with the self destruction of the Republicans. The House's Blue Dogs boycotted dues to the DCCC in 2007, now negotiate with the Democrats as a semi-independent body, and frankly have more influence over policy than the Republicans. With their official formation in the Senate as well, I'm starting to see them as a de-facto party of their own.
I guess my point is that we should acknowledge that the Democrats are a coalition, one party of many. But within this coalition is an ever growing, ever independent group. While the Republicans are pounding sand with an ever dwindling moderate/economic/business wing and a steady staunch Christian wing, the Blue Dogs are stealing their thunder.
Another thought is that we at
TPM often joke about the splitting of the Republican Party and its demise. Somehow I've always pictured it as an actual
split, the business/ moderates and the Far Right. But the split is actually a migration of many
to the Blue Dogs, leaving the ever-marginalized behind. Many posters on TPM voice their wish that Democratic
moderates would leave the Party. As the
Blue Dogs gain more independence and continue to assert it, maybe someday they
are going to get their wish. But the real splitting would happen here within the Democrats.
So yeah, let's toast to the addition of another Democrat to the Senate! But also let's think a bit on what Specter's addition actually means.
I finally figured out how to link with Coryn above, but had already done this, so here's some reference links:
Brian Beutler's take on the
formation of the Moderate Dem Working Group: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/disunity-09.php
The Third Way's take on the
formation of the Moderate Dem Working Group: <http://www.thirdway.org/press/release/71>
Bayh's
announcement in March: http://bayh.senate.gov/news/press/release/?id=b30d7f79-9eb1-4819-980f-9489825825ba
Bayh's announcement in December
that he wanted to form a new coalition: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/14/evan-bayh-forming-conserv_n_150874.html
The
Blue Dogs: http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/Member%20Page.html
matyra, legitimate issue. I wouldn't be too concerned though. If the Democratic Party does split into a liberal party and a blue dog party, it would only be because the Republican Party was done for, or at least turned into a libertarian party which could muster 15-20% of the electorate.
You may be dead on. We may be looking at a Pure Liberal Party, a Blue Dog Party, and a Libertarian Party. If not Parties, then that's certainly the three directions of undercurrent.
April 28, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your "3 directions of undercurrent" phrasing. I'm not quite sure how we would do with 3 strong parties in the US--usually one gets rolled into another eventually. But there are 3 large trains of thought, and the Democrats are lucky that 2 of them reside under its umbrella. I guess there have been Progressive Republicans and Conservative Democrats for a long time. Now that the GOP doesn't want the Progressives, they've found a home in the Blue Dogs.
April 29, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great point that one usually bonds with another when there are three. I think what we see now is the--former--progressive Republicans (now Blue Dog Dems) and the Liberal Democrats are bonded because what's left of the Republican Party has no regard for the legal system. So the Dems are the party working with the legal system; the Republicans are the party working against the legal system.
April 29, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Question is will there be any "Red Dog Republicans" to join them? Snow and Collins would be likely candidates, but who else. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some kind of major push by their overlords to bring the GOP back toward the center for '10 and '12, before all electability is lost. Then again the base really seems to like their Kool-Aid.
Always thought a semi-influential third party would be good for the Republic,just didn't think it would be the tattered remnants of the GOP.
But we're getting ahead of ourselves, aren't we?
April 29, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, of course I'm getting ahead of myself. But with Specter's defection, it just clicked in my head that there seems to be a ready-made home for him in the Blue Dogs.
And as far as the GOP goes, I'm surprised that they didn't try to move back towards the center after the '06 election and have been growing even more radical after the '08 one. If Specter wakes them up, then fine. But if it doesn't, then I think that the Blue Dogs are going to grow fast.
April 29, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Question is will there be any "Red Dog Republicans" to join them? Snow and Collins would be likely candidates, but who else. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some kind of major push by their overlords to bring the GOP back toward the center for '10 and '12, before all electability is lost. Then again the base really seems to like their Kool-Aid.
Always thought a semi-influential third party would be good for the Republic,just didn't think it would be the tattered remnants of the GOP.
But we're getting ahead of ourselves, aren't we?
April 29, 2009 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post.
But I'm tired of callin them "Blue Dogs". They're DINOS, nothing more. Bayh, in particular, may as well stick the R after his name, because that's how he votes.
My concern with the DINOS is that they'll muck up Obama's agenda, and the "Democrats can't govern" meme will be in full force, just in time for 2010.
And you're absolutely right about Specter being a DINO. Regardless of what "national Dems" and President Obama say, Specter needs to be primaried, and hard.
May 3, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree about the labeling. I was already trying to simplify it by calling them all Blue Dogs. But if I'm trying to say that they are almost a de-facto party of their own, "The DINO Party" doesn't kind of work, since there's that "D" in there.
Every day it looks more like Specter will have to defend himself in the primary. Now, that'll be interesting to see.
May 5, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink