Unity in Opposition

« The Politics of Renunication | Main | Rearranging the Primaries »

12/20/2004

Unity in Opposition

Everyone's into renunciation now.

Nick Confessore catches the troubling political dynamic that leads too many Democrats to act as if we're playing a normal political game, in which a little compromise, a little bipartisan cooperation, might pay off in some way and perhaps even restore a Democratic majority. He suggests that the price of enforcing discipline, so that the party of opposition faces the reality of opposition, might not be too high. His particular test has to do with Democratic members of Congress who -- hypothetically -- defect on Social Security to support the White House's privatization scheme. He acknowledges that on some issues, Democrats are given a pass for reasons of region or constituency, but there is no reason that Social Security should be such an issue. At an extreme, he says, what would be the cost if such Democrats faced primary challenges? They might well lose their primaries (he is probably imagining Southern white members who might lose a primary to a more liberal African-American), although the primary winner might be unable to hold the seat for the Democrats. But what is the cost of one fewer seat in the permanent minority? What is the marginal value of one more, especially if it's a defector?

The point is right, and the culture of an opposition party should indeed try to promote coherence and unity. In fact, in my fantasies, I'd apply it retroactively: Democrats who supported the Bush Medicare bill, one of the most predictably disastrous pieces of legislative garbage in the history of social policy, should get some heat. Imagine if the party had been able to enforce some unity in opposition on the likes of Ron Wyden and Max Baucus. The bill would have failed, Republicans would have been responsible for it, Bush would have one fewer pseudo-accomplishment to carry into the election, and best of all there would be an extra trillion dollars available for things like a real cheaper-but-better drug benefit, deficit reduction, and even the small amount of money needed to improve the long-, long-term health of Social Security.

That didn't happen, obviously. I'm not sure I see the same dynamic on Social Security, though. Medicare was a trap: all Democrats were for a prescription drug benefit, and some of them made an unfortunate calculus that if they opposed this one, they would never see a prescription drug benefit again. Or perhaps they hoped they could fix it later. Few Democrats are out there in the same position on Social Security privatization. The distinction, I suspect, is not going to be between Democrats who support the president and those who don't, but those who might allow some legitimacy to private accounts to creep in to their rhetoric, and those whose position is no way, no how, never. I think that if a member of Congress wants to say that he can imagine private accounts as an add-on to benefits such as the Clinton-Gore USA Accounts, or takes a somewhat different view of the urgency of the need to shore up Social Security's financing, that's not grounds for excommunication. In fact, I think liberals need to be able to say something responsive to the appeal of privatization and greater risk for greater reward -- I'll have more to say about that shortly.

I also think that the business of enforcing such discipline is pretty dicey. The potential Democratic defectors are relatively few and they are not in leadership. The only weapon that can be used against them is the primary challenge, which is a very blunt instrument. And it's very hard for the party leadership to threaten or support a primary challenge against a sitting member. Even for the Republicans -- who use the Club for Growth as their hitman -- that would be an extreme, unprecedented act, punishment only for the most extreme of defections or misconduct. Used loosely, it would endanger the leadership's support from other members as well -- even defectors have friends.

If I wanted to deter Democrats from cooperating with the Republicans, I would visit them at night and introduce them to The Ghost of Conservative Democrats Past: Mr. Charlie Stenholm. That's former Congressman Stenholm to you. A man as cooperative and conservative and bipartisan as a Democrat can be, going back to the Reagan tax cuts, and what does he have to show for it? A nice pension, because Tom DeLay redistricted him out of his seat.

Nick wonders whether the tactics he envisions were used in the early 1990s within the Republican party to enforce unity on tax issues. I don't think so, but it's more complicated than that. The defectors in the 1990s were the anti-tax faction, and they gained power by fighting internal battles for leadership positions. Gingrich beat the established party leadership's choice to succeed Dick Cheney as minority whip, and Dick Armey ousted another "appeaser" -- Jerry Lewis of California -- for another leadership post. The most interesting thing about this period was that some of the most useful supporters of the Gingrich/Armey revolution were genuine moderates, like Nancy Johnson of Connecticut. They were, in a sense, the Stenholms of their day, sick of being kicked around by the Democratic majority and understanding that the only way out was through a strong, ideologically coherent leadership -- even if the ideology was not quite their own.

There are far fewer real Democratic defectors than their used to be, simply because the Stenholms and Tauzins and Shelbys of the past have either become or been replaced by right-wing Republicans. For those who remain, one would hope that they would recognize what Nancy Johnson did: your voice has a lot more weight in a party in power than one out of power.

Posted by Mark Schmitt on 12/20/2004 at 04:58 PM in Decembrist archives | Permalink

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sure, primary challenges are a blunt instrument, not to be used loosely. But two things make it appropriate with respect to Social Security: First, Social Security is the no. 1 Democratic accomplishment -- the elimination of povery among the elderly (or close to it). Second, Bush is pushing this scam first, so, the leadership can use defectors here as an example. Simply put, here's what Reid and Pelosi should do to any defectors: beat them to death. No, I forgot, only the President can authorize that. Well, challenge them in the primaries, at least. Reduce their office space. Move their parking places -- everything possible. Then a nice example will have been set, and less punishment will need to be carried out with respect to future issues.

Posted by: Charlie Robb | 12/20/2004 at 07:52 PM

There are plenty of organizations that could act as the primary hitman:

* MoveOn.org
* Democracy for America (Dean has already backed primary challengers to "establishment candidates", but those were liberal candidates running for open seats where there was a more conservative establishment types: Russ Carnahan and Dan Boren both faced DFA-backed challengers; see my comment posted at http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2004/07/club_for_growth.html).
* AFL-CIO
* SEIU

Since the potential defectors are not in the leadership or very prominent (except Lieberman, who had the brains not to get burned on Medicare and who can very easily disown his previous privatization support in the name of balanced budgets), it's not like the AFL-CIO or SEIU has to worry about losing an ear with the Democratic party if they run a challenger on privatization. A challenge by DFA is a bit different and less likely.

And Charlie Robb is right: there is punishment oustside of a primary challenge: committee jobs for staffers, future committee chairs or assignments, etc. It's small, but it's something.

Posted by: niq | 12/20/2004 at 10:04 PM

Wouldn't a smaller threat be simply: no DCCC or DNC money in the next election?

Posted by: Josh Yelon | 12/20/2004 at 11:39 PM

A primary challenge might be a blunt object, but perhaps that is what is needed. It's been screamingly obvious that the major weakness oof the Democratic Party, relative to the GOP, is discipline. At some point the party discipline would be detrimental to democracy, but I think that we're a long way from that. We suffer the detriment to democracy of inability to work together, to pool our powers.

Posted by: Barry | 12/21/2004 at 12:34 PM

My suggestion would be for the leadership to play good-cop, and outside agitators (MoveOn, DFA etc.) play the bad-cop.

If Pelosi/Reid get wind of a defector, they sit him/her down and explain what Charlie wrote about SS: It's the #1 Democratic accomplishment, and hence the #1 program that Democrats will defend. All the old rules about bi-partisanship are out the window on this issue, so they really want this misguided congressperson to reconsider.

They can also point out that they (Pelosi/Reid/DNC) have no control over the independent groups who are going to be hopping mad if SS privatization is accomplished with Democratic defectors, and they very well may find a primary challenger to run on this issue. And if the base of Democrats is mad about this, the Democratic leadership is going to be hard-pressed to offer much assistance by discouraging the primary threat, or helping defeat the challenge, or giving sufficient funds in the general.

On the other side, these independent groups need to let potential defectors know what fate awaits them if they do defect. They need to let the congressperson know they oppose privatization, and then they need to let the congressperson know that they are actively recruiting candidates to run if the congressperson defects. Oh yeah, and the groups actually need to DO those things (candidates don't just grow on trees).

I suppose a savvy politician can spin all this as blackmail, and some of these folks would welcome the opportunity to distance themselves from the national Democrats. But if a Democrat is willing to distance himself from the national party over privatization, then what the hell is he doing in the party at all?

I don't think the regional differences argument should apply here. I'm not aware of any region where SS is unpopular, so the only political reason for backing such a privatization proposal is simply that the president backs it and he is popular, so Representative Smith (D) backs it because he doesn't want to oppose a president who is popular in his district.

Anyway, that's my suggestion.

Posted by: Kumar | 12/21/2004 at 12:34 PM

Is that it?

Is the reason the Democratic establishment is resisting privatization of Social Security so strongly simply because it's the "biggest accomplishment" they can point to in the last 60-70 years? And you think it's wise to actually purge those within the party that see that that record isn't really something to brag about?
Good luck with winning elections that way.

With the growing number of Americans realizing what a boondoggle the program actually is you may want to listen to some of these "defectors" - unless, of course, you want more Zell Millers running around.

Posted by: Lloyd | 12/23/2004 at 07:46 AM

Mark, I think I get your point. But, unfortunately, a more plausible reason why "defector" Democrats - like Shelby and Stenhold whom had supported Republicans on various bills - are now "former" politicians, is because their constituents have slowly moved to the right. The Shelby's and the Stenholm's were simply reading the writing on the wall and were casting votes accordingly, saving their political necks. Your thesis of "unity in opposition" ignores what appears to be a political reality in America - hence November 2nd.

Posted by: jw | 12/30/2004 at 09:46 PM

blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio blog di consigli sull'apprendimento e lo studio

Posted by: ...8888 | 06/13/2005 at 08:20 AM