MyDD :: Building Caucus Discipline

Building Caucus Discipline

by Chris Bowers, Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 04:38:59 PM EST

It will not come as a surprise to anyone here that Republicans have created a system to keep their elected officials, at least in Washington, very much in line:

The systems of control aren't absolute, as the congressional hesitation about Bush's proposal to restructure Social Security demonstrates. But the party has constructed powerful levers to encourage loyalty. The House leadership has discouraged defection by forcing competition for chairmanships and seats on prized committees. The conservative Club for Growth has reinforced that discipline by running primary campaigns against incumbent Republicans who wavered on Bush's proposals. Bush has provided more glue by restricting his agenda to ideas (with rare exceptions, such as immigration reform) broadly popular among Republicans.

All this has severely suppressed dissent. During Bush's first term, about 90% of House and Senate Republicans sided with the majority of their party on key votes, according to Congressional Quarterly. That far exceeds the level of loyalty displayed by congressional Democrats in Clinton's first years -- or even Republicans during President Reagan's first term.

This is impressive stuff, the sort of thing that allowed Bush to be largely successful in passing his legislative agenda during his first term despite a closely divided Congress and nothing approaching a mandate. It might make some here cringe, but I admit to admiring it. Often, I feel many progressives confuse tactics and strategy with ideology, and think that if we campaign and order ourselves like the Republicans, we will become Republicans. This is a tragic mistake, since message discipline is important, since the truth will not always set you free and since you must be willing to scrape in the mud over character attacks if you want to win.

Fortunately, many Democrats are increasingly coming to this realization:

Democrats, traditionally as easy to discipline as cats, aren't nearly so close to such a synchronized system. But increasingly that appears their goal.

After Bush won reelection and helped the GOP gain Senate and House seats in the red states, many analysts thought moderate Democrats from those conservative areas would sue for a separate peace by breaking from the party to cooperate with him.

Bush did split Democrats last week on legislation restricting class-action lawsuits -- 18 Senate Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the bill. But mostly, Democrats have unified behind a fervent resistance to Bush, which discourages internal dissent and aims more at mobilizing their core supporters than converting swing voters.

That direction is evident from the near-unanimous opposition among Democrats to Bush's Social Security and budget plans and the selection Saturday of Howard Dean, the left's great hope of the 2004 presidential campaign, as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.(...)

To discourage dissent, Democrats are also adapting Republican techniques. Though still not as tough as the GOP, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) is moving more forcefully than Gephardt, her predecessor, to threaten Democrats who back Bush with the loss of prized committee seats.

Privately, Democratic interest groups have discussed the creation of a liberal equivalent to the Club for Growth that would campaign against defecting Democrats. The online liberal behemoth MoveOn.org is already targeting ads at the one House Democrat -- Florida's Allen Boyd -- backing Bush on Social Security.

This is good to see. Republicans don't compromise anyone, so there is no longer any reason for us to compromise with them.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 14 Comments :: Post a Comment

Even so, I'm surprised that they don't rebel.. (none / 0)

considering how much grumbling I hear from individual Reps..

When the repression of dissent fails.. it will fail catastrophically.

And the GOP will find themselves out of power for a long time..

by ultraworld on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 05:29:12 PM EST

Re: Even so, I'm surprised that they don't rebel.. (none / 0)

Don't try so hard to cheer us up! No, on the other hand, go right ahead.

by Sacramentohop on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 05:50:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Even so, I'm surprised that they don't rebel.. (none / 0)

Don't be. They grumble but they're also
heard. The constituents of the grumblers
are made aware in not so subtle terms
that the cost of the grumbling will be
access and power.

its not unlike corporate complaints.
take a number. pull the pin..

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 08:11:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

GOPers have been calling Dems the Party of No (none / 0)

I think we should change it to the party of "HELL No!" There is absolutely nothing good that can come of cooperating with the GOPers on any legislation or any issue. They have made that perfectly clear.

Hastert has declared that no legislation will pass the House without at least 50% Republican support. There will be absolutely no bipartisan cooperation in the House from Haster and DeLay. Anybody that thinks differently is seriously deluded.

Bush has demonstrated he isn't interested in bipartisanship by sending rejected judicial nominations from last year back up again this year. Frist is proposing the nuclear option on filibusters. If Bush doesn't want to compromise and House Republicans don't want to compromise, and Frist wants to abolish the filibuster, who's left for Democrats to cooperate with?

