Are liberals played by some Dems?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

A long-standing feature of Republican politicians is stroking the nut-right while somehow never delivering on their agenda. Everyone goes to nut-right conferences and makes the right noises while simultaneously conspiring to thwart parts of the agenda because they would be politically disastrous if actually enacted.

Pugs decry Roe v. Wade as a second holocaust and enact small measures to harass women, yet they never get it together to push a constitutional amendment overturning Roe. They need the anti-choice hard-core, but know that actually outlawing abortion would be a political disaster.

Even when they ran everything few Republicans actually acted to set up concentration camps for Mexicans, purge NIH of doctors who believe in evolution, return the the gold standard, etc.. And when the stray true believer gets swept into office (like Bachman) most establishment pugs keep their distance.

(Now that they are out of power the pug rhetoric is more extreme so many establishment pugs played along with Bachman's death-panel stuff rhetorically, but when pinned down they would weasel out somehow, conceding that the death-panels don't actually exist but that end-of-life issues are a "cause for concern")

It's not that pugs had moral compunctions about enacting the most extreme elements of wing-nut agenda. They are an amoral lot. It's just that they think it is bad politics. (And not sufficiently focused on corporate profits.)

We all recognize the Republican party's institutionalized punking of the base. (I almost felt sorry for the religious-right when it came out that W's faith-based department was a cynical sham and that the political folks in the WH considered the religious-right to be useful whackos.)

Yet on the Dem side we tend to take politicians at face value. "Representative X is a really good guy who would deliver on a robust, game-changing public option if he could, but there are so many obstacles." Sometimes Representative X is sincere but, politics being what it is, isn't it likely that sometimes Representative X is talking the talk while being profoundly relieved he cannot walk the walk?

We are better than the other side but we are not a separate species. All politicians want to appeal to a base while not alienating the middle, and some measure of duplicity is bound to ensue. (To the point that people take positions based on what they claim other people's positions are... voting against measures they support because "they can't pass." Well, yeah... it seems safe to say that nothing will pass when even its supporters vote against it!)

The point: It is likely that some public proponents of a robust public option will not go to the wall for it behind closed doors and will be relieved if it fails--not because they are wicked or bought-and-paid-for, but because they think a robust PO is risky politics, and/or have unadvertised personal reservations about its efficacy or ramifications.

Side observation: the safer the seat the more straight-forward one can be. We probably give too much moral credit to folks in safe seats. I like John Kerry and I don't like Evan Bayh. I am sure that Kerry is more liberal in his heart than Bayh. But if Kerry and Bayh switched states Kerry would move somewhat right and Bayh would move somewhat left. Such is representative politics.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Name some names? Or is this just speculation?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. It is an institutional observation.

I don't knew who thinks what in their secret heart.

I am a Dem and much prefer Dems. I have no doubt that Dems are, on average, more decent, honest and principled than pugs.

But politics is politics and people are people. It would be extraordinary if the phenomenon of stroking the base while holding the middle were restricted to one party or one position.

[Buzz Clik]

4. I believe that there are likely some who behave exactly as you describe.

How many actually have a strong moral compass? Hard to say.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Even a strong moral compass is open to rationalization

Some liberals act as moderates because they know that holding their seat is important because they are liberal.

Ends > means.

But then you look back over a career and if you voted as a moderate in what sense were you a liberal?

Kind of like Vonnegut's MOTHER NIGHT. At some point actions trump intentions. (The book is about an American double agent who played his cover role as a Nazi so convincingly that he ended up helping the Nazi war effort.)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. ...

[Oregone]

2. There are only two big tents

So everyone needs to feel like they belong, or they will stay home. Lying to a large portion of the population is exacerbated by a two-party system

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. Good point. With two parties...

Good point. With an infinity of viewpoints but only two parties it is inevitable that the game devolves to convincing a wide spectrum of people that you agree with them all even when that is a logical impossibility.

[Occam Bandage]

7. "Are politicians affected by political concerns?"

Some suggest it may be so.

[ProSense]

9. "But if Kerry and Bayh switched states " So how do you explain

Harkin and Grassley?

Boxer and Feinstein?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Oh, c'mon... you're not really questioning that

Are some states more liberal or conservative than others?

Yes.

Do most politicians act politically within their political environment?

Yes.

[ProSense]

11. Oh, c'mon, when you make a definitive statement like this:

"But if Kerry and Bayh switched states Kerry would move somewhat right..."

Be prepared to respond to realities that run counter to your argument. Not only are Harkin and Grassley in Iowa an example, but there is nothing that indicates Bayh would be more liberal if transplanted to California. He could be just like Feinstein (or Lieberman in Connecticut).

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. Are you saying that Bayh would be the same politician if he was running in Mass.?

If so, we disagree.

I do hope we can agree that if Grassley moved to Florida he would probably be less enthusiastic about ethanol.

[karynnj]

15. If he didn't, he would never be elected in Massachusetts

I don't think Kerry could have been elected in 1984 in Indiana. But, if he had not eloquently protested the war as prominently as he did, I would bet that his war hero status and his eloquence would have been enough, if he were a Hoosier, to get elected. This, in spite of his liberalism. (but then he couldn't add an "r" to idea.) In fact, a few years ago, there was an article that mentioned that Senator Hartke was a mentor to Kerry after he testified - which shows how liberal Hartke was.

[karynnj]

14. Not to mention, Bayh's dad and Hartke were both pretty liberal and

quite popular for years. I lived in Indiana then and it was very conservative. They were able to win because both were very personable and were very good Senators.

Your example of Harkin and Grassley is excellent as they couldn't be more different.

I do think that Kurt has a point, but there are issues like the public option that Bayh could easily sell to his constituents. Remember that Obama did win the state last year.

[branders seine]

13. To the max

In the extreme