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 05:59:02 PM EST

Re: GOPers have been calling Dems the Party of No (none / 0)

I think the Senate Democrats should fillibuster every bill that comes before the Senate. That is, of course, unless the Wingnuts give us a seat at the table. This is the only way to put their egos in check. And it is the best start to being a true minority party. Make them negotiate with us!!

by southern IN DEM on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 08:48:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GOP is based on narcissism - which equals resentme (none / 0)

resentment and envy of the 'normal'

by ultraworld on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 01:35:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP is based on narcissism - which equals rese (none / 0)

no, they're selling membership to the
"hey I'm rich" club that counts its
ceos as members. unfortunately they fail
to tell their members that the club excludes
the voice vote of human beings in favor
of corporations. oh yeah and they have to
wear dumb golf pants all the time...

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 08:07:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Netroots and Club for Growth (none / 0)

Yet another reason it is important to fight in the primaries as a grass and netroots.

I am not even saying that just because of where I work right now. I began to feel strongly about it after Jeff Smith got hosed in his primary against Russ Carnahan. As it stands today, we have a very real opportunity to leverage our growing base and power of the grass/netroots to change the face of our party.

And yes, I know, that is only part of the point in the main entry by Chris.

Tim

by Tim Tagaris on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 08:14:33 PM EST

Re: Netroots and Club for Growth (none / 0)

grassroots are disorganized at time of writing.
democracy for america failed miserably in their
candidate list. utterly miserably.

the idea that the grassroots is powerful was
hatched in san francisco and its a false idea,
the netroots couldn't elect dean and they
were powerless to stop the christian
conservatives. if you look at it from their
perspective, the worst president ever,
steamrollered them in the last election with
a blowout electoral result and 2 or 3 million
votes on the popular count.

So remember the grassroots may be a foundation
to build a party, but its not a party and its
certainly not a force right now.

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 08:05:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Netroots and Club for Growth (none / 0)

I respect your argument, certainly. Dean lost, Kerry lost, the KosDozen, well...

But we began to build something lasting in 2003/2004. Howard Dean may have lost, but we changed the terms of the debate in a presidential election, no small feat for a previously silenced segment of the electorate. Next time around, don't expect anyone/thing to be able to take down our candidate of choice so easily.

#2) Those Dean Dozen and KosDozen candidates were all general election candidates. I think Jan Schneider may have been the only one in a primary--and she won.

One dollar in the primary for a previously untapped source is like three. Our weight and organization go alot further in those elections than they might at present in the general.

Tim

by Tim Tagaris on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 09:17:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How will you change this with a (none / 0)

rank and file that associates such discipline with all things bad? Had this same discussion about party discipline over at D Kos, and got no where with the crowd that felt these sorts of measures were either a) impossible to enforce because we are down and out; b) some how we should be above these sorts of tactics/strategies; or c) that the strategies are dangerous because it prevents diversity, and that historically they were eliminated to protect against the sorts of abuses that occur in the Republican party? My answer to all three is that we are in the minority trying to become the majority. The tactics that worked when you were the majority aren't the same tactics that work when you are the minority. I got tepid response.

by bruh21 on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 08:53:59 PM EST

Hey, I invoked Newt Gingrich in on meetup (none / 0)

And they looked at me as if it was
something contagious.

I agree with Chris on this issue.
A soldier wins a battle based on
his training. It doesn't matter
whose side he's fighting on if the
bullet is aimed at him, he needs to
take out his enemy - the color
of the combat ribbon isn't important then.

What chris is posting about here, is
IMHO order of battle, deployments,
internal promotion - thats a good
thing. And it obviously worked!

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 08:02:31 AM EST

Older than you think (none / 0)

Clinton's famous 93 budget barely passed the House with NO Republican votes, the first time in US history that happened. Even back in the 60s, I recall Everett Dirksen talking about his "36 little soldiers" in the Senate. Even then they were a lot more coherrent than the Dems.

The mechanisms built on something that was already there.

On the Dem side, the past elections have not been too kind to the DINOs, particularly in the Senate. Ben Nelson is likely to fall in the general election and Joe Lieberman is lekely to be challenged in a primary.

In the past, Presidents have cultivated members from the other side of the aisle. W goes after them hard, distorting their records in the process. As both the recent "spine" shown by Reid and polling data show, the Dems ARE coalescing into a very strong anti-W minority.

by David Kowalski on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 08:07:23 AM EST

Local Dem Parties have a role (none / 0)

In situations where it is likely a Republican in a potentially swing district will be targeted in 2006 -- it is important to have a coherent local party structure on the Democratic Side regularly putting out the message that the Current "Republican Guy" is putting party issues ahead of district issues -- and putting forward the talking points as to why certain stands are against the district's interests. There is simply not enough between elections opposition research getting into local media, talk shows and the like.

Assuming Dr. Dean gets the state parties fired up this should be one of their early projects. We don't need an endorsed candidate to do oppo research and spread the results.

by Sara on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 08:07:25 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